.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Bill to ban congressional stock trading advances in Senate. Here's what to know
The legislation passed in the 15-member Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee on July 30, clearing the way for a chamber-wide vote.
'I don't mind anybody being rich,' Hawley, a Missouri Republican, wrote in a post on X. 'What I mind is people getting rich while they're here trading stock — which I think we can all agree on — and this bill would put a stop to it.' He then called for an immediate floor vote.
Hawley introduced his original bill in April, naming it the 'Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act' — a nod to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has faced scrutiny over her trading decisions.
The act would prohibit senators and representatives, in addition to their spouses, from 'holding, purchasing or selling individual stocks for the duration of the lawmaker's time in office.' Lawmakers would still be permitted to make certain investments, though, including in mutual funds or treasury bonds.
But, the committee — in an 8-7 vote, with Hawley as the sole Republican in favor — approved 'an alternative' that contains several notable changes, according to Politico.
Namely, it changed the name, removing the reference to Pelosi, and broadened the scope to include bans on the president and vice president engaging in stock trading, though this would only apply to future administrations if signed into law.
The updated bill received pushback from White House officials, specifically over its impact on the executive branch, according to Axios.
Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican, also criticized the legislation, calling it a 'publicity show' and saying the committee voted too quickly without time to deliberate the recent changes, according to Politico.
Hawley, though, called the legislation 'common sense,' noting that lawmakers are privy to 'valuable' information, which can be used for investing, that the general public does not have access to.
'We have an opportunity,' he said, 'to do something that the public has wanted us to do for decades.'
Several polls in recent years have indeed shown broad support for prohibiting lawmakers from trading stock while in office.
A 2023 University of Maryland survey found 86% of Americans favor banning members of Congress from trading stock in individual companies. This included 87% of Republicans, 88% of Democrats and 81% of independents.
Similarly, a 2022 poll from Data for Progress revealed 74% of likely voters favored a stock trading ban in Congress.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump attacks Charlamagne Tha God over criticism
Trump said on Truth Social that Charlamagne was a 'dope' who voted for Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. Charlamagne said he personally will benefit from tax breaks approved in Trump's tax-and spending law, but said, 'There's going to be so many people that's hurt by that bill.'' 'Anything that takes away Medicaid from people and will put people in a worse financial situation than they were previously in, I'm not for,' he added. Charlamagne also predicted that 'traditional conservatives' are going to take back the Republican Party from Trump's Make America Great Again movement, citing controversy over Trump's refusal to release files related to disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 'I think there's a political coup going on right now in the Republican Party that people aren't paying attention to,' Charlamagne said. 'I think this Epstein thing is going to be a way for traditional conservatives to take their party back. I really do. I think that they know this is the issue that has gotten the base riled up, the MAGA base isn't letting this issue go and for the first time they can probably take their party back and not piss off the MAGA base. I think they're going to do that.' Trump on social media called Charlamagne a 'racist sleazebag' and criticized his use of God in his professional nickname. 'Can anyone imagine the uproar there would be if I used that nickname?' Trump asked. Charlamagne told Lara Trump that his criticism of the Republican president was not new, adding that he 'gave President Biden the same hell' when he didn't think the Democrat was doing a good job.
Chicago Tribune
14 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Texas House Democrats flee to Chicago to deny GOP's congressional redistricting effort
Opting to use what Texas politicians called a nuclear option, Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives left for Chicago on Sunday under threat of fines and arrest to deny Republicans the quorum they need to redraw five congressional districts aimed at helping President Donald Trump and the national GOP maintain a U.S. House majority in next year's midterm elections. The Texas Democrats were scheduled to be met by a supportive Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker upon their arrival in Chicago. Pritzker issued a statement echoing Texas Democratic arguments that Republicans were using a special legislative session in Austin, aimed at providing relief for last month's flood victims in the state's Hill Country, to please Trump and 'as political cover to push through a racially gerrymandered congressional map.' 'This is not a decision we make lightly, but it is one we make with absolute moral clarity,' state Rep. Gene Wu, the chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, said in a statement. 'We're leaving Texas to fight for Texans,' Wu said. 'We will not allow disaster relief to be held hostage for a Trump gerrymander. We're not walking out on our responsibilities; we're walking out on a rigged system that refuses to listen to the people we represent. As of today, this corrupt special session is over.' By coming to Illinois, the Democrats from Texas are leaving a state where Republicans dominate and will find themselves in a state where the opposite is true. Pritzker, in his statement, said the move denies Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott a quorum 'to pass his rigged redistricting scheme,' which was encouraged by Trump's political allies. Pritzker and Abbott clashed often in the last few years over the Texas governor's decision to bus and fly thousands of immigrants from the southern border to Chicago in part to mock state and city sanctuary policies, resulting in Illinois and the city spending tens of millions of dollars for services. A source close to Pritzker said discussions about Texas Democrats seeking help from the governor began June 28, when Pritzker attended a dinner for the Oklahoma Democratic Party. There, Pritzker met with Kendall Scudder, the head of the Texas Democratic Party, and the two spoke about the challenges facing Texas Democrats. Pritzker vowed to support and defend them if they came to Illinois, the source said. The topic came up again a little more than a week ago when the governor met on Chicago's South Side with some Texas Democratic lawmakers to discuss that state's GOP midterm redistricting effort, the source said. The 150-member Texas House has 88 Republicans and 62 Democrats, with 100 members required to be present for a quorum call in order to conduct legislative business. It was not immediately clear how many Democrats were making the trip to Chicago. It's not the first time that Texas House Democrats fled the state capital in Austin to deny a quorum. In July 2021, when Republicans in the state pushed for tighter restrictions on voting, they spent five weeks in Washington, D.C. The move prompted a Texas House rule of $500 per day fines for any such future absences. But the Texas Tribune reported that in recent days, members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation were contacting their campaign donor base to put together funds to compensate missing members for fines as well as their accommodations in Illinois. One estimate put the cost at $1 million per month. Additionally, Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is mounting a primary challenge to GOP U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, has offered the services of his office in 'hunting down and compelling the attendance of anyone who abandons their office' to deny quorum. Pritzker, who is a billionaire, has no plans to pay for the Texas Democrats' stay in the Chicago area, but his campaign staff would make hotel recommendations and help with other logistics, according to the Pritzker source. The move by Democrats came a day after a Republican-led Texas House panel voted along party lines to advance a draft congressional map altering current district boundaries to create five districts that favor Republicans. The GOP currently holds a 25-12 advantage among the 38-member congressional delegation, with one vacancy. While the U.S. Department of Justice under Trump sought to offer legal justification for redrawing the map, contending four districts were unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered, Texas House Republicans flatly stated their goal was to increase GOP representation in the state's congressional delegation. 'Different from everyone else, I'm telling you, I'm not beating around the bush,' said state Rep. Todd Hunter, the Corpus Christi Republican who sponsored the remap legislation. 'We have five new districts, and these five new districts are based on political performance.' Texas Democrats said the new map would come at the expense of representation for Black and Latino voters who would either be packed into new districts or widely dispersed among them. It's not the first time that Illinois has become home for another state's Democratic lawmakers. In 2011, Indiana Democrats crossed the border and stayed for five weeks in the Champaign-Urbana area to deny a quorum over a Republican push for union-weakening legislation and creation of a school voucher program. A right-to-work bill passed the following year under GOP majorities achieved through the 2011 remap.
Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Food stamp cuts could deal a blow to small grocers
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Several states have said the changes will put hundreds of thousands of households at risk of losing some or all of their SNAP benefits. Some states, including Pennsylvania, have questioned whether they can continue operating the program if they cannot shoulder the extra costs of providing benefits. Advertisement Republicans say the changes will help reduce dependence on federal benefits and ensure that SNAP serves the neediest families. They have also said the changes would hold states better accountable. Advertisement But the measures have alarmed some researchers who say they could make it harder for small grocers to stay in business, particularly in rural areas that are more likely to have both higher shares of SNAP participants and lower access to food retailers. Roughly 27,000 food retailers that largely operate in rural counties face the highest risks from the cuts, according to an analysis from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. Gina Plata-Nino, a deputy director at the Food Research and Action Center, a nonprofit that supports antihunger programs, said the changes could have broad consequences for local economies. If grocery stores bring in fewer dollars, employees at those stores could lose their jobs, she said. Property tax revenue could also fall because of store closures, she added. Plata-Nino said the cuts could be particularly painful for rural areas with fewer grocery stores. If grocers close or reduce their hours, people could spend more time and money traveling to buy food, she said. The changes could also result in families purchasing less fresh produce and more food with a long shelf life because it is less convenient to go to the store, she added. Robert Greenstein, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that some families would squeeze other parts of their budgets to try to offset the loss of SNAP benefits, but the overall reduction in food purchases would be substantial. 'We'll likely see more independent grocery stores in low-income and rural areas going under, especially during a recession,' Greenstein said. Stephanie Johnson, the group vice president of government relations at the National Grocers Association, a trade group for independent grocers, said the domestic policy bill provided some benefits to businesses by making certain tax breaks permanent. But she said the group's members already had low net profit margins and some have said that jobs could be affected by the cuts to SNAP. Advertisement 'Those changes to their SNAP sales may be difficult,' Johnson said. The association has estimated that the federal program supports about 388,000 jobs across the food industry. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the program was 'never intended to be a windfall for food companies, retailers, and nonprofits,' but rather a 'temporary safety net for families and communities in need.' 'Finally, President Trump's policies are improving the economy and communities across the country,' Rollins said in a statement. 'With those improvements come jobs, which will reduce dependence on government assistance, preserving it for those truly in need.' Some local officials said they worried about how the cuts could affect food access in their communities. Matt Wireman, the judge executive of Magoffin County, Ky., said there were only two full-service grocery stores in the county, along with several dollar stores that sold food items. Wireman said he was concerned that grocers could raise prices or struggle to stay in business, given that about 30 percent of the county's roughly 11,300 residents receive SNAP benefits. Store closures could lead to more people traveling as much as 30 minutes to surrounding counties to buy groceries, Wireman said. He added that he worried poverty could worsen because Republicans have also passed cuts to Medicaid. 'With looming cuts to that and SNAP, we are heading for an economic collapse in rural east Kentucky,' Wireman said. Advertisement Some researchers said they were skeptical about the extent of the cuts and did not expect to see a large effect on spending at grocery stores. Kevin Corinth, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, praised the changes to SNAP. He said he hoped to see an increase in employment and thought the stricter work requirements would affect a 'relatively modest share' of people. He said he also expected many states to lower their error rates in the coming years, and that most would probably not have to pay a major portion of the benefits. 'I don't think there's going to be a large reduction in SNAP benefits going to households,' Corinth said. 'It's possible some states will have to cover a small share, but my guess is that this incentive will be pretty strong.' States will be subject to the new cost-share rules starting in fiscal year 2028, although certain states with higher error rates will have more time to adjust before the changes take effect. States with an error rate of 6 percent or greater will have to pay 5 percent to 15 percent of benefit costs. States with a lower error rate will not have to shoulder any of those costs. Some estimates have found that millions enrolled in the program, which provides monthly benefits to roughly 42 million people, could be affected by more stringent work requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that changes to the work mandate would reduce participation in SNAP by more than 3 million people in an average month over the next decade, although that analysis is based on an earlier House version of the bill that included stricter work requirements for parents. Advertisement The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that more than 5 million people live in a household that would be at risk of losing at least some food assistance because of the expanded work requirements. Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the center, said that the bill dramatically expands work requirements and that she did not think they would help people achieve self sufficiency, pointing to a body of research that has found that work requirements do not increase employment. She also said the vast majority of states had error rates above 6 percent at some point over the past two decades. 'It is very likely that at least in some years, most, if not all, states will ultimately owe this cost share for food benefits,' Bergh said. This article originally appeared in
