A congressional stock trading ban just got closer to becoming law

Business Insider

3 days ago

A bill to ban politicians from trading stocks in office moved one step closer to a vote — but only after an hour of intense argument and insults between Republicans.
The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed the bill on an 8-7 vote.
All Democrats voted for it, while every Republican voted against it except one: Josh Hawley of Missouri, who sponsored the bill.
The legislation is broadly similar to a bill that passed the same committee last summer, but never received a Senate floor vote.
This version would ban members of members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that.
It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice President to do so beginning in 2029 — after President Donald Trump's current term.
It also would not allow for blind trusts, which sets it apart from other similar bills.
"I think we have to accept that the American people think that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, are using our positions and our access to enrich ourselves," Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said during the hearing. "People don't believe that we are here for the right reasons. We have a problem."
It is unclear when or if the bill would become law — the next step would be a Senate vote.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said that he believes current disclosure laws are sufficient, while House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed cautious support for a ban.
Trump has said that he would sign a congressional stock trading ban into law.
The bill ultimately passed despite the furious objections of several GOP senators on the committee — and tense intraparty debate.
Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who was the CEO of a plastics manufacturing company before he was elected to the Senate, argued that the stock divestiture requirements would discourage businesspeople from seeking federal office.
"We make it very unattractive for people to step up to the plate," Johnson said. "This piece of legislation, really, it's legislative demagoguery."
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, said that existing laws banning insider trading and requiring stock trade disclosures were sufficient, calling Hawley's bill a "solution looking for publicity."
Another key issue was how the bill would apply to the president and vice president — it would block them from buying and selling stocks, but wouldn't force them to divest any holdings during their current terms.
Trump owns individual stocks, while Vance divested from his individual stock holdings during his Senate tenure.
Paul argued that the bill would "protect Donald Trump" by not requiring divestiture before 2029, arguing that provision demonstrated that the bill was "crummy."
Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said the bill was an attack on Vance and Trump.
"Trump has gone through unbelievable hell," Scott told reporters after the hearing, referring to his indictments and impeachments. He said the bill would "allow the Democrats to go after the President of the United States."
Much of the hearing was taken up by Hawley sparring with fellow Republicans on the committee. After Scott raised a question about a provision of the bill applying to illiquid assets, Hawley snapped back at him, pointing out that he supported last year's bill.
"It's the same one you voted for last year," Hawley said.
At one point, during a tense exchange with Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma over the bill's elimination of blind trusts, Hawley made a passing reference to Scott's wealth.
"I practice what I preach. I don't have individual stocks, I don't trade in stocks," Hawley said as Scott sat beside him. "I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee."
Scott, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Minutes later, he said it was "disgusting" to criticize lawmakers for their wealth.
"I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," Scott said as he described his modest upbringing. "This idea that we're going to attack people because they make money is wrong. It's absolutely wrong."