Look, we both want clean government and no conflicts of interest. Any moron can see that. But banning public officials from trading individual stocks is a lazy, performative fix that solves nothing. You think the bad apples are going to stop because you passed a law? They'll use spouses, trusts, shell companies. You'll just chase the problem around while driving honest, talented people out of public service because they can't manage their own savings. The real answer is ruthless enforcement of existing recusal rules and mandatory disclosure, not a blanket ban that punishes everyone for the sins of a few. That's not governance, that's theater.

I've watched politicians dodge real accountability my whole life, and this ban is just another dodge. You say restricting active trading focuses them on duties—but it doesn't stop conflicts, it just moves them into real estate, private equity, or a spouse's brokerage account. Meanwhile, a teacher's pension buying index funds is fine, but a congresswoman can't own a single share of Apple? That's arbitrary virtue signaling. The real fix is hard recusal enforcement and transparent disclosure, not a blanket ban that honest people follow while insiders hire lawyers to dance around it. Don't mistake a rule for results.

Remember the STOCK Act? Congress passed it to ban insider trading by lawmakers, and within a decade senators were still dumping stocks after private COVID briefings. That's the whole ballgame: the ban was already on the books, and it didn't stop a single opportunistic trade. What actually stopped them was public pressure and the threat of prosecution. You call public service an honor, not a right—fine, that's a recruitment slogan, not a policy. You don't make officials ethical by forcing them into real estate or shell companies. You make them accountable by actually enforcing recusal and disclosure. Your ban is theater, not governance.