Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

The Iranian regime does not fear Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a signing ceremony for the “Secure America Act” in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 10, 2026.

(Ken Cedeno/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

The Iranian regime does not fear Trump

Back in 2012, President Barack Obama issued a statement at a press conference that would change his presidency and his legacy forever.

It was a year into what would become Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s brutal and protracted war on his own people, a war that would cost hundreds of thousands of lives, empower Iran and Russia, and destabilize much of the region.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Constitution of the United States

A look at America's growing crisis of trust, rising inequality, technology's impact, and how founding principles can help renew democracy.

Tetra Images / Getty Images

People Are Hurting: The U.S. Needs to Return to Our Founding Principles

There are many ways in which our country is currently struggling, both from a government perspective and from the people's perspective. There is no shortage of articles or studies detailing the ways in which the country and its leaders are failing us.

A recent article by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times discussed the report of the State of the Nation Project—written by a bipartisan group of experts—that assessed the state of our country on 31 measures. Bottom line, it found that too many people do not feel good about their lives, about other people, or our institutions. This is a nationwide phenomenon; the worst performers may be red states in the South, but liberal states in the North and West have the same problems. And it's not a function of prosperous versus less-prosperous states.

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

The Trump Justice Department faces scrutiny over alleged prosecutorial misconduct, political pressure, and threats to the rule of law and judicial integrity.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Is There Anything That Trump’s Justice Department Lawyers Won’t Do?

There was a time when working for the United States Department of Justice might have been a lawyer’s dream. Speaking on behalf of the United States, working with people who were dedicated to preserving the rule of law and upholding the highest standards of professionalism, not a bad gig.

As Harvard Law School once explained, the department offered lawyers an unparalleled “opportunity to serve the public in a meaningful way while carrying out the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) mandate to ‘pursue justice’ every day…” Not a bad gig.

Keep ReadingShow less
If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

wallet with dollar bills, on top of an American flag

hartcreations/Getty Images

If the GOP Closes Its Primary, Taxpayers Should Close Their Wallets

A recent court ruling allowing the Colorado Republican Party to decide how and whether to close its primary elections comes at a pivotal moment for the state’s election system. For nearly a decade, Colorado has had an open primary; one designed to reflect the state’s growing share of independent voters. The decision now raises a fundamental question: should taxpayers continue to fund an election that restricts large numbers of the public?

Colorado’s primary elections are not private affairs. They are administered by the state, financed by taxpayers, and conducted through public infrastructure. Ballots are printed and mailed by government offices. Election workers are trained and compensated with public funds. In every functional sense, primaries are public elections.

Keep ReadingShow less