THE STOCK ACT - THE SCHEME THAT KEEPS ON TRADING

The proposed reform keeps changing hands, changing versions, gaining provisions, losing provisions, becoming another bill, another vote and another promise. Meanwhile, the actual trading continues.

But before asking why Congress cannot seem to pass the fucking ban everybody says they want, there is another question worth asking: What exactly does the public think members of Congress are doing?

Ask an ordinary American how politicians become considerably wealthier while holding public office and you will hear some version of the same answer: insider trading, political connections, stock investments, real estate, business opportunities and access to people and deals ordinary citizens would never have. Ask for the name of a politician associated with stock trading and Nancy Pelosi's name frequently enters the conversation almost immediately. Rick Scott’s name comes up. Other names follow depending on whom you ask. Dianne Feinstein’s name still sometimes comes up even though she died in 2023, which says something about how long these perceptions can remain attached to a public figure. That is why the public suspicion surrounding congressional wealth has become almost inseparable from this debate.

Pelosi did not become synonymous with congressional stock trading because somebody randomly pulled her name out of a hat. She and her husband, Paul Pelosi, have long been an active investor, and transactions reported through Pelosi’s congressional financial disclosures became so closely watched that services and investment products were created specifically to track or mimic congressional portfolios, including Pelosi-linked trading. Pelosi also publicly defended lawmakers’ ability to participate in the stock market in 2021, saying America is a free-market economy and lawmakers should be able to participate in it. THE FF…EXPRESS took note of that, because Pelosi later supported moving toward restrictions. Those facts help explain why her name became attached to this issue; they do not answer the larger question Congress is still fighting over today: Should the people writing laws capable of affecting companies and markets be actively buying and selling individual companies in those markets?  

But public suspicion is not evidence of insider trading, and wealth is not evidence of corruption. If THE FF… EXPRESS is going to ask whether members of Congress are financially benefiting from the offices they hold, then we have to do something considerably less entertaining than repeating the names everybody already suspects. Does that mean that every member of Congress who owns stock is corrupt? Does that mean that every profitable transaction is suspicious? Does it mean that every well-timed trade proves insider trading? Without proof, the short answer should be no, but we at THE FF...EXPRESS give you the information, ask the uncomfortable questions, and let you decide it for yourself.

Congress has known for years that Americans have a problem with this arrangement. They have also spent years telling Americans that members of Congress should not be able to use public office as a private investment advantage.

In 2012, the STOCK Act passed the House with a 417–2 vote, and the House passed another stock-trading bill this summer. The Senate voted on it again on September 30, 2026. And after all the legislation, hearings, promises, disclosures, amendments, press conferences and increasingly creative names for bills designed to stop Congress from trading stocks, members of Congress can still own and trade individual stocks under existing federal law - while Congress is still debating how Congress should stop Congress from doing something Congress has the power to stop Congress from doing.

FIRST: WHAT THE STOCK ACT ACTUALLY DID

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, cleverly shortened to the STOCK Act explicitly states that members of Congress and congressional staff are not exempt from federal securities laws, and are subject to federal insider-trading law. What that means in plain FF…Express language is that members of Congress cannot use non-public information for their own personal profit. So, if you and I can’t do it, neither can they. If you and I don’t have access to the same information, they can’t use that information either. Capiche?

Furthermore, according to the SEC testimony preceding passage of the STOCK Act, applying insider-trading law to congressional conduct could raise unusual factual and constitutional questions, but membership in Congress itself does not create an exemption. So, members of Congress are already subject to federal insider-trading law. The problem is larger and considerably more uncomfortable than that. Members of Congress write legislation, sit on committees, receive briefings, question regulators and corporate executives, vote on spending and taxes, and participate in decisions capable of affecting individual companies and entire industries. At the same time, federal law generally still permits them to have personal money invested in those markets. The conflict can exist without anyone ever committing a crime.

Ok, now slow down and read that again, because this will become even more frustrating a little later. But for now, remember this: Membership in Congress does not mean you are exempt. 

The STOCK Act also strengthened financial-disclosure requirements and created periodic transaction reporting requirements for covered securities activity, which means there are disclosure requirements that expressly address the use of material nonpublic information obtained through public service. In the Senate, covered purchases, sales and exchanges over $1,000 generally must be reported within 30 days after the filer receives notice of the transaction and no later than 45 days after the transaction occurred. Those reports are publicly available, which is one reason Americans can examine congressional trading in the first place.  

The problem Congress is debating now is not whether insider trading should be illegal. It already is. The question is whether members of Congress should be permitted to own and actively trade individual stocks while occupying positions that provide extraordinary access to information, legislation and government decision-making. The STOCK Act primarily attacks misuse and disclosure. The bills now fighting their way through Congress attack the underlying ability to make certain investments at all.

Think about that for a minute. What this says, is that the system is principally designed to tell us about the trade. BUT, it does not prohibit the members from making the trade. BUT - again, the House rules/regulations, prohibit members from holding assets that might conflict with, or influence official duties. And there are still other rules which prohibit using public office for personal gain, and securities laws prohibit unlawful insider trading, but the ownership itself is not comprehensively banned.  

Clear as mud?  I thought so.

THE STOCK ACT — THE SCHEME THAT KEEPS ON TRADING

The Stop Insider Trading Act, H.R. 7008, introduced by Republican House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, The bill PASSED in the House in July on a 232–198 vote. Every Republican voted Yes. Only 13 Democrats supported the measure, 198 Democrats voted against it. The one independent voted with the Republicans to support it. 

The latest attempt reached the Senate on September 30. Legislation (H.R. 7008) prohibits members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children from purchasing securities issued by publicly traded companies. It requires public notice at least seven days, but no more than fourteen days, before an intended sale. And, it would impose penalties for violations equal to at least $2,000 or 10 percent of the covered investment, whichever is greater, along with forfeiture of realized profit from prohibited transactions.

So: Purchase restriction; Advance notice before selling; and Penalties.
Got it. 

There is one enormous difference between stopping future purchases and getting members of Congress out of individual stocks altogether: the Stop Insider Trading Act does not require them to divest the individual stocks they already own. And while it imposes a substantial restriction on trading, it does not require members to get rid of individual stocks. 

The final House legislation combined the stock-trading restrictions with a requirement that voters present valid photo identification when voting. Democrats called the addition a poison pill, and argued that the requirements would make voting more difficult for some eligible voters and raised particular objections involving mail voting. Republicans defended that voter identification as common sense and a basic election-integrity measure that should not be controversial. And the entire package arrived at the Senate, where it needed 60 votes to advance. It got 53. 

Every Republican voted for it. 
Every Democrat voted against advancing it.

Whatever somebody thinks about voter ID—it created an obvious political problem for a bill, especially since Democrats have consistently refused to accept that Voter-ID is a necessary evil in the US. So, since Voter-ID seems to be the evil that pops its head in every conversation or unpasted bill, let’s briefly address that fucking elephant in the room. 

Is an ID necessary to conduct trading in the US? For the regular citizen an ID is required to obtain a trading account. For members of Congress, the answer is Yes, as there are specific regulations regarding stock trading, which specifically include identification requirements. 

For those of you who oppose the Voter-ID, and even for those of you who support it, THE FF…EXPRESS wants to ask you. 

Can the Voter-ID get its own bill?
Would the Voter-ID bill ever pass in the US?
If the answer is a resounding NO, then should the Voter-ID (since it is a US ID, and necessary for everyday transactions) be combined with the Insider Trading Act?

Here is a particularly interesting fact about the political argument around voter ID: a 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 83 percent of Americans favored requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification, including 95 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Democrats.  

THE FF…EXPRESS wants to know what you think. If roughly seven in ten Democratic voters in that Pew survey supported government-issued photo identification to vote, why did Senate Democrats treat voter ID as sufficient reason to help stop this legislation from advancing? 

Just asking … for a friend. 

Because the Democrats stated answer is that the specific federal requirements in this package went beyond the simple polling question of whether voters should show photo identification and could affect mail voting and eligible voters who lack qualifying documents. 

We at THE FF…EXPRESS say, put your money where your mouth is—and let Americans decide whether those objections justify rejecting the package. Because on September 30, every Senate Democrat voted against advancing it. Every Senate Republican voted to advance it. The motion received 53 votes to 47 and needed 60. The Stop Insider Trading Act stopped right there.  

THEN THERE IS THE BILL A REPUBLICAN AND A DEMOCRAT WROTE TOGETHER

In January, Republican Senator Ashley Moody of Florida and Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York introduced the Senate version of the Restore Trust in Congress Act.

Republican Senator Ashley Moody of Florida and Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York introduced the Restore Trust in Congress Act together in January 2026. Their Senate legislation accompanies a bipartisan House effort led by Republican Chip Roy and Democrat Seth Magaziner. At the time Moody and Gillibrand announced the Senate bill, the House proposal had 126 cosponsors and 79 representatives from both parties had signed a discharge petition intended to bring the legislation to the House floor. 

This proposal goes considerably further than the Stop Insider Trading Act. But before we go any further, really? They could not come up with anything more clever than restore trust in congress? I guess that says more about the bill than the bill itself. Moving on. 

The Restore Trust in Congress Act prohibits covered members of Congress, spouses, dependent children and trustees from owning, purchasing or selling individual stocks and certain other covered investments. Existing covered investments generally would have to be divested within 180 days for current covered individuals and within 90 days for newly covered individuals. Widely held diversified funds, Treasury securities, certain state and municipal securities and other specified investments would remain permissible. Violations would carry a fee equal to 10 percent of the covered investment’s value, and profits from prohibited transactions would have to be disgorged.  

Now we have an actual policy difference rather than competing fucking slogans. The Stop Insider Trading Act says, in effect, you cannot keep purchasing covered individual stocks, but you generally do not have to sell the covered stocks you already own.The Restore Trust in Congress Act says, in effect, you cannot keep the covered individual stocks either. Divest them.

And the people introducing that broader prohibition are a Republican and a Democrat together. Which raises another fucking question: If members of both parties already wrote a broader bill together, where is it?

EVERYBODY SAYS THEY WANT A BAN. THEY JUST DON’T MEAN THE SAME BAN.

This is where Washington’s language begins doing word acrobatics. Everybody can say ban congressional stock trading while meaning materially different things. One proposal prevents new purchases but allows existing individual stocks to remain. Another requires divestment. Some lawmakers want restrictions extended beyond Congress to the president and other executive-branch officials. Different proposals cover different assets, family members, trusts and exceptions. Then one congressional stock bill arrives in the Senate carrying a national voter-ID provision.

Yep - serious word acrobatics - but those are not trivial differences. They determine whether Senator Fuckhead merely stops buying NVIDIA tomorrow or whether Senator Fuckhead has to get the fucking NVIDIA out of the portfolio altogether.

Hope that helped you understand it better, cause it made us feel better writing it that way. 

And yet the political messaging becomes beautifully simple. Republicans can say: Democrats blocked our congressional stock-trading bill. On September 30, they did. Democrats can say: Your bill wasn’t a complete ban. It wasn’t a divestment ban. Democrats can say they support stronger restrictions. Some demonstrably do. Republicans can say they support stronger restrictions too. Some demonstrably do, including Ashley Moody, who sponsors the broader Restore Trust legislation while also supporting the Stop Insider Trading Act.  

Everybody gets a press release. Congress keeps its stocks.

THE PART THAT SHOULD MAKE EVERYBODY A LITTLE FUCKING UNCOMFORTABLE
The people writing the rules are the people living under the rules they write. 

So, what does that really mean? The lawmakers deciding whether existing individual-stock holdings must be sold can themselves own individual stocks. The people deciding how severe the penalties should be are writing penalties that could someday apply to themselves. The legislators deciding whether spouses and dependent children should be covered are determining how far the restrictions reach into their own household finances. 

That is not some exotic conspiracy theory. It is the unavoidable structure of congressional ethics legislation: Congress is regulating Congress.

Hmmm. Ok - let’s translate that a little more. 

The translation goes more like this:
Congress writes its own rules here. Think about that. 
The people deciding whether members of Congress may continue owning and trading individual stocks are…members of Congress. 
The people deciding how large the penalties should be are the people who could someday pay them. 
The people deciding whether existing holdings must be sold are the people who own the existing holdings, and, wait for it …  
The people deciding whether spouses should be covered are the spouses’ husbands and wives.

Did you get all that?  No? Read it again, because it is important, and because that structure creates one hell of an incentive for legislative language to matter. A politician can truthfully tell constituents, “I support banning congressional stock trading,” while supporting a bill that prohibits future purchases but preserves existing holdings. Another politician can use exactly the same sentence while supporting mandatory divestment. A third can insist that the president, Supreme Court or executive branch must be covered before supporting anything. All three can use the word ban while describing different fucking laws.

Meanwhile, Americans get disclosure forms.

WE told you - it is going to get worse - are you mad as fuck yet?

SO WHO THE FUCK IS BLOCKING IT?

On September 30, Senate Democrats voted against advancing the Republican-backed Stop Insider Trading Act. Republicans voted to advance it. Every Senate Democrat voted against advancing it. There is no reason to soften that sentence. The Senate’s own record shows the cloture motion failed 53–47, seven votes short of the 60 needed to overcome the procedural hurdle. That is what happened.   

So, who do you think blocked it? 

We at THE FF…EXPRESS say: Let every senator who has spent years explaining how desperately Congress needs to restore the public’s trust put a name next to an actual prohibition on owning and trading individual stocks. Then we won’t have to guess who supports what.

Because Congress has not passed a comprehensive prohibition that became federal law. And the proposed reform keeps changing hands, changing versions, gaining provisions, losing provisions, becoming another bill, another vote and another promise.

Meanwhile, the actual trading continues.