Oh, capitalism. I’m getting kind of sick of it or at least our version of it. Citizens United opened up the floodgates of dark money in our elections and governance. Multi-billionaire people and corporations pay no income tax. People make $40 or $50 million a year for throwing, hitting or kicking a ball. The President and his family are raking in hundreds of millions in crypto schemes promoted by the government. Legislators cash in with stock trading and then again with lobbying. SCOTUS justices are wined and dined with luxury trips and gifts. But we can’t afford school lunches, health care for the poor or veterans housing programs. It’s all so backwards. Look at the scientific study that was just published as a preprint (awaiting peer review) in The Lancet, entitled “The Effects of Reductions in United States Foreign Assistance on Global Health.” People, including children, are already dying from the abrupt cutoff of aid and the study matter-of-factly yet brutally lays out how many millions more will die in the coming years. All because we didn’t want to spend what amounts to well less than 1% of our federal budget. Our priorities as a country seem completely perverted.
Kate, thanks for listing all of this. I agree with everything you're saying. The system is completely upside down right now - dark money flooding politics, billionaires skating by tax-free, and politicians enriching themselves while basic human needs go unfunded. I haven’t read that Lancet study about global health aid cuts, but I’ll take your word for it. Absolutely heartbreaking.
Our current remedies are so bland they're sure to make little difference. We keep assuming the problem is just electing people with better morals, but that's proven to be a fantasy. Even those who campaign on having better morals still fall short in real or perceived ways.
What's sad is that so many people in power got there by convincing voters they're somehow immune to corruption, even as the evidence shows they're more susceptible and complicit than ever. "I'm the only one who can fix the corruption" becomes the campaign slogan of those most eager to cash in.
Congress won't suddenly wake up and be better because we call their offices and ask them to. They're operating exactly as the system is designed. I think citizens with enough time and resources to organize are the only way things will change.
Look, I appreciate your response, I really do. But I have to strongly disagree with your framing of the narrative, especially that electing people with better morals is a fantasy and won't do any good. Dems were against Citizens United and have tried campaign reform ever since but are constantly shut down by Republicans. Republicans were responsible for most of the watering down of the Stock Act. Republicans refuse to allow any ethics codes for SCOTUS. Republicans insist, year after year, on the efficacy of tax cuts for the rich and trickle-down economics, in spite of data that shows over and over, it's a myth. The rich get richer and income inequality grows by leaps and bounds. How many Republican votes did the Affordable Care Act get, even after incorporating hundreds of Republican amendments? One, as in 1, for a plan that has given tens of millions of Americans access to affordable health care and still they've tried to wreck it. Republicans packed SCOTUS with extreme conservatives by taking away Obama's turn to pick and then turning right around to give Trump another one he shouldn't have had and that has cost all of us dearly. And finally, it is Republicans in Congress who are absolutely sitting on their hands while authoritarianism runs rampant, while peoples' rights are shredded and while we are abandoning our responsibilities and alliances throughout the world. If more people hadn't believed the lies of Trump and MAGA, more Dems would've been elected and much of this damage would have been avoided. Elections have consequences. Yes it's an old saw but in my opinion, has never been more true.
You make compelling points about the obstruction of reform efforts. But are you saying that we just need to wait until the pendulum swings back toward Democrats enough that there are enough Dems in power to make this happen?
I'm not suggesting equivalence between the parties on these issues. I see the differences you've pointed out. But I am suggesting that the solution isn't just "elect more of the right people" – because despite clear evidence of corruption and ethics violations, voters keep saying legislative achievements don’t matter as much as charisma, and even well-intentioned elected officials find themselves caught in a system designed to resist fundamental change. That could be because “Democrats have a messaging problem” or “the media landscape is changing rapidly” but those excuses have existed for decades and mask what seems like the root cause: the people who get elected to Congress have the most to lose by reforms that lessen their power. And then all it takes is another pendulum swing and those efforts will be halted again. Why trust them to save us from them?
You may be overthinking it. Of course I'm not suggesting we wait, quite the contrary. But no matter how much time and resources citizens have, they will never, for example, pass a national referendum on campaign finance reform. But they certainly can put all of that time and those resources to work to elect people to state and federal offices who will work toward reform. That's our system. I also really think we don't need more denigration of, or apathy toward, voting and elections. Already way too many people stay home. We should all be Wisconsin. Wisconsin was on the brink with its governor and supermajorities, taking away rights, packing their courts and instituting extreme gerrymandering to keep it that way. But the opposition party and the citizens put their time and resources to work. First came the governorship, which allowed them to stop the bleeding. Then they chipped away at the supermajorities. And finally, their Supreme Court. Now they'll be able to draw fairer districts, which we all know is the first step to better governance. They even overcame Elon Musk, for crying out loud! I'm not saying I'd look good in a cheese head but I'd certainly love to see the Wisconsin story written all over the U.S. in the next few years.
It's interesting how much we're agreeing while seeming to disagree. We both want the same outcomes but see different paths to get there.
To be clear, I'm not denigrating voting at all - I just see voter apathy as a symptom of our broken system, not the cause. When people don't feel their votes translate to meaningful change in their lives, they disengage. That's not their fault; it's a rational response to a system that often feels rigged regardless of who wins. (I always vote no matter the quality of the options on my ballot, but that's easy for me to say because I have the resources to make voting relatively easy.)
That's probably why when I read POVs from independent voters who ended up casting their vote for Trump but are now feeling horrified about what is currently going on, when asked if they are regretting their vote for Trump, they are all still saying an emphatic "no", because they didn't think the alternative option was even an option. That's pretty striking, right? Even when they see their savings and their businesses vanish, they still think it was preferable to what Harris had to offer? And even though I think the choice for Harris was an obvious one for almost everyone's self interest, I do not think she was the best candidate for winning an election. This is coming from someone who traveled out of state to canvass for her. I really like her and thought she would make a great president. I still want her to be out there doing the great work she's always done. But one doesn't need to look further than our insane primary system for evidence that the system isn't designed for giving voters reason to believe they are being accurately represented. And the best ideas aren't going to come from just two political parties that anyone can take seriously. We need more competition. But when we read about the parties reforming primaries, it seems like the only conversation has been about which state gets to vote first, instead of why any state should be going before any other. Only a few states get power in the decision, and then all the other states vote later when the decision has already been made. Those in power have no incentive to change the rules that benefit them.
Wisconsin's story is absolutely refreshing and worth celebrating. That kind of organized citizen action is exactly what I'm advocating for! But I'm also aware of how incredibly expensive that fight was, how many resources it required, and how exceptional it is. Not every state will have the same outcome even with similar effort. Wisconsin worked because of several unique factors - its purple state status, its history of progressive politics, and some luck in timing. A billionaire unabashedly throwing money at voters was not a great strategy with people who have an independent streak. Next time they might be a little more subtle.
What I'm suggesting is that we need to look at how other successful democracies structure their elections and accountability systems. The U.S. is falling behind on measures of democratic health compared to countries with public financing of elections, independent redistricting, ranked choice voting, and stronger ethics enforcement mechanisms that don't rely on self-policing.
I'm not saying don't vote or don't work to elect better people; that remains important, hard work. I'm saying while we do that, let's also build grassroots movements specifically focused on changing the rules of the game. Our current abysmal track record of holding Congress accountable through existing frameworks suggests we need additional approaches running in parallel.
Maybe I'm wrong to be optimistic about reform coming from outside the system. But I think we need both electoral engagement AND pressure from outside the system to create meaningful change. Would you agree with that framing?
Not really but that’s okay. This whole exchange kind of encapsulates the Democratic Party today: everyone is pretty much in agreement about where we need to go but people have many different ideas of how to get there. We’ll need all of us to figure it out.
I appreciate this discussion so much and want to share a reflection of how I felt when I watched the 2003 comedy “Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde.” Despite the comedy, I remember feeling sad at the state of politics in Washington. And how much worse is it now?
They should ban gov. officials from trading stock full stop. Apparently they don’t have the willpower to just be decent people and abide by the rules already in place. So let’s ban it, and start holding people accountable.
It’s called being a “public servant” for a reason- these aren’t meant to be particularly lucrative jobs. We need people in the job that do it because they care, not because they want to make a ton of money.
Exactly, we need people who care. This is why I have always been in favor of term limits. Being a member of Congress should not be a life-long career goal. I don't think Congress should be trading stocks, and none of their family members should be, either.
Agreed. I've been applying for jobs and so many of them ask questions like, "do you or a family member work for such-and-such company?" Presumably to prevent misconduct. Weird how our top leaders are exempt from the rules the rest of us have to follow.
Many republicans have long claimed to be against insider trading when it was people like Nancy Pelosi in the crosshairs. Here’s to hoping they actual back up their claims with action.
The MTG situation is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to congressional stock trading. Did you see that NYT piece about Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr., freshman from PA? This guy literally campaigned on banning stock trading in Congress, trashed his opponent for not co-sponsoring legislation on it, then turned around and made 264 stock trades in his first two months in office! He bought up to $1.7 million and sold $3.03 million in stocks, including in companies directly related to his committee assignments. His spokesperson claims he's "working on his own bill" (sure, buddy, something wrong with the ones already in progress?) and that he doesn't control his own trades (the classic "blind trust" defense).
It's the same story every time - these folks run on cleaning up Washington, then dive headfirst into the swamp once elected. We're approaching this all wrong. Why do we keep expecting Congress to regulate itself on conflicts of interest? The STOCK Act was a joke - a measly $200 fine that nobody has ever had to pay. These new bills sound promising, but how many times are we going to watch this same movie?
We need independent ethics oversight run by regular citizens, not politicians protecting their own interests. I've started gathering a group to brainstorm implementing these reforms from the grassroots level. If you're interested in joining us, send me a direct message here on Substack. I'm actively checking all my message folders, so please reach out directly rather than asking me to contact you. I've had plenty of people express interest but then never open my message when I reach out–I’m guessing because messages from strangers are filtered and they haven’t been notified. If you message me first, I promise I'll see it and respond. It’s just a non-partisan group of regular people sharing ideas and relevant backgrounds/skills if they have them, but no resume or time commitment necessary.
We need average folks holding these people accountable - clearly they won't do it themselves. Putting an end to partisan gerrymandering, implementing primary reforms, ranked choice voting… let’s actually get it done. 😍
What I'm about to say may ruffle some feathers (based on current sentiments toward congresspeople) so let me preface with this: I fully support legislation that limits or denies members of our federal government the opportunity to trade individual stocks.
HOWEVER (here's my 'unpopular' stance)...We must first support raising the salaries of those who serve.
Currently, the annual salary for congresspeople is $174K. While this is substantially more than the 'average' salary in the U.S., congresspeople incur many expenses that the average American does not. The greatest of which is maintaining two households--one in D.C. Barack Obama lamented that while he was a senator (IL), he could only afford a small apartment a couple of blocks away from the capitol. In order for the family to remain financially sound, Michelle kept her job in Chicago, and she and their daughters would visit D.C. on occasional weekends--all cramped in that one-bedroom apartment. While it is true that congress gets to vote themselves a raise, the rules governing if/when (27th Amendment) are anything but expedient, and make it politically unpopular. The last time was 2009. On it's face, I think we can all agree that if $174K was 'fair' in 2009--it is inherently unfair in 2025.
As Sharon's article implies--much of our attitudes toward congresspeople is based on perception. And, perception and optics can mean everything...but are often ill founded. I believe the reason that people are reluctant to support congressional pay raises is based on the fact that so many of us think that so many of them are 'rich', hence they don't deserve it. But--how are they getting rich? It certainly isn't from their paycheck. No...it's from seeking out, and seizing additional income streams. And, 'we-the-people' who chronically label congress as "greedy" are--in a phrase--setting them up. Unlike many who fall short financially, those in congress cannot get a second job. Even if they could, there are actually limits on the amount of additional income that a congressperson can earn each year--albeit with exceptions pertaining to the source(s) of that income.
Now, from a historical perspective, I'll make this statement: Paying legislators unfairly low salaries is the recipe for oligarchy. In the early days of our nation, a couple of states (I believe Massachusetts was one example) set their governor's salary at $1 per year. Now, I understand that a dollar was worth more in the 1790's than it is today...but even then, it was deliberately nothing more than a gratuitous gesture. The purpose of imposing a popper's wage to the governorship was to eliminate the possibility of a popper ever serving as governor.
In summary of my argument, I believe that we must dis/de-incentivize congresspeople from seeking additional income. We are only dreaming if we think that legislation to limit/deny congresspeople from seeking alternative income sources will pass unless/until we let congress know that we support a substantial raise of their base salary.
Exactly, Kate. This is a great example of the concept: "Compromise breeds success." And in this case, we're not talking about compromise between D's and R's...rather Congress and the people.
It doesn't feel like a bad suggestion at all. I think that when people feel good about their elected officials and secure in the belief they are truly doing the work they were elected to do, supporting them doesn't feel like a bad thing. I've always felt the same about taxes - that when people feel that their government is doing a good job and truly helping them, taxes don't feel like a waste/burden. Of course, there will always be a bunch of people who won't see or appreciate the ways they're being supported and there's nothing to be done about that.
Then comes the difficult decision to the give the reward first in the hope that it creates the benefit. Everyone has been burned too many times to do that, unfortunately. Hopefully we can all work that out.
I get it. It would be too tempting not to act on insider knowledge. And for that reason, there needs to be boundaries around it. We're talking about human beings here. I don't put a lot of stock in our ability to make fair decisions especially when power and money are involved.
I agree with Hakeem Jeffries. Congress should not be able to buy stocks. Perhaps that would solve our term limit problem too. We desperately need people with a sincere desire to serve our country/state/region/town in these positions.
I did not have “agrees with Chip Roy” on my 2025 Bingo card. A vast majority of the time, I am calling his office in strong protest (E.g. SAVE Act). I could hear Sharon’s voice in my head this morning to call elected officials when they do something *good*, so I called his office to share my support for the TRUST in Congress Act.
I am also in favor of moving to a socialist democracy- like most of the free world. The socialist democracies have larger middle classes and far fewer in the poverty class. They tax their wealthy more equitably and this results in a healthier society. Enough of our billionaire protection rackets.
It's unconscionable that they're not required to at least put everything in a blind trust.
And with that kind of national poll number of bipartisan support, if they don't do something about it, they are all showing how corrupt and selfish they really are.
I don't think being a congressperson should be an avenue to get filthy rich. That's a large part of the reason we have the characters in there that we do now. They're not interested in actually helping their constituents. It's all a show, and they have completely forgotten that they're supposed to work for US.
I completely agree, Trina. Which is why we need to find legally expedient, realistic strategies to remove congresspeople's incentive to seize nefarious methods of salary enhancement. Right now, legislators in D.C. are comprised of two types of individuals: Those who were relatively wealthy before running for congress, or those who are forced to seek wealth after being elected to congress. This has to change.
So excited about the next season of book club. I didn’t realize Antonia Hylton is the podcaster of south lake and grapevine. It’s horrible what those school districts are doing in DFW. I’m most excited about Steve’s workshops!
And yes, way past time to do something about Congress and stock trading! But, please the people benefiting from this are not going to do anything about it.
I think they shouldn’t be allowed to buy stocks. I’m visiting my family now that is my bil who works for the SEC and they are very maga but identify as libertarians and conservative so it was interesting to see him use terms like “not with this administration”. I think they were making sure to not say anything but he said he’d requested an accommodation because of the commute and the fact that he is basically gone from 6a to 8p with a pregnant wife and young children, and she also works ft. I’m making sure I leave without asking about the hegseth new scandal because I know the incompetence has to make them angry. To go from having someone like Jim Mattis to someone like Pete Hegseth, I’m resisting the urge to ask about the scandal that came out last night about the second signal chat. I think my bil actually really liked his job and I hope he keeps it but I don’t see that happening with how the outlook seemed around job security and the administrative vision, especially since he worked in crypto.
Sweepstakes usually have a clause in their contract that those who are working for the company or immediate family are not allowed to apply. This is to prevent looking like they might have rigged the sweepstake. This should also be the case for stocks.
Sharon, thank you for mentioning bi-partisan bills. It’s always encouraging to hear when there are people who actually reach across the aisle to work together.
Oh, capitalism. I’m getting kind of sick of it or at least our version of it. Citizens United opened up the floodgates of dark money in our elections and governance. Multi-billionaire people and corporations pay no income tax. People make $40 or $50 million a year for throwing, hitting or kicking a ball. The President and his family are raking in hundreds of millions in crypto schemes promoted by the government. Legislators cash in with stock trading and then again with lobbying. SCOTUS justices are wined and dined with luxury trips and gifts. But we can’t afford school lunches, health care for the poor or veterans housing programs. It’s all so backwards. Look at the scientific study that was just published as a preprint (awaiting peer review) in The Lancet, entitled “The Effects of Reductions in United States Foreign Assistance on Global Health.” People, including children, are already dying from the abrupt cutoff of aid and the study matter-of-factly yet brutally lays out how many millions more will die in the coming years. All because we didn’t want to spend what amounts to well less than 1% of our federal budget. Our priorities as a country seem completely perverted.
Kate, thanks for listing all of this. I agree with everything you're saying. The system is completely upside down right now - dark money flooding politics, billionaires skating by tax-free, and politicians enriching themselves while basic human needs go unfunded. I haven’t read that Lancet study about global health aid cuts, but I’ll take your word for it. Absolutely heartbreaking.
Our current remedies are so bland they're sure to make little difference. We keep assuming the problem is just electing people with better morals, but that's proven to be a fantasy. Even those who campaign on having better morals still fall short in real or perceived ways.
What's sad is that so many people in power got there by convincing voters they're somehow immune to corruption, even as the evidence shows they're more susceptible and complicit than ever. "I'm the only one who can fix the corruption" becomes the campaign slogan of those most eager to cash in.
Congress won't suddenly wake up and be better because we call their offices and ask them to. They're operating exactly as the system is designed. I think citizens with enough time and resources to organize are the only way things will change.
Look, I appreciate your response, I really do. But I have to strongly disagree with your framing of the narrative, especially that electing people with better morals is a fantasy and won't do any good. Dems were against Citizens United and have tried campaign reform ever since but are constantly shut down by Republicans. Republicans were responsible for most of the watering down of the Stock Act. Republicans refuse to allow any ethics codes for SCOTUS. Republicans insist, year after year, on the efficacy of tax cuts for the rich and trickle-down economics, in spite of data that shows over and over, it's a myth. The rich get richer and income inequality grows by leaps and bounds. How many Republican votes did the Affordable Care Act get, even after incorporating hundreds of Republican amendments? One, as in 1, for a plan that has given tens of millions of Americans access to affordable health care and still they've tried to wreck it. Republicans packed SCOTUS with extreme conservatives by taking away Obama's turn to pick and then turning right around to give Trump another one he shouldn't have had and that has cost all of us dearly. And finally, it is Republicans in Congress who are absolutely sitting on their hands while authoritarianism runs rampant, while peoples' rights are shredded and while we are abandoning our responsibilities and alliances throughout the world. If more people hadn't believed the lies of Trump and MAGA, more Dems would've been elected and much of this damage would have been avoided. Elections have consequences. Yes it's an old saw but in my opinion, has never been more true.
You make compelling points about the obstruction of reform efforts. But are you saying that we just need to wait until the pendulum swings back toward Democrats enough that there are enough Dems in power to make this happen?
I'm not suggesting equivalence between the parties on these issues. I see the differences you've pointed out. But I am suggesting that the solution isn't just "elect more of the right people" – because despite clear evidence of corruption and ethics violations, voters keep saying legislative achievements don’t matter as much as charisma, and even well-intentioned elected officials find themselves caught in a system designed to resist fundamental change. That could be because “Democrats have a messaging problem” or “the media landscape is changing rapidly” but those excuses have existed for decades and mask what seems like the root cause: the people who get elected to Congress have the most to lose by reforms that lessen their power. And then all it takes is another pendulum swing and those efforts will be halted again. Why trust them to save us from them?
You may be overthinking it. Of course I'm not suggesting we wait, quite the contrary. But no matter how much time and resources citizens have, they will never, for example, pass a national referendum on campaign finance reform. But they certainly can put all of that time and those resources to work to elect people to state and federal offices who will work toward reform. That's our system. I also really think we don't need more denigration of, or apathy toward, voting and elections. Already way too many people stay home. We should all be Wisconsin. Wisconsin was on the brink with its governor and supermajorities, taking away rights, packing their courts and instituting extreme gerrymandering to keep it that way. But the opposition party and the citizens put their time and resources to work. First came the governorship, which allowed them to stop the bleeding. Then they chipped away at the supermajorities. And finally, their Supreme Court. Now they'll be able to draw fairer districts, which we all know is the first step to better governance. They even overcame Elon Musk, for crying out loud! I'm not saying I'd look good in a cheese head but I'd certainly love to see the Wisconsin story written all over the U.S. in the next few years.
It's interesting how much we're agreeing while seeming to disagree. We both want the same outcomes but see different paths to get there.
To be clear, I'm not denigrating voting at all - I just see voter apathy as a symptom of our broken system, not the cause. When people don't feel their votes translate to meaningful change in their lives, they disengage. That's not their fault; it's a rational response to a system that often feels rigged regardless of who wins. (I always vote no matter the quality of the options on my ballot, but that's easy for me to say because I have the resources to make voting relatively easy.)
That's probably why when I read POVs from independent voters who ended up casting their vote for Trump but are now feeling horrified about what is currently going on, when asked if they are regretting their vote for Trump, they are all still saying an emphatic "no", because they didn't think the alternative option was even an option. That's pretty striking, right? Even when they see their savings and their businesses vanish, they still think it was preferable to what Harris had to offer? And even though I think the choice for Harris was an obvious one for almost everyone's self interest, I do not think she was the best candidate for winning an election. This is coming from someone who traveled out of state to canvass for her. I really like her and thought she would make a great president. I still want her to be out there doing the great work she's always done. But one doesn't need to look further than our insane primary system for evidence that the system isn't designed for giving voters reason to believe they are being accurately represented. And the best ideas aren't going to come from just two political parties that anyone can take seriously. We need more competition. But when we read about the parties reforming primaries, it seems like the only conversation has been about which state gets to vote first, instead of why any state should be going before any other. Only a few states get power in the decision, and then all the other states vote later when the decision has already been made. Those in power have no incentive to change the rules that benefit them.
Wisconsin's story is absolutely refreshing and worth celebrating. That kind of organized citizen action is exactly what I'm advocating for! But I'm also aware of how incredibly expensive that fight was, how many resources it required, and how exceptional it is. Not every state will have the same outcome even with similar effort. Wisconsin worked because of several unique factors - its purple state status, its history of progressive politics, and some luck in timing. A billionaire unabashedly throwing money at voters was not a great strategy with people who have an independent streak. Next time they might be a little more subtle.
What I'm suggesting is that we need to look at how other successful democracies structure their elections and accountability systems. The U.S. is falling behind on measures of democratic health compared to countries with public financing of elections, independent redistricting, ranked choice voting, and stronger ethics enforcement mechanisms that don't rely on self-policing.
I'm not saying don't vote or don't work to elect better people; that remains important, hard work. I'm saying while we do that, let's also build grassroots movements specifically focused on changing the rules of the game. Our current abysmal track record of holding Congress accountable through existing frameworks suggests we need additional approaches running in parallel.
Maybe I'm wrong to be optimistic about reform coming from outside the system. But I think we need both electoral engagement AND pressure from outside the system to create meaningful change. Would you agree with that framing?
Not really but that’s okay. This whole exchange kind of encapsulates the Democratic Party today: everyone is pretty much in agreement about where we need to go but people have many different ideas of how to get there. We’ll need all of us to figure it out.
I appreciate this discussion so much and want to share a reflection of how I felt when I watched the 2003 comedy “Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde.” Despite the comedy, I remember feeling sad at the state of politics in Washington. And how much worse is it now?
I am adding that study to my to-read list. Thanks so much for the recommomendation.
They should ban gov. officials from trading stock full stop. Apparently they don’t have the willpower to just be decent people and abide by the rules already in place. So let’s ban it, and start holding people accountable.
It’s called being a “public servant” for a reason- these aren’t meant to be particularly lucrative jobs. We need people in the job that do it because they care, not because they want to make a ton of money.
Exactly, we need people who care. This is why I have always been in favor of term limits. Being a member of Congress should not be a life-long career goal. I don't think Congress should be trading stocks, and none of their family members should be, either.
Agreed. I've been applying for jobs and so many of them ask questions like, "do you or a family member work for such-and-such company?" Presumably to prevent misconduct. Weird how our top leaders are exempt from the rules the rest of us have to follow.
Many republicans have long claimed to be against insider trading when it was people like Nancy Pelosi in the crosshairs. Here’s to hoping they actual back up their claims with action.
Fingers crossed
The MTG situation is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to congressional stock trading. Did you see that NYT piece about Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr., freshman from PA? This guy literally campaigned on banning stock trading in Congress, trashed his opponent for not co-sponsoring legislation on it, then turned around and made 264 stock trades in his first two months in office! He bought up to $1.7 million and sold $3.03 million in stocks, including in companies directly related to his committee assignments. His spokesperson claims he's "working on his own bill" (sure, buddy, something wrong with the ones already in progress?) and that he doesn't control his own trades (the classic "blind trust" defense).
It's the same story every time - these folks run on cleaning up Washington, then dive headfirst into the swamp once elected. We're approaching this all wrong. Why do we keep expecting Congress to regulate itself on conflicts of interest? The STOCK Act was a joke - a measly $200 fine that nobody has ever had to pay. These new bills sound promising, but how many times are we going to watch this same movie?
We need independent ethics oversight run by regular citizens, not politicians protecting their own interests. I've started gathering a group to brainstorm implementing these reforms from the grassroots level. If you're interested in joining us, send me a direct message here on Substack. I'm actively checking all my message folders, so please reach out directly rather than asking me to contact you. I've had plenty of people express interest but then never open my message when I reach out–I’m guessing because messages from strangers are filtered and they haven’t been notified. If you message me first, I promise I'll see it and respond. It’s just a non-partisan group of regular people sharing ideas and relevant backgrounds/skills if they have them, but no resume or time commitment necessary.
We need average folks holding these people accountable - clearly they won't do it themselves. Putting an end to partisan gerrymandering, implementing primary reforms, ranked choice voting… let’s actually get it done. 😍
What I'm about to say may ruffle some feathers (based on current sentiments toward congresspeople) so let me preface with this: I fully support legislation that limits or denies members of our federal government the opportunity to trade individual stocks.
HOWEVER (here's my 'unpopular' stance)...We must first support raising the salaries of those who serve.
Currently, the annual salary for congresspeople is $174K. While this is substantially more than the 'average' salary in the U.S., congresspeople incur many expenses that the average American does not. The greatest of which is maintaining two households--one in D.C. Barack Obama lamented that while he was a senator (IL), he could only afford a small apartment a couple of blocks away from the capitol. In order for the family to remain financially sound, Michelle kept her job in Chicago, and she and their daughters would visit D.C. on occasional weekends--all cramped in that one-bedroom apartment. While it is true that congress gets to vote themselves a raise, the rules governing if/when (27th Amendment) are anything but expedient, and make it politically unpopular. The last time was 2009. On it's face, I think we can all agree that if $174K was 'fair' in 2009--it is inherently unfair in 2025.
As Sharon's article implies--much of our attitudes toward congresspeople is based on perception. And, perception and optics can mean everything...but are often ill founded. I believe the reason that people are reluctant to support congressional pay raises is based on the fact that so many of us think that so many of them are 'rich', hence they don't deserve it. But--how are they getting rich? It certainly isn't from their paycheck. No...it's from seeking out, and seizing additional income streams. And, 'we-the-people' who chronically label congress as "greedy" are--in a phrase--setting them up. Unlike many who fall short financially, those in congress cannot get a second job. Even if they could, there are actually limits on the amount of additional income that a congressperson can earn each year--albeit with exceptions pertaining to the source(s) of that income.
Now, from a historical perspective, I'll make this statement: Paying legislators unfairly low salaries is the recipe for oligarchy. In the early days of our nation, a couple of states (I believe Massachusetts was one example) set their governor's salary at $1 per year. Now, I understand that a dollar was worth more in the 1790's than it is today...but even then, it was deliberately nothing more than a gratuitous gesture. The purpose of imposing a popper's wage to the governorship was to eliminate the possibility of a popper ever serving as governor.
In summary of my argument, I believe that we must dis/de-incentivize congresspeople from seeking additional income. We are only dreaming if we think that legislation to limit/deny congresspeople from seeking alternative income sources will pass unless/until we let congress know that we support a substantial raise of their base salary.
Completely agree Todd! It would also help folks from less wealthy backgrounds afford to run and serve.
You make some very interesting points. Maybe a salary increase could be packaged with prohibitions on stock trading and lobbying.
Exactly, Kate. This is a great example of the concept: "Compromise breeds success." And in this case, we're not talking about compromise between D's and R's...rather Congress and the people.
You raised some really interesting points that I hadn't considered before. Thanks for sharing. I'm going to spend some time thinking about this.
Replying again as I hear Scott Galloway reference The Singapore Model on his podcast this week - they pay their representatives very well but have strict penalties for any corruption, so there is precedence for this! Singapore ministers get 60 pct pay hike to $1.3 mln - https://www.reuters.com/article/world/singapore-ministers-get-60-pct-pay-hike-to-13-mln-idUSSIN81683/
It doesn't feel like a bad suggestion at all. I think that when people feel good about their elected officials and secure in the belief they are truly doing the work they were elected to do, supporting them doesn't feel like a bad thing. I've always felt the same about taxes - that when people feel that their government is doing a good job and truly helping them, taxes don't feel like a waste/burden. Of course, there will always be a bunch of people who won't see or appreciate the ways they're being supported and there's nothing to be done about that.
Then comes the difficult decision to the give the reward first in the hope that it creates the benefit. Everyone has been burned too many times to do that, unfortunately. Hopefully we can all work that out.
I get it. It would be too tempting not to act on insider knowledge. And for that reason, there needs to be boundaries around it. We're talking about human beings here. I don't put a lot of stock in our ability to make fair decisions especially when power and money are involved.
This is such a good point. I think we all like to imagine ourselves as above the temptation to act unethically. But humans gonna human
I agree with Hakeem Jeffries. Congress should not be able to buy stocks. Perhaps that would solve our term limit problem too. We desperately need people with a sincere desire to serve our country/state/region/town in these positions.
I did not have “agrees with Chip Roy” on my 2025 Bingo card. A vast majority of the time, I am calling his office in strong protest (E.g. SAVE Act). I could hear Sharon’s voice in my head this morning to call elected officials when they do something *good*, so I called his office to share my support for the TRUST in Congress Act.
I am also in favor of moving to a socialist democracy- like most of the free world. The socialist democracies have larger middle classes and far fewer in the poverty class. They tax their wealthy more equitably and this results in a healthier society. Enough of our billionaire protection rackets.
It's unconscionable that they're not required to at least put everything in a blind trust.
And with that kind of national poll number of bipartisan support, if they don't do something about it, they are all showing how corrupt and selfish they really are.
I really miss Governerds Insider, but I deleted my IG account. It doesn’t seem to make sense to join anymore without IG.
Have an account solely for that purpose! I am debating that myself and ditching all others
I don't think being a congressperson should be an avenue to get filthy rich. That's a large part of the reason we have the characters in there that we do now. They're not interested in actually helping their constituents. It's all a show, and they have completely forgotten that they're supposed to work for US.
I completely agree, Trina. Which is why we need to find legally expedient, realistic strategies to remove congresspeople's incentive to seize nefarious methods of salary enhancement. Right now, legislators in D.C. are comprised of two types of individuals: Those who were relatively wealthy before running for congress, or those who are forced to seek wealth after being elected to congress. This has to change.
So excited about the next season of book club. I didn’t realize Antonia Hylton is the podcaster of south lake and grapevine. It’s horrible what those school districts are doing in DFW. I’m most excited about Steve’s workshops!
And yes, way past time to do something about Congress and stock trading! But, please the people benefiting from this are not going to do anything about it.
I think they shouldn’t be allowed to buy stocks. I’m visiting my family now that is my bil who works for the SEC and they are very maga but identify as libertarians and conservative so it was interesting to see him use terms like “not with this administration”. I think they were making sure to not say anything but he said he’d requested an accommodation because of the commute and the fact that he is basically gone from 6a to 8p with a pregnant wife and young children, and she also works ft. I’m making sure I leave without asking about the hegseth new scandal because I know the incompetence has to make them angry. To go from having someone like Jim Mattis to someone like Pete Hegseth, I’m resisting the urge to ask about the scandal that came out last night about the second signal chat. I think my bil actually really liked his job and I hope he keeps it but I don’t see that happening with how the outlook seemed around job security and the administrative vision, especially since he worked in crypto.
Sweepstakes usually have a clause in their contract that those who are working for the company or immediate family are not allowed to apply. This is to prevent looking like they might have rigged the sweepstake. This should also be the case for stocks.
Sharon, thank you for mentioning bi-partisan bills. It’s always encouraging to hear when there are people who actually reach across the aisle to work together.