The Irony of advocacy: How Lawmakers Pushing for Stock Bans Profit From the System
A growing chorus of progressive lawmakers are championing legislation to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks, framing the practice as unethical adn a threat to public trust. However, a closer look at the financial disclosures of some of thes very advocates reveals a pattern of significant personal profit from the stock market – raising questions about the motivations behind their push for reform.
The debate centers on the potential for lawmakers to leverage non-public details gained through their official duties for personal financial gain. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a leading voice for a trading ban, recently highlighted this concern in a fundraising email, stating that members of Congress possess “sensitive, privileged information” that can be exploited for profit. Yet, financial disclosures paint a complex picture.
Several Democratic representatives have faced scrutiny for violations of federal financial transparency laws. Representative Val Hoyle (D-OR) was late in disclosing between 217 stock trades,totaling between $245,215 and $3.3 million, including holdings in companies like boeing and ExxonMobil. Her office attributed the delays to her husbandS new financial advisor making trades without their direction. Representative Jonathan Jackson (D-IL) also failed to meet disclosure deadlines for 31 stock trades, while simultaneously achieving a remarkable 43.1% return on a $1.5 million portfolio.
The disconnect between advocacy and personal investment extends beyond disclosure issues. Representative Sara Jacobs (D-CA), a co-sponsor of a recent Congressional trading ban bill, holds a substantial $18 million in stocks, largely comprised of shares in Qualcomm - a company founded by her grandfather. Notably, Qualcomm recently launched a mentorship program connected to a subcommittee on which Jacobs serves.
Other lawmakers pushing for restrictions also demonstrate significant market activity. Representative Dwight Evans (D-PA) saw a 42% return on his $436,000 portfolio, and engaged in eight separate stock trades on a single day. Representative Judy Chu (D-CA) has executed a staggering 467 trades worth $7.1 million since entering Congress, including day-trading in healthcare stocks. Even Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), who claims to hold stocks for the long term and is sponsoring a ban, maintains a $3.1 million portfolio including shares in johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble.
Despite the momentum behind the ”Restore Trust in Congress Act,” as touted by Ocasio-Cortez at a recent town hall, observers like Auerbach express skepticism about the genuine commitment to change. “This is like a political hot potato that they keep passing back,” Auerbach noted, adding that both parties appear hesitant to enact a ban, as lawmakers are “consistently outperforming the market.”
The situation presents a striking irony: those most vocal about the dangers of congressional stock trading are frequently enough themselves beneficiaries of the system they seek to regulate. This raises the question of whether the push for a ban is driven by genuine ethical concerns,or by a desire to level the playing field after already capitalizing on the opportunities afforded by their positions.
