Let's define what we're actually debating. A ban means public officials can't own shares in any single company, period. We already have strong ethics rules—disclosure requirements, recusal for conflicts, and blind trusts for sensitive positions. The question is whether adding a blanket prohibition actually helps. I'd argue it backfires. The purpose of public service isn't to strip officials of their rights as citizens. It's to ensure decisions aren't corrupted. Transparency and recusal handle that directly. A ban just pushes investments into mutual funds or index funds—which, by the way, still hold those same individual stocks. So the conflict doesn't disappear; it just gets hidden. And consider who we'd keep out of government. Talented people with modest nest eggs shouldn't have to liquidate everything to serve. That rewards the wealthy, who can afford diversified portfolios, and punishes everyone else. That's the opposite of what we want. Disclosure works. Bans are a blunt instrument that creates more problems than it solves.

[No submission - Time expired]