SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
wall street
Watchdogs Welcome House Introduction of Congressional Stock Trading Ban
"As long as sitting lawmakers are allowed to trade stocks connected to the industries they oversee, the public will question whether they are prioritizing their own personal profits," said one campaigner.
Sep 03, 2025
Government watchdog groups on Wednesday cheered the bipartisan introduction of the Restore Trust in Congress Act, which would ban federal lawmakers, along with their spouses and children, from trading individual stocks.
"The legislation would require lawmakers to sell all individual stocks within 180 days," according to NPR. "Newly elected members of Congress would also have to divest of individual stock holdings before being sworn in. Members who fail to divest would face a fine equivalent to 10% of the value of the stock."
The bill's lead supporters in the House of Representatives span the full ideological spectrum: Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), Seth Magaziner (D-Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Chip Roy (R-Texas).
"In a strong display of bipartisanship, leaders from both sides of the aisle in the House have worked together to produce a comprehensive and commonsense legislative measure to ban congressional stock trading," said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with the group Public Citizen, which is endorsing the bill.
"These members worked for months in drafting a strong consensus bill that addresses all the key elements of an effective ban on congressional stock trading," he continued, welcoming that the prohibition applies to immediate family members and "covers a wide range of investments, including cryptocurrency, and is fortified with strong enforcement measures."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, also applauded the bill, highlighting that "our representatives in Washington have access to an enormous amount of information about our economy that isn't available to the public."
"They should not be allowed to use what they learn in the course of their legislative duties to gain an unfair advantage and enrich themselves," he said. "It's time to ban sitting members of Congress from buying and selling stocks. Members of Congress cannot be trusted to police themselves, and existing ethics laws do not go far enough to prevent members from using their insider knowledge for personal gain."
Lawmakers behind this new proposal have long advocated for a full ban, arguing that existing protections—including those in the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012—are inadequate.
Advocacy groups, including the Campaign Legal Center, have also "been fighting for years to improve laws regulating the way members of Congress trade stocks," noted Kedric Payne, CLC's vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics.
"As long as sitting lawmakers are allowed to trade stocks connected to the industries they oversee, the public will question whether they are prioritizing their own personal profits over the public interest," Payne said. "We applaud this bipartisan legislation that incorporates the key provisions of stock act reform CLC has fought to advance—a ban on stock ownership that is enforceable and holds lawmakers accountable."
Jamie Neikrie, legislative director at the political reform group Issue One, pointed out Wednesday that "three years have passed since House leadership made a commitment to bring a congressional stock trading ban bill to the floor for a vote."
"It's time to get this much-needed reform across the finish line—no more excuses," Neikrie declared. "Members of Congress have a responsibility to hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, and passing the Restore Trust in Congress Act is how Congress shows it's serious about restoring trust and integrity in government."
"Today is a critical step for a more transparent and stronger institution," he added, urging "leadership in both chambers to seize this moment" and send the bill to President Donald Trump's desk.
Earlier this summer, Trump lashed out at Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who worked with Democrats to advance out of committee a stock trading ban, claiming that "he is playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats."
Hawley initially called his proposal the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act—a nod to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose husband's stock trading has drawn scrutiny. After Hawley worked with Democrats on the bill, it was renamed the Halting Ownership and Non-Ethical Stock Transactions (HONEST) Act.
After the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's July vote, Pelosi said that "while I appreciate the creativity of my Republican colleagues in drafting legislative acronyms, I welcome any serious effort to raise ethical standards in public service. The HONEST Act, as amended, rightly applies its stock trading ban not only to Members of Congress, but now to the president and vice president as well. I strongly support this legislation and look forward to voting for it on the floor of the House."
Meanwhile, Fox News' Jesse Watters at the time asked Hawley about Trump lashing out at him. The Senate Republican responded, "I had a good chat with the president earlier this evening, and he reiterated to me he wants to see a ban on stock trading by people like Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress, which is what we passed today."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Does the Democratic Party Have a Death Wish?
The Epstein files won't save the party and 40 years of kissing Wall Street's ass cannot be undone by a PR campaign.
Aug 25, 2025
The New York Times recently released a report showing what we already know—the Democrats are in decline as more voters now register as Republicans or Independents.
This is especially the case for young voters.
It’s not hard to figure out why. Just ask yourself this simple question: What is the Democratic Party vision for our country? What message of economic justice do they have for working people who have suffered mass layoffs and job insecurity in recent years and are finding themselves left behind?
What is their plan to help hard-working undocumented immigrants secure citizenship? How will they keep the wealth of the nation from gushing to the top one-tenth of the one percent?
Epstein!
That seems to be the current plan. The Democrats believe they can gain ground against Trump by forcing the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Supposedly this will split Trump from his conspiratorial base.
But what’s the chance of that helping the Democrats attract more registrants and votes?
Zilch.
And how about those record-breaking congressional speeches? Can anyone recall anything Corey Booker said during his 24 hours and 18 minutes on the Senate floor, or what Hakeem Jeffries said during his 8 hours and 44 minutes on the House floor? I sure can’t, and I suspect neither can those leaving the Democratic Party. Historic marathon elocution is surely an improvement on Biden’s difficulties forming sentences, but does it even attempt to put forth a vision for secure jobs and incomes for working people?
It’s time for a real second party of working people willing to turn trickle-down economics on its head. Working people, not Wall Street, should be the center of all economic policy.
The Democratic Party establishment is so fearful of “moving to the left” (meaning they do not want to attack the interests of their wealthy donors) they are having a tough time supporting Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic mayoral candidate in New York City, who is breathing new life into the party with a progressive and popular appeal to regular people and their economic concerns. How can party elites not support the man who won the Democratic primary and is leading in the general election?
If the party isn’t rallying around a bright new face with a knack for pitching attractive economic policies, please tell me why new voters should register as Democrats?
The Democrats have become conservatives. They want to protect the way things were from the Trump wrecking ball. And in many cases, they are on point. There are good reasons to protect public programs from drastic cuts, protect badly needed public servants from wasteful layoffs, stop cruel and unlawful deportations of immigrants, and save critically important programs like Medicaid.
But the Democrats also want to preserve the financialized Wall Street-driven economy that has moved wealth from working people into the hands of the few. They want to attract, not repel, donations from the wealthy. As a result, they have little to say to the working people who have lost their jobs due to private equity buyouts, mergers, and stock buybacks. After all, stopping that Wall Street gravy train would certainly piss off their donors. In short, they have no vision for a world in which working people, rather than their bosses, are front and center.
It is particularly disheartening to watch the Democrats all but abandon hard-working immigrants who are being deported rather than being moved into citizenship. As I’ve written before here and here, 63 percent of the voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin support, “granting legal status to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least three years and have not been convicted of felony crimes.” Only 34 percent are opposed.
How did the multitude of millionaire Democratic pollsters and consultants miss this? Oh, they saw it, but it would be too risky to defy Trump on this, they have no doubt warned party leaders.
Many of my friends and colleagues, nevertheless, truly believe that the Democratic Party can come to its senses and once again appeal to the economic needs of working people. If only we show them enough data about how attractive progressive populism is, they will put out powerful messages about halting mass layoffs and curbing corporate power.
But that is unlikely to happen for two key reasons. First, most of the party leadership doesn’t believe in those messages. They don’t think we should interfere with corporate capitalism, and they don’t want to put out messages that will offend the donor class. In fact, they see nothing wrong with economic inequality and have no desire even to refrain from trading their stocks and bonds while in office.
The second reason is that even if they give up on the Epstein messaging and instead promote progressive populism, few voters will believe the Democrats are for real. It’s too late. Forty years of kissing Wall Street's ass cannot be undone by a PR campaign. As our Rust Belt survey will show when it is fully released, the vast majority of voters, including Democrats, don’t trust the Democratic Party to deliver, even when they say the right things.
So, I’m trying to convince my friends and colleagues that it’s time for a new party of working people totally independent of the Democrats. It’s precisely what Rust Belt voters want. These poll findings have already been released:
In our YouGov survey of 3,000 voters in the Rust Belt States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, 57 percent of the respondents supported a new political formation outside the two major parties. Only 19 percent opposed. This finding is especially notable because these voters were asked to support a very radical statement of anti-corporate populism.
Would you support a new organization, the Independent Workers Political Association, that would support working-class issues independent of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It would run and support independent political candidates committed to a platform that included
- Stop big companies that receive tax dollars from laying off workers who pay taxes.
- Guarantee everyone who wants to work has a decent-paying job, and if the private sector can’t provide it, the government will
- Raise the minimum wage so every family can lead a decent life
- Stop drug company price-gouging and put price controls on food cartels
Every demographic group supported this proposal, led by 71 percent of Rust Belt voters less than 30 years of age, and 74 percent of those who feel very insecure about losing their job.
How about a new second party instead of a third party?
I’m told repeatedly that third parties are impossible in America. The best they can do is spoil elections, as Ross Perot likely did for the Republicans in 1996, and Ralph Nader may have done for the Democrats in 2000.
The people who do the vital work of this country need decent wages, universal health care, and protection against incessant job destruction.
But we’re not talking about a third party. We’re talking about a second party. In more than 130 congressional districts the Republican in 2024 won by 25 percent or more. There is no viable second party in these one-party districts. An independent working-class candidate could hardly do worse. These one-party districts are the crucibles where a new political association of working people can cut its teeth.
But wait—don’t we need to elect a Democratic Congress to tame Trump’s rampage? Sure. There’s no contradiction between supporting Democrats and building a new independent party of working people. The two should function in entirely different Congressional districts. Independent worker candidates should not run in purple areas where elections are close. They should run in one-party Republican districts and states, just like the labor candidate Dan Osborn is doing in Nebraska.
But building a new independent worker political association will be a heavy lift, and it will take time. Most importantly it will take commitment and the energy of young people fighting for a new way, rather than those of us who are running our final laps.
It’s time for a real second party of working people willing to turn trickle-down economics on its head. Working people, not Wall Street, should be the center of all economic policy. The people who do the vital work of this country need decent wages, universal health care, and protection against incessant job destruction.
If that seems like too much to ask, it’s only because long ago the Democrats stopped asking.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Disaster in the Making': Trump to Open 401(k)s to Crypto, Private Equity Vultures
"Stuffing private equity, crypto, and other 'alternative assets' into 401(k)s is about propping up scams and bailing out an industry that's run out of buyers," said one critic.
Aug 07, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Thursday that would allow private equity and cryptocurrencies into Americans' 401(k)s, appeasing corporate interests that lobbied for the change and disregarding warnings about the risks it poses to retirement accounts.
Citing an unnamed senior White House official, CNN reported that "the order calls for the Labor Department and Securities and Exchange Commission to issue guidance to employers about providing access to those alternative investments in their retirement accounts."
The private equity industry has been working for years to gain access to a portion of the roughly $12 trillion that Americans have saved in workplace retirement plans.
"This is the holy grail for private equity," Axios reported Thursday, noting that federal rules currently bar most defined-contribution plans from investing in private equity and crypto. Both industries spent big on the 2024 election; the investment management behemoth BlackRock, whose CEO has advocated opening 401(k)s to private equity, donated to Trump's inaugural committee.
James Baratta and Whitney Curry Wimbish noted in The American Prospect earlier this year that "there was added desperation from the industry" for access to 401(k)s "because of their dire need for cash amid weakening performance and fewer deals."
"Some firms have begun mortgaging their own funds for money to pay out limited partners," they added. "Retail investors represented trillions in untapped potential."
"Private equity executives have enriched themselves by the billions, taking high fees and other charges from working people's hard-earned retirement savings in pension funds."
Helaine Olen, managing editor at the American Economic Liberties Project and a longtime personal finance columnist, said in a statement Thursday that "stuffing private equity, crypto, and other 'alternative assets' into 401(k)s is about propping up scams and bailing out an industry that's run out of buyers—and it's being done at the expense of Americans' retirements everywhere."
"There's a reason most employers didn't bite when Trump tried this the first time and why the private investments industry has put on such a thick lobbying campaign," said Olen. "These funds are high-fee, risky, and opaque. Private equity consistently underperforms the S&P 500. This is a windfall for billionaire fund managers and a disaster in the making for regular Americans trying to save for retirement."
Last week, the Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund and American Federation of Teachers released a report warning that if private equity is given a foothold in 401(k)s, "millions of workers saving for retirement would be exposed to higher risks and steep fees in products that lack basic investor protections and transparency requirements."
The report found that private equity profitability "has been in a year-over-year decline" for the past two decades and that "fee structures—paid directly by investors or indirectly through portfolio companies—are prone to extensive manipulation."
Lisa Donner, co-executive director at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, said that "private equity executives have enriched themselves by the billions, taking high fees and other charges from working people's hard-earned retirement savings in pension funds."
"Now they want fees from the trillions of dollars in individual retirement accounts," Donner added, "putting millions of more people at risk."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular