The House approved legislation Wednesday that would bar members of Congress from purchasing individual stocks, advancing an ethics proposal that lawmakers in both parties have long championed but repeatedly failed to enact.
Some Democrats sided with the Republican majority in the 232-198 vote that came as lawmakers prepared to return home and campaign ahead of the midterm elections, with Republicans working to show action on an issue that has become a symbol of voter distrust.
But the breakthrough was tempered by Republican provisions in the bill that would exempt the president from the trading ban and from the inclusion of an unrelated voter identification requirement, drawing opposition from many Democrats. The bill’s passage in the Senate remains uncertain.
“This bill, quite simply, is a sham,” Rep. Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, said on the House floor ahead of the vote. He called the voter identification provision a “poison pill” designed to sink the legislation.
Supporters nevertheless hailed the bill, known as the Stop Insider Trading Act, as the most significant congressional action yet to restrict stock trades by members of Congress.
“I had legislation that would have required divestiture. I preferred that approach,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said. “But you got to build a coalition in a body. And I think this is a giant step forward.”
Rep. Bryan Steil, the Wisconsin Republican who sponsored the legislation, called it “transformational.”
Critics argued the legislation falls well short of a true stock trading ban because it would let lawmakers keep stocks they already own and continue selling them.
Bipartisan support eroded further after Republicans added a requirement that voters present photo identification at the polls, a key element of the SAVE Act, an election measure backed by President Donald Trump that has repeatedly stalled in the Senate.
What is in the Stop Insider Trading Act?
The legislation would prohibit lawmakers, their spouses and dependent children from buying individual stocks while in office. It would let them keep stocks they already own but require public notice at least seven days before selling them. Some investments would be exempt, including interest in a widely held investment fund and certain investments held in a trust.
The bill does not extend to the president or vice president. President Donald Trump disclosed in May that in the first quarter of this year he had made more than 3,600 buy and sell orders, many of them involving companies whose profits have been directly impacted by his decisions as head of the government.
Outside ethics groups said the bill leaves intact the very conflicts it is meant to address by allowing lawmakers to keep existing stock holdings.
The Campaign Legal Center urged Congress to reject the measure, saying it “fails to address the two inherent problems with congressional stock ownership: the appearance of insider trading and members’ ability to profit from their official position.”
Not all Republicans were on board for the stock ban. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who was defeated in a primary earlier this year by a Trump-backed candidate, derided Republicans for inserting the voter identification requirement.
“Republicans added voter-ID in the legislation. Not to get Dems to vote for voter-ID,” Massie wrote in a social media post. “but to get them to vote against the stock trading ban, so they can use it in the Nov. election.”
Stock trading has become a potent campaign issue
Congressional stock trading has become a potent campaign issue as candidates from both parties call for banning the practice. The issue has been a fixture of campaign ads for several years as candidates seek to tap into voters’ distrust of Washington.
Ahead of Wednesday’s vote, many Republicans facing tough reelection races lined up to speak in favor of it.
“Banning congressional stock trading is a simple proposition: If you serve the public, you serve only the public,” said New York Rep. Mike Lawler. “You don’t get to benefit from the power the people have loaned you. This reform is about fairness.”
Lawmakers have faced ethics scrutiny and, in some cases, criminal investigations over stock trades that critics say benefited from nonpublic information obtained through lawmakers’ official duties. Although no broad ban has become law, similar proposals have been introduced for years.
Momentum accelerated last year when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., launched a discharge petition to force a vote on a congressional stock trading ban that bypassed House Republican leaders.