Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Tapping the common sense on ethics in government

This article is part of a series that reveals the many policy proposals on which Republican and Democratic voters agree.

Tapping the common sense on ethics in government
Getty Images

Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation.

Lewitus is a Research Analyst at Voice of the People whose research interests focus on policy, public opinion and democracy reform.


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.

The Federal government has failed to address many issues facing our nation, largely due to increasing partisan polarization that results in near-constant gridlock. Some speculate this polarization is a reflection of the American public. However, Voice of the People has found that majorities of Republicans and Democrats actually agree on numerous positions–nearly 200 as of now. These surveys, conducted mostly by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, differ from standard polls in that they provide respondents with background information and pro-con arguments, before they give their recommendations.

The level of trust in Congress and the Federal government in general has been decreasing for decades. A rising perception that officials too often act for their own benefit, rather than the public’s, is a key driver. The public wants to limit government officials from engaging in self-serving activities that can steer their priorities away from serving the public. Specifically, overwhelming bipartisan majorities favor proposals that would more severely regulate the ability of officials to trade stocks while in office, and become lobbyists afterwards – both of which can influence how officials legislate and govern.

Members of Congress trading stocks while in office has been criticized for many years, but the issue was given new life with accusations of Members making lucrative purchases of pharmaceutical stocks based on insider information on Covid-19 vaccines. Currently, the only regulation on stock-trading is a mandatory disclosure rule, along with the general law against insider trading. Numerous bills have been put forward to fully ban trading individual stocks by Members, as well as senior officials in the Executive Branch. None of these proposals have received a vote in Congress, yet are supported by overwhelming bipartisan majorities of the public.

Over eight-in-ten support prohibiting Members of Congress, and their live-in family, from trading stocks in individual companies (National 86%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 88%), as well as the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices (National 87%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 90%).

However, a Congressional proposal to ban stock-trading for all federal employees, including Post Office workers, does not receive majority support, with just 40% in favor, including just 42% of Republicans, 37% of Democrats and 42% of independents.

Alongside regulations on what officials can do while in office, the public supports regulations on officials’ activities after they leave office, particularly lobbying the government they just worked for. There has, for a long time, been a concern that the temptation of well-paid lobbying jobs can cause officials to govern in ways more in line with the will of their future employer rather than the public. Currently there are some regulations on this: many former officials must wait at least one year before they can become a lobbyist. This has, however, not stopped the “revolving door”. Over the last fifty years, the number of Members of Congress that became lobbyists has increased almost tenfold. Nearly half of the Members of the 115th Congress (2018-19) who left office took lobbying jobs.

Numerous bills have been put forward to increase waiting periods for former officials, and in one case prohibit lobbying for life. Despite those proposals having large bipartisan public support, none have passed Congress.

Extending the lobbying waiting period for Members to five years is favored by 65% of voters (Republicans 65%, Democrats 67%). Extending it for other federal officials also receives large bipartisan support; for senior Executive Branch officials to five years is favored by 71% (Republicans 72%, Democrats 72%); and for senior Congressional staffers to two years is favored by 74% (Republicans 75%, Democrats 75%). When it comes to lobbying the US government on behalf of a foreign government, the public goes further: 71% support prohibiting senior Executive Branch officials from lobbying for a foreign government for the rest of their life (National 71%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 71%).

A list of nearly 200 policies with bipartisan support can be found on Voice of the People’s Common Ground of the American People website.


Read More

Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate

Veterans often lose VA healthcare, disability benefits, and education access during incarceration, disrupting PTSD and addiction treatment when continuity matters most.

Getty Images

Veterans Don’t Stop Being Veterans at the Prison Gate

A veteran’s PTSD doesn’t disappear when they enter prison. Traumatic brain injuries don’t cure themselves. Addiction doesn't vanish behind bars. Yet many of the systems designed to help veterans manage those conditions stop at the prison gate.

When veterans are incarcerated, they often lose access to VA healthcare, struggle to use education benefits, and face major cuts to disability compensation. The problem is not eligibility. The problem is continuity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why I’m Using My Influence to Defend Democracy Now

A group of people waving small American flags at sunset.

Getty stock photo

Why I’m Using My Influence to Defend Democracy Now

It was about this time of year in 1997 that I moved across the country and took my first job in the sector broadly known as “civil society.”

Since then, I have grown in my career. I have developed a profile. By dint of sheer survival and longevity, I have accumulated seniority.

Keep ReadingShow less
NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy

(L-R) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Turkey, Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO, Donald Trump, President of United States and Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of United Kingdom during a “family photo” at Beştepe Presidential Compound during a welcome ceremony for the NATO Summit on July 08, 2026 in Ankara, Turkey.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy

It seems just yesterday I was writing up a piece regarding the G7 summit taking place in southern France. In truth, it was a few weeks ago, but now that the NATO summit has wrapped up, I can’t be the only one with deja vu; world leaders meeting amid the continuing US-led war with Iran. I think I’ve seen this film before.

Welcome to Faultline. Last week, heads of NATO member states convened in Turkey for their yearly summit. Many issues were on the table for the summit, and the one expected to take center stage was the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, considering that the Iran war was supposed to be done, as had been announced weeks ago. However, less than 30 days into the alleged 60-day ceasefire, President Trump has announced that negotiations with Iran are over, and not because they reached an agreement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs outside of the Idaho statehouse.

Protesters rally for abortion rights outside of the Idaho Statehouse in downtown Boise, Idaho, on May 14, 2022.

Sarah A. Miller/Idaho Statesman/AP

Idaho Voters Will Weigh In on One of the Strictest Abortion Bans in the Country

Idaho voters will weigh in on their state’s abortion laws this November. The secretary of state’s office certified a ballot measure that could, if passed, overturn one of the strictest bans in the country, the campaign to restore abortion rights in Idaho confirmed on Monday.

The measure would enact a new law establishing a state right to “reproductive freedom,” which it defines as allowing residents to make their own decisions in areas including fertility treatment, contraception and abortion. But it would not amend the state’s constitution, meaning it could still be overturned by the state’s Republican legislature. Currently, Idaho bans abortion in nearly all circumstances, with a narrow exception if staying pregnant threatens someone’s life.

Keep ReadingShow less