Politicians have used their positions for all the wrong reasons. It needs to end.
And now Congress is in total hysteria over a key bill that puts them in their place.
GOP Pushes Forward on Anti-Insider Trading Reform Amid Democratic Stonewalling
In a clear step toward cleaning up congressional ethics, House Republicans on the Administration Committee advanced the Stop Insider Trading Act, introduced by Wisconsin Rep. Bryan Steil, without a single Democrat voting in favor.
The measure, which cleared the committee on a party-line vote and now heads to the full House floor, bans members of Congress from purchasing individual stocks while in office and mandates public notice of 7 to 14 days before any sales. This pragmatic approach addresses widespread concerns about lawmakers potentially profiting from non-public information, yet Democrats dismissed it as insufficient, opting instead to block progress with demands for extreme overhauls.
“The focus here is to prevent members from being able to profit off of insider information—not to make elected officials poor,” Steil emphasized.
Republicans argue that the bill strikes a reasonable balance: it permits continued investment in broad index and mutual funds, plus reinvestment of dividends in existing holdings, without forcing total divestment that could deter successful business leaders from public service.
Democrats Reject Compromise, Demand Full Divestment and Tax Burdens
Democrats on the committee repeatedly tried to derail the bill with amendments pushing for far stricter rules, including mandatory full divestment for Congress, the President, and Vice President—often without capital gains tax relief. All such proposals were voted down by Republicans, who highlighted the potential downsides.
Under one amendment from Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX), Steil noted, “that [capital gains tax] would obviously continue to apply & for some people that may be a very significant financial impact,” potentially discouraging “some individuals to not come to Congress—not because they did anything wrong, but because they had a successful private sector career.”
Chris Josephs, co-founder of Autopilot—an app letting everyday Americans mimic trades like those of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi—echoed these worries, stating: “I think it would demotivate a major class of successful people from running… Businesspeople are successful. They know how to run things… We should not just say no to those potential candidates just because they own businesses and they’re not gonna sell.”
Josephs further speculated that strict divestment rules might have altered recent elections: “The 2024 election, you got Trump and Vance. Vance is an ex-venture capitalist, ex-business guy. He owns a lot of individual stocks that are private. And then you’ve got Trump, who owns a lot of stuff.”
Another Democratic push from Rep. Norma Torres (D-CA) to ban dividend reinvestment was also rejected. Steil defended the allowance, explaining: “Those dividends are structured within the company with advanced notice, outside of the control of any given member. It doesn’t carry the risk of insider trading.”
Partisan Divide Highlights Broader Trust Issues in Washington
The bill’s advancement comes against a backdrop of public frustration with congressional stock trading, where lawmakers have long faced accusations of exploiting privileged information. While bipartisan efforts have existed in the past, Democrats’ refusal to support this targeted reform—despite its focus on preventing new insider profiteering—suggests a preference for grandstanding over practical solutions that could actually pass and restore some faith in government.
Steil’s legislation imposes meaningful penalties for violations and builds on calls to ensure lawmakers serve the public, not their portfolios.
With strong GOP backing and leadership promises of a floor vote, it represents real momentum toward accountability—though Democratic opposition risks letting perfect be the enemy of progress in a Congress often criticized for self-enrichment. The measure now awaits full House consideration, where its fate could test whether reform can overcome partisan gamesmanship.
