Democrats and Hawley Both Want a Congressional Stock Ban in 2027. So Why Didn’t We Get One in July?

Seventy-six percent of Americans say members of Congress shouldn’t be allowed to buy and sell individual stocks. Six percent say they should. That’s from an Economist/YouGov poll in May, and I would genuinely like to meet the six percent.

This week Reuters reported that Democrats, who are on track for at least 255 House seats and at least 55 Senate seats after the November 3 midterms, are putting a stock trading ban on their early-January list. Sen. Brian Schatz said, “I can confidently say that we want to do a congressional stock trading ban.” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries said to start with “prohibiting members of Congress from trading stocks.” Then Republican Sen. Josh Hawley chimed in that he’s all for it, and added, “It’s my bill that’s currently pending.”

Voters want it and both parties say they want it. A Republican senator even has a bill sitting there. Funny how that still hasn’t produced a law.

Here’s why. In July the House passed the Stop Insider Trading Act 232-198. It barred members, along with their spouses and dependent kids, from buying new individual stocks, but members could keep everything they already owned and keep selling it, as long as they gave seven days’ public notice first. Then Republicans attached a photo ID requirement for voting, which Democrats called a poison pill. I wrote about that bill when it passed, and my read hasn’t changed: it was built to look like action and die in the Senate.

Now the excuses are gone. The midterms are over and Democrats will run both chambers, although most Senate bills still need 60 votes, which means at least four Republicans. Hawley is an obvious place to start counting.

I don’t love using the word “ban” for what we got in July, because a member who owns a pile of defense stock can still vote on defense spending. If you want to stop a conflict of interest, you have to remove the interest. That means selling the individual stocks or putting them in a blind trust. Nobody is saying members can’t invest. An index fund is fine. The July bill already carved those out, and so should the next one.

I’m not asking government to do anything new to anyone’s life here. Congress would be regulating Congress, which is the one kind of regulation I’ll cheer for without checking the fine print twice. Well, I’ll check the fine print anyway. That’s the whole point.

And I’ll be skeptical until I see it. Announcing a priority costs nothing, and Washington has been “close” on this for years. Schatz himself said voters tie corrupt behavior by officials to paying more for everything, and he’s right about that. Which is exactly why a bill full of loopholes would be worse than no bill. It would let everyone declare victory while the portfolios stay put.

So here’s the test. When the first bill hits the floor in January, does it make members sell what they already own, and does it travel clean, without a rider that gives one side a reason to vote no? If yes, great. If it grandfathers the current holdings, it’s the July bill with a new press release.

My two cents: if a stock ban that 76 percent of the country wants can’t pass a Congress where both parties say they’re for it, the problem was never the votes.