Support for Congressional Stock Trading Ban Grows Amidst Fears of Stall Tactics
A proposed ban on congressional stock trades, championed by lawmakers from both parties, has garnered significant backing in the wake of mounting evidence that current laws have failed to curb self-dealing among politicians.
However, as supporters and sponsors converge on Capitol Hill, some are questioning whether efforts are being held back by House Speaker Mike Johnson's office. Critics worry Johnson may be using a committee hearing as a delaying tactic while keeping concrete advancements like bill markups and votes on the measure at bay.
Johnson has expressed support for banning congressional stock trades, but this stance remains inconsistent with more substantial action. Craig Holman, Capitol Hill lobbyist for Public Citizen, stated that scheduling a hearing to placate sponsors was merely a delay tactic. This assertion comes as some proponents of the bill argue its chances are being stalled by the House speaker's hesitation.
"We're glad to see some movement," said Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI), co-sponsor and leader of the proposal, "but this is just the first step, and other steps need to come soon." The Restore Trust in Congress Act has garnered support from a range of lawmakers, including Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
However, Magaziner warns that if Johnson does not act swiftly, alternative options for pushing the bill forward will be considered.
Public Citizen's Holman suggests that one major obstacle lies in the Senate, where individual senators wield more influence and a group of Republicans have expressed their opposition to proposed stock trading bans.
Some argue that strengthening the law could help address concerns related to President Donald Trump's business dealings. "Trump is a problem, and he's abusing this extensively," Holman said, emphasizing that any version of the bill must include measures addressing the president's conflicts of interest.
As lawmakers continue to push for reform, mounting evidence points to the need for stricter rules governing congressional stock trading activity. With proponents on both sides urging swift action, it remains to be seen how the House will proceed with its efforts to address this contentious issue.
**The views expressed in this story are those of The Intercept and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our parent company or its affiliates.
A proposed ban on congressional stock trades, championed by lawmakers from both parties, has garnered significant backing in the wake of mounting evidence that current laws have failed to curb self-dealing among politicians.
However, as supporters and sponsors converge on Capitol Hill, some are questioning whether efforts are being held back by House Speaker Mike Johnson's office. Critics worry Johnson may be using a committee hearing as a delaying tactic while keeping concrete advancements like bill markups and votes on the measure at bay.
Johnson has expressed support for banning congressional stock trades, but this stance remains inconsistent with more substantial action. Craig Holman, Capitol Hill lobbyist for Public Citizen, stated that scheduling a hearing to placate sponsors was merely a delay tactic. This assertion comes as some proponents of the bill argue its chances are being stalled by the House speaker's hesitation.
"We're glad to see some movement," said Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI), co-sponsor and leader of the proposal, "but this is just the first step, and other steps need to come soon." The Restore Trust in Congress Act has garnered support from a range of lawmakers, including Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
However, Magaziner warns that if Johnson does not act swiftly, alternative options for pushing the bill forward will be considered.
Public Citizen's Holman suggests that one major obstacle lies in the Senate, where individual senators wield more influence and a group of Republicans have expressed their opposition to proposed stock trading bans.
Some argue that strengthening the law could help address concerns related to President Donald Trump's business dealings. "Trump is a problem, and he's abusing this extensively," Holman said, emphasizing that any version of the bill must include measures addressing the president's conflicts of interest.
As lawmakers continue to push for reform, mounting evidence points to the need for stricter rules governing congressional stock trading activity. With proponents on both sides urging swift action, it remains to be seen how the House will proceed with its efforts to address this contentious issue.
**The views expressed in this story are those of The Intercept and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our parent company or its affiliates.
. Like, it's a good idea, but we gotta make sure they're not just talking the talk and not walking the walk, you feel? I mean, if Johnson is using his office as a delaying tactic, that's not gonna cut it 
. We need concrete action now, not just some empty promises 
. And what's with the Senate being all slow on this? Can't they see we're trying to restore trust in Congress here? 
It's time for them to step up and show some backbone 
.
. I mean, yeah, it's about time someone took a stand against self-dealing politicians, but let's not sugarcoat it - there's still a lot of room for improvement here.
... have they seen his track record on this issue? Let's give him some credit where credit is due before we start finger-pointing at him. That being said, I do think strengthening the law and addressing potential conflicts of interest are crucial steps in the right direction 
.
.
. This bill is like that, you have some people supporting it, but then there's House Speaker Johnson's office causing delays... what's going on? If they don't act fast, alternative options might be considered and the whole thing could fall apart 
it was literally this tiny ball of fluff with the most adorable wrinkles on its face... i swear my heart melted lol anyway back to this congressional stock trading ban thingy... idk why they can't just make up their minds already 
like, are they for it or against it? 
. The whole thing is kinda suspicious, you know? Like, Rep Magaziner is being super diplomatic and all, but he seems pretty frustrated that nothing's getting done yet 
. I'm rooting for the bill to pass, but if it keeps getting held back, I'll be super disappointed 
.
.
. And let's be real, the Senate is a whole different ball game 
. Those individual senators have way too much influence and it's hard to get anything done 
. We can't keep waiting for politicians to do the right thing, we need to push them to take action 
.
The fact that Mike Johnson is using a hearing as a delay tactic just shows how little he cares about actual change. 
What's even more sad is that some of these politicians, on both sides, are still raking it in from their stock trades while they're supposed to be working for the people. 
It's time for some real accountability and if that means a delay or two, so be it. At least we have voices like Rep. Magaziner and Public Citizen pushing for change. 
they're literally trying 2 avoid accountability 
.
.
. It's like they think they can just do whatever they want and we'll just sit back and let it happen 
. But then you've got the House Speaker stalling things like he's playing some kinda game 
.
. I mean, who wouldn't want their lawmakers making decisions in their best interest, not just their own? 
. Those senators saying they don't like the bill because it affects them personally are like, hello, you're there to represent your people, not yourself! 
.
The idea that lawmakers are more interested in lining their own pockets than serving the people they represent just doesn't sit right with me. I mean, if we want to restore trust in Congress, where's the action?
... But here's the thing: as long as we don't take a stand and demand real change, this stuff will just keep getting watered down. We need to be willing to push boundaries and make some noise if we want to see meaningful reform happen 
And yeah, it's gotta start with addressin' President Trump's... let's say, ' conflicts of interest'. 
That's just common sense, if you ask me.
We need to show them that we're willin' to take bold action and make real changes for the better... not just a bunch of lip service. 
. Those Republicans ain't gonna make it easy for anyone to pass this bill, especially with Trump's history of self-dealin' 
. We need more transparency, more accountability, and more action, period