A bipartisan bill to ban lawmakers from trading stocks is unveiled in the House

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/03/nx-s1-5485340/congress-stock-trading-bill

118 points · 9 comments · view on lemmy.world

9 Comments

Boddhisatva@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 349d (3 replies)
[ removed ]
VivianRixia@piefed.social · 8 pts · 349d

"But if I can't get rich off the new laws I pass, why would I bother doing this job?"

AreaKode@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 349d

OMG! They'd be like a servant or something! To the public!

prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 349d

We are so deep into capitalism that even our politicians are rent seeking.

ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com · 6 pts · 349d

Their solely owned passthrough corporations however are free to invest at will.

betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 349d

Tin foil hat engage: Or this is a way to mask a mass sell-off before some crazy shit happens so they can stuff their gaping maws a little more as it all burns down. Put up some token resistance through the usual loudmouths so it isn't too suspicious. Bonus points for looking virtuous along the way.

It's probably not that though.

SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 349d

EPSTEIN

foggy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 349d (2 replies)

Term limits would be more effective, I'd think.

StopSpazzing@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 349d (1 reply)

Why not both? Also no free healthcare or if free they only get same as people on medicare.

foggy@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 349d

Because this here is not effective.

Can their family still trade? Can their corporations? It's a sort of meaningless gesture to say they can't trade, because no matter how you slice it, they'll still be able to profit from insider knowledge.

Shorter term limits would reduce the amount of time they have exposure to govt and private sector simultaneously, which would reduce the amount they'd be able to gain far more than saying "they can't trade."