Lawmakers should be banned from trading individual stocks.
The standing best case for and against — a leaderboard of arguments, not a ruling on the question.
“Lawmakers trading individual stocks constitute a serious conflict of interest.”
The line that won it · highlighted from the winning round
Lawmakers trading individual stocks constitute a serious conflict of interest. The simplest case is a politician can easily see legislation that's about to pass, or even write new legislation, and trade based on how they think that upcoming legislation will affect certain companies or industries before the public becomes aware of the impending changes, thereby gaining a material advantage over the public. This is textbook insider trading. If it's illegal for executives in companies, it should be illegal for politicians too. Furthermore, lawmakers who own a particular stock are heavily incentivized to write laws that will markedly affect those markets and industries, presenting a real conflict of interests. Laws should be made for the benefit of the people, not politicians themselves. These concerns aren't just theoretical either. Lawmakers like Nancy Polosi, Dan Crenshaw, and others have seen significant increases in their portfolios since they entered public office -far outpacing the market in general, and even expert traders who predict markets for a living. This is not a coincidence, and you're going to have a hard time convincing me that these lawmakers just happen to be better traders than expert hedge fund managers.
Read full argument
Lawmakers trading individual stocks constitute a serious conflict of interest. The simplest case is a politician can easily see legislation that's about to pass, or even write new legislation, and trade based on how they think that upcoming legislation will affect certain companies or industries before the public becomes aware of the impending changes, thereby gaining a material advantage over the public. This is textbook insider trading. If it's illegal for executives in companies, it should be illegal for politicians too. Furthermore, lawmakers who own a particular stock are heavily incentivized to write laws that will markedly affect those markets and industries, presenting a real conflict of interests. Laws should be made for the benefit of the people, not politicians themselves. These concerns aren't just theoretical either. Lawmakers like Nancy Polosi, Dan Crenshaw, and others have seen significant increases in their portfolios since they entered public office -far outpacing the market in general, and even expert traders who predict markets for a living. This is not a coincidence, and you're going to have a hard time convincing me that these lawmakers just happen to be better traders than expert hedge fund managers.
Held 2 days · survived 3 challenges · closest call 81 vs 64
Challenge The Record — argue FOROutscore 81 in any judged debate on this topic and you take the shelf.
No argument has qualified for The Record yet.
The bar is 70. Set it.
Set the record — argue AGAINSTEvery argument counts
Any judged debate on this topic feeds The Record — no separate mode, no opt-in.
Highest score holds
Beat the standing record in a full judged debate and the shelf is yours.
It never settles the question
Both sides stand. The Record ranks arguments; it does not rule on the topic.
Recent attempts
More Records
The Record shows the highest-scoring argument ever made on each side. It is a leaderboard of arguments, not a ruling on the question itself.