For far too long, it's seemed that being elected to Congress is a ticket to wealth in this country, a "get out of jail free" card, and a pass to not have to follow all the rest of the rules everybody else does.
The public has very little patience left for that arrangement. In recent nationwide polling, 93 percent of respondents said politicians should live under the same laws as everyone else, and 92 percent believe special interests and corporate lobbyists have too much influence. Ninety percent supported auditing government and eliminating fraud. Eighty-eight percent said officials should not use public office to enrich themselves, and 86 percent supported prohibiting members of Congress from trading stocks while serving.
Those numbers describe a basic expectation of representative government: The people we hire to run it work for us. Their jobs don't entitle them to a separate set of financial privileges or a more forgiving justice system.
Banning congressional stock trading is an obvious place to start. Members help write laws, oversee agencies, question corporate executives, and receive briefings on developments that can move markets. They, and their families, can also own and trade shares in the companies affected by that work. Nancy Pelosi's household stock transactions have become a recurring illustration of the problem. Her husband, Paul, makes investment decisions while she holds an office with considerable influence over federal policy. Marjorie Taylor Greene's stock trading presents the same conflict on the Republican side: a member of Congress investing in companies whose fortunes federal policy can affect.
And Pelosi's attempting to help one of her friends, former Rep. Elaine Luria, who also had an affinity for trading stocks while in office, return to Congress. As Townhall's Amy Curtis reported, "While a member of Congress, Luria traded hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of stocks. During her time in office, Luria was the largest trader of Chinese stocks. Luria also objected to a ban on such trades by members of Congress, calling any attempt to prevent such trades 'bulls**t.'" Pelosi held a large fundraiser for Luria, who's attempting to unseat Rep. Jen Kiggans in VA-02, in one of the midterms' hottest races.
Yet, Congress can't seem to get a ban on congressional stock trading passed. In July the House passed the Stop Insider Trading Act generally along party lines (with Democrats voting against), but the bill's stalled in the Senate. Democrats argued that the bill didn't go far enough because lawmakers wouldn't have been forced to divest existing holdings and the provisions didn't apply to the president or the Vice President. It did, however, have many good points:
The bill would allow lawmakers to keep investments they already own. Selling those shares, however, would require a public notice between seven and 14 days before the transaction. That notice would have to include the projected sale date, a description of the transaction, and the number of shares being sold. It would then be published on a website operated by the House clerk or Senate secretary.
Violators would face a penalty of at least $2,000 or 10 percent of the transaction, whichever is greater, along with the net gain from an unlawful purchase. A stock bought in violation of the ban would also have to be sold.
The bill contains exceptions for diversified funds, certain trusts, small business interests, and automatic dividend reinvestment. A spouse or dependent child could also make covered trades as part of a primary occupation under limited circumstances. The stock restrictions would take effect 180 days after enactment.
Rep. Ilhan Omar's household finances deserve answers, too, particularly the reported massive increase in the disclosed value of her husband's winery interest and then sudden revision downward.
Former Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez's bribery conviction and former Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham's bribery conviction show how far the abuse of public office can go. Both turned positions of public trust into opportunities for personal enrichment.
Taxpayers are entitled to records and explanations when an official's finances or a politically connected person's treatment raises questions. Neither party gets an exemption, and Republicans who campaign on cleaning up Washington have an obligation to apply that standard within their own ranks. Democrats cannot credibly demand more money and authority for government while treating scrutiny of its officials as an attack on government itself.
This all relates to affordability because government favoritism has customers, competitors, and taxpayers on the receiving end. A company that secures a subsidy through political influence gets an advantage financed by people who may never benefit from it. A regulatory requirement that an established corporation can absorb may price a smaller competitor out of the market. A federal contract steered toward a favored insider spends money that Washington collected or borrowed in the public's name.
Families struggling to balance their own budgets shouldn't have to finance those arrangements. They also shouldn't be told that demanding an audit means they don't care about the people a program was created to help. Fraud diverts money from those people. Officials who defend a program should want to know where its money went and whether it delivered what taxpayers were promised.
Washington cannot credibly ask Americans to make sacrifices while its own officials preserve privileges they would never defend for anybody else. Ban congressional stock trading. Follow the money. Audit the spending. Prosecute public corruption regardless of party. Americans paying the bills deserve a government whose officials live under the same laws and face the same consequences they do.
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians like Ilhan Omar and Nancy Pelosi.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.