This is one of the ways the scoundrels in Congress get rich. When I joined a certain large financial company decades ago as an engineer, I was asked to declare all my stock holdings to the employer and before I bought or sold anything, I had to get approval. I was no exec and was not public facing, all I did was write code.

This, while the scummy execs made piles of money through insider trading and other mechanisms.

The ideal law is if you become a member of Congress, you (and your spouse/partner/minor children) would need to LIQUIDATE their ENTIRE stock portfolio. You can put it in approved CDs or leave in cash. No stock trading or any kind of investment. No ETFs. No index trading.

Of course, the Dems oppose this. Aunt Nancy would hate it.

Remember: One member of the Terrible Trifecta are US Politicians.

House GOP's stock trading ban bill clears key hurdle despite Dems' objections
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/14/congressional-stock-trading-ban-bill-to-get-its-first-vote-wednesday.html

Quote:

---

• A Republican-backed bill to ban members of Congress from buying new stocks survived an initial procedural hurdle.
• Democratic members have said Republican Rep. Bryan Steil's legislation doesn't do enough to prevent insider trading among lawmakers.
• Democrats plan to attempt to force a vote on their own bill, which would extend bans on stock trading to the president.

---

Quote:

---

A Republican-backed bill to ban members of Congress from buying new stocks survived an initial procedural hurdle Wednesday, despite Democrats' complaints that the legislation doesn't go far enough.

The bill was approved along party lines in the House Administration Committee, with seven of the panel's GOP members voting for it and all four of its Democrats opposing it.

"Your member of Congress should not be day trading stocks," said Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., who chairs the committee and introduced the bill, in an interview with CNBC before the vote.

"You want to day trade? There's a place for that, and it's called Wall Street," Steil said.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., previously told CNBC that he would bring the bill to a floor vote if it was approved in the committee.

It's unclear if the bill will be able to pass the full House, where Republicans hold a razor-thin and at times fractious majority.

Democratic members have said Steil's bill doesn't do enough to prevent insider trading among lawmakers.

All of their amendments to the legislation were shot down in the committee.

---

infinity ag said:

---

This is one of the ways the scoundrels in Congress get rich. When I joined a certain large financial company decades ago as an engineer, I was asked to declare all my stock holdings to the employer and before I bought or sold anything, I had to get approval. I was no exec and was not public facing, all I did was wrote code.

This, while the scummy execs made piles of money through insider trading and other mechanisms.

The ideal law is if you become a member of Congress, you (and your spouse/partner/minor children) would need to LIQUIDATE their ENTIRE stock portfolio. You can put it in approved CDs or leave in cash. No stock trading or any kind of investment. No ETFs. No index trading.

Of course, the Dems oppose this. Aunt Nancy would hate it.

Remember: One member of the Terrible Trifecta are US Politicians.

House GOP's stock trading ban bill clears key hurdle despite Dems' objections
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/14/congressional-stock-trading-ban-bill-to-get-its-first-vote-wednesday.html

Quote:

---

• A Republican-backed bill to ban members of Congress from buying new stocks survived an initial procedural hurdle.
• Democratic members have said Republican Rep. Bryan Steil's legislation doesn't do enough to prevent insider trading among lawmakers.
• Democrats plan to attempt to force a vote on their own bill, which would extend bans on stock trading to the president.

---

Quote:

---

A Republican-backed bill to ban members of Congress from buying new stocks survived an initial procedural hurdle Wednesday, despite Democrats' complaints that the legislation doesn't go far enough.

The bill was approved along party lines in the House Administration Committee, with seven of the panel's GOP members voting for it and all four of its Democrats opposing it.

"Your member of Congress should not be day trading stocks," said Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., who chairs the committee and introduced the bill, in an interview with CNBC before the vote.

"You want to day trade? There's a place for that, and it's called Wall Street," Steil said.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., previously told CNBC that he would bring the bill to a floor vote if it was approved in the committee.

It's unclear if the bill will be able to pass the full House, where Republicans hold a razor-thin and at times fractious majority.

Democratic members have said Steil's bill doesn't do enough to prevent insider trading among lawmakers.

All of their amendments to the legislation were shot down in the committee.

---

---

Would sure be interesting to see what their proposed amendments entailed. Pretty sure the "poison pill" is a tried and true legislative strategy.

probably why crooked pelosi is not seeking reelection.

Burrus86 said:

---

If the bill does not pass, that should speak volumes to how "out of control" Congress is.

---

If it doesn't pass, there's should be one mother of an uproar

Harry Stone said:

---

probably why crooked pelosi is not seeking reelection.

---

On the other hand, why would she need more money? She is 85, not 25. She doesn't have many years to enjoy her wealth and won't take a cent when she departs.

Being a political servant of the people should be a burden for the righteous, not an opportunity for the greedy.

It really is as simple as that in my perfect little world that exists only in my head.

No way this gets passed and implemented. I propose people start trading with the Autopilot app and get rich while you can following these peoples trades.

Quote:

---

The ideal law is if you become a member of Congress, you (and your spouse/partner/minor children) would need to LIQUIDATE their ENTIRE stock portfolio. You can put it in approved CDs or leave in cash. No stock trading or any kind of investment. No ETFs. No index trading.

---

Requiring liquidation of the entire portfolio to cash or CD is way too far. That creates a potential capital gains taxable event that would actually punish a candidate financially for winning, or even reward the winning candidate by being able to write off losses. I think requiring a winning candidate to put the portfolio under trust, independent management, or a full index fund position should be sufficient.

I am a conservative and this is by no means a democrat problem. It is a politician problem from both sides!! Repubs are also making bank on this practice. Put the vote in front of all of the House and see how many repubs vote against it!! ****ing crooks!!

G Martin 87 said:

---

Quote:

---

The ideal law is if you become a member of Congress, you (and your spouse/partner/minor children) would need to LIQUIDATE their ENTIRE stock portfolio. You can put it in approved CDs or leave in cash. No stock trading or any kind of investment. No ETFs. No index trading.

---

Requiring liquidation of the entire portfolio to cash or CD is way too far. That creates a potential capital gains taxable event that would actually punish a candidate financially for winning, or even reward the winning candidate by being able to write off losses. I think requiring a winning candidate to put the portfolio under trust, independent management, or a full index fund position should be sufficient.

---

Agreed. The bolded is too far and I hate politicians vehemently. I am okay with them sticking proceeds in ETFs or Index funds. No reason they cannot put it all in VTI or VOO and ride the wave like the rest of us.

infinity ag said:

---

Harry Stone said:

---

probably why crooked pelosi is not seeking reelection.

---

On the other hand, why would she need more money? She is 85, not 25. She doesn't have many years to enjoy her wealth and won't take a cent when she departs.

---

You've been pretty consistently supporting the position that the amount someone can earn should be restricted by the government. Can't follow you there. Even for someone as repugnant as Pelosi. If she broke SEC regulations, yes, convict her and put her in jail or fine her. But the argument "she doesn't need more money" is fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional. WHO decides "need" and what is allowed? You? Congress?

infinity ag said:

---

Harry Stone said:

---

probably why crooked pelosi is not seeking reelection.

---

On the other hand, why would she need more money? She is 85, not 25. She doesn't have many years to enjoy her wealth and won't take a cent when she departs.

---

its not about the money, it's about the power. The money comes from the power to push legislation that results in trades making money

G Martin 87 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Harry Stone said:

---

probably why crooked pelosi is not seeking reelection.

---

On the other hand, why would she need more money? She is 85, not 25. She doesn't have many years to enjoy her wealth and won't take a cent when she departs.

---

You've been pretty consistently supporting the position that the amount someone can earn should be restricted by the government. Can't follow you there. Even for someone as repugnant as Pelosi. If she broke SEC regulations, yes, convict her and put her in jail or fine her. But the argument "she doesn't need more money" is fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional. WHO decides "need" and what is allowed? You? Congress?

---

I am just trying to understand/analyze her thought process. I believe she is a billionaire and is 85. In that situation most people stop criminal activity as they know they cannot enjoy their ill-gotten wealth for too long. And fear of death/God sets in as well.

At 35, I did not donate to charitable causes. Why not? Because I had a young family to pay for and unsure about my net worth. Now I am comfortable on all those so I am more likely to donate for causes that matter to me.Things change as one gets older.

rab79 said:

---

Would sure be interesting to see what their proposed amendments entailed. Pretty sure the "poison pill" is a tried and true legislative strategy.

---

Ditto. Would like to know what "doesn't go far enough means".

Term limits and Congress insider trading should be 2 things Americans vote directly on.

Harry Stone said:

---

probably why crooked pelosi is not seeking reelection.

---

She voted for the STOCK Act in 2012, which was the first attempt to limit insider trading by Congress. It passed the house 417-2. A year later, most of the law was gutted on a voice vote.
That being said, being required to put your assets in a blind trust while you're in Congress is a good idea.

pfo said:

---

Term limits and Congress insider trading should be 2 things Americans vote directly on.

---

Open that Pandora's Box, and you open the possibility of America being converted by the tyranny of the majority from a republic to a pure democracy. Oh sure, it sounds great for the people to vote directly on term limits. But once you create that end run around the constitution, it will be used again for the next thing that sounds great. And again. And again. Until no individual rights exist at all.

infinity ag said:

---

Harry Stone said:

---

probably why crooked pelosi is not seeking reelection.

---

On the other hand, why would she need more money? She is 85, not 25. She doesn't have many years to enjoy her wealth and won't take a cent when she departs.

---

Not a student of history I see

The only stocks they should own should be part of their optional Thrift Savings Plan (which should replace their retirement plans with that which other Feds have along with SS) C Fund which is essentially a S&P 500 fund managed by a board.

Blind trusts may be another option.

I agree, a simple fix would be to allow congress men/women to trade stocks through a blind trust. Any contact with the blind trust, before the trades would be a crime.

There should be an mandatory IQ test for people seeking office.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Harry Stone said:

---

probably why crooked pelosi is not seeking reelection.

---

She voted for the STOCK Act in 2012, which was the first attempt to limit insider trading by Congress. It passed the house 417-2. A year later, most of the law was gutted on a voice vote.
That being said, being required to put your assets in a blind trust while you're in Congress is a good idea.

---

What is the current situation as it exists today? Do they have to do anything at all or do they go about stock trading as they please with the insider info that they are privy to?

Sending Pelosi to jail for insider stock trading will send a clear message to the rest of the rats.

Just saying.

pfo said:

---

Term limits and Congress insider trading should be 2 things Americans vote directly on.

---

So much this.

I'd even forget about age limits if we could just get these two things done

It got rid of the online disclosure requirements. They're still required, but you have to go physically look for the records. After doing some research, they're stored at the Cannon House Office Building, and you have to know exactly what you're searching for in order to find anything.

rab79 said:

---

Would sure be interesting to see what their proposed amendments entailed. Pretty sure the "poison pill" is a tried and true legislative strategy.

---

Among amendments Dems are seeking include one that would apply to the President and VP.

"Trump has said he opposes that because "I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, targeted because of the whims of a second-tier Senator," Trump wrote."

They also want to force all positions to be sold just like happens with cabinet members who may have a conflict of interest.

Sorry, but I agree with the Dems on these two issues should also be added. They should be able to hold assets in a blind trust, very broad index funds or treasuries. No changes allowed while in office if they do the last two.

Some of the other amendments are the classic crap to add to a bill that has nothing to do with it or aren't needed.

Lol get ****ed dems

This ain't passing, lol. The only way is if it only affects newly elected representatives.

Even so, they will find a way to make the money. They'll use a staffer if they personally can't do it. If you block ANYONE who works in DC, they will simply get a family member.

The corruption isn't going to stop unless people are arrested for things. No one wants to arrest anyone, so corruption will never stop.

Kansas Kid said:

---

rab79 said:

---

Would sure be interesting to see what their proposed amendments entailed. Pretty sure the "poison pill" is a tried and true legislative strategy.

---

Among amendments Dems are seeking include one that would apply to the President and VP.

"Trump has said he opposes that because "I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, targeted because of the whims of a second-tier Senator," Trump wrote."

They also want to force all positions to be sold just like happens with cabinet members who may have a conflict of interest.

Sorry, but I agree with the Dems on these two issues should also be added. They should be able to hold assets in a blind trust, very broad index funds or treasuries. No changes allowed while in office if they do the last two.

Some of the other amendments are the classic crap to add to a bill that has nothing to do with it or aren't needed.

---

Agreed. So this is going nowhere then.

Even if it passes, they still make money off of a number of other private transactions like real estate where magically government projects end up right next to increasing the value of their assets (see Dennis Hastert as the poster child).

I still want a ban on trading of individual securities for all members of Congress, the President, VP, Cabinet members and other executive branch members that have the power to make decisions that can affect stock prices along with all Federal judges and their immediate families including those that aren't living with them but there is other corruption that also needs to be stopped.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2006/06/14/dennis-hasterts-real-estate-investments/

Kansas Kid said:

---

Even if it passes, they still make money off of a number of other private transactions like real estate where magically government projects end up right next to increasing the value of their assets (see Dennis Hastert as the poster child).

I still want a ban on trading of individual securities for all members of Congress, the President, VP, Cabinet members and other executive branch members that have the power to make decisions that can affect stock prices along with all Federal judges and their immediate families including those that aren't living with them but there is other corruption that also needs to be stopped.

---

Has anyone just thought of making corruption illegal?!

The only way this ever passes is the same way term limits will. Grandfather current elected officials in and it only apply to newly elected reps and senators.

Yeah it will take a generation to take effect but it's the only way it will happen.