The STOCK Act and Congress’ Battle Against Transparency

Congressional Transparency, or Lack Thereof

It’s interesting how Congressional leaders pick and choose which transparency issues they want to address. Recently, there’s been internal friction aimed at delaying or weakening a bipartisan reform of stock trading regulations.

This prospective legislation, if it gets the green light, would bar key decision-makers from engaging in stock trading based on insider knowledge—essentially aiming to ensure that legislative and regulatory choices are made with the public good in mind rather than personal gain.

Republican Congressman Tim Burchett from Tennessee referred to the tussle within leadership over this bill as being akin to a “fisticuffs.” It’s a bit ironic, really, considering how often they talk about the importance of transparency. One might think they believe sunlight is only harmful when it comes to their own actions.

For years, Congressional leaders have viewed fiscal transparency as something meant for everyone else—ordinary citizens, regulated industries, private companies hoping for open meetings—but not for themselves. They handle ethics processes, manage confidential briefings, and set the rules around disclosure. When reforms pop up, the instinct seems to be to quietly quash them.

Take last year’s Visa incident as a prime example. Paul Pelosi sold over 2,000 shares of Visa just before the Biden administration initiated an antitrust lawsuit against the company. The timing was, to put it mildly, unfortunate. A powerful political family cashing in just ahead of major legal action raised eyebrows everywhere.

As the Visa case unraveled, it drew criticism from various corners in the antitrust community, with some experts asserting that the case lacked substantial backing. However, there wasn’t a collective acknowledgment among leadership that perhaps the financial disclosure systems needed bolstering. There was no mention of imposing restrictions on leadership families regarding stock trades that could hinge on federal decisions. Nor did they suggest that maybe the public has a right to more transparency.

This isn’t an isolated incident. Many powerful Congress members and committee chairs have been involved in suspiciously well-timed stock trades that would raise significant questions for any corporate executive facing the SEC.

The reality is that if there’s nothing to hide, then fundamental transparency measures like stock laws should ideally ensure accountability from elected officials to the public.

Americans might not grasp every detail of legislative procedures, but they certainly recognize when something seems unfair. Leaders aren’t against tightening the rules due to complexity; it’s because those rules would apply to them. Meanwhile, trust in government has plunged to historical lows, with a large majority of Americans believing public service shouldn’t be a route to personal wealth.

And honestly, they have a point. No sensible nation can accept a political elite that enforces strict ethical standards on the private sector while sidestepping those standards themselves.

While stock laws won’t solve every issue, they represent the very minimum required to show that Congressional leaders can’t operate above the legal and ethical standards imposed on others. If they truly believe their actions are above board, they should embrace efforts aimed at increasing transparency. Their resistance, in essence, speaks volumes.

Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican from Florida, aimed to push back against leadership by seeking a discharge petition to circumvent Speaker Mike Johnson and force a vote on the bill, should Congressional leaders continue to stall.