Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ban on stock trading for members of Congress favored by overwhelming bipartisan majority

Also favored ban for the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices

Ban on stock trading for members of Congress favored by overwhelming bipartisan majority
Getty Images

Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation.

Thomas is Vice President of Voice of the People and Director of Voice of the People Action. Thomas is an organizer and government relations professional with years of experience working in campaigns, advocacy, and policy research.


Overwhelming bipartisan majorities favor prohibiting stock-trading in individual companies by Members of Congress (86 percent, Republicans 87 percent, Democrats 88 percent, independents 81 percent), as well as the president, vice president, and Supreme Court Justices (87 percent, Republicans 87 percent, Democrats 90 percent, independents 82 percent) according to an in-depth survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy.

While criticism of Members of Congress trading stocks while in office has been present for some time, the issue was given new life with accusations of Members making lucrative purchases of pharmaceutical stocks based on insider information on Covid-19 vaccines.

Legislation to prohibit any stock trading in individual companies among Members was introduced in 2022 ( S. 3494, S.1171, S. 439, H.R. 345, H.R. 1138, H.R.2678), as well as a ban on the president, the vice president and the Supreme Court ( S. 693, H.R. 389). Officials would still be able to buy and sell stocks in large portfolios, like mutual funds; and would still be able to own their existing stocks as long as they are put into an independently managed fund, also known as a blind trust. The ban would apply to any family that lives with them.

The public consultation survey of 2,625 registered voters ensured that respondents understood the issue by first providing a short briefing on the legislative proposals. They also evaluated strongly-stated arguments for and against. The content was reviewed by expert proponents and opponents to ensure that the briefing was accurate and balanced and that the arguments presented were the strongest ones being made.

“While the prospect of a stock trading ban is controversial within Congress, public support approaches unanimity,” commented Steven Kull, director of PPC. However, majorities did not favor a proposal to ban stock-trading for all federal employees ( H.R. 389). This was favored by just 40 percent, including just 42 percent of Republicans, 37 percent of Democrats and 42 percent of independents.

The most popular argument in favor of the prohibition on Members asserted that there are, “too many potential conflicts of interest when Members of Congress can hold and trade stocks in individual companies,” (92 percent convincing, Republicans 92 percent, Democrats 93 percent).The arguments against did not do as well. The most convincing was that this new law is not necessary, since there are already laws against insider trading that apply to Members of Congress but was found convincing by minorities (28 percent overall, Republicans 25 percent, Democrats 30 percent).

The sample was large enough to enable analysis of attitudes in very Republican to very Democratic districts based on Cook PVI ratings. In all types of districts, very large majorities were in favor of a stock-trading ban on Members, from very red (85 percent) to very blue districts (85 percent).

The survey was fielded online May 19-30, 2023 with a probability-based national sample of 2,625 registered voters provided by Nielsen Scarborough from its larger sample, which is recruited by telephone and mail from a random sample of households. There is a margin of error of +/- 1.9 percent.

Questionnaire with Frequencies

Slides with Findings

Try the Policymaking Simulation


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less