WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives voted Wednesday to restrict members of Congress from purchasing individual stocks, advancing an ethics proposal that lawmakers from both parties have long supported but never managed to turn into law.
The bill cleared the chamber 232-198, with some Democrats joining the Republican majority in the vote. The timing was notable, coming just as lawmakers were heading home to campaign before the midterm elections, with Republicans eager to demonstrate progress on an issue that has become a symbol of public frustration with Washington.
However, the victory was complicated by two Republican-added provisions: one that would exempt the president from the stock trading ban, and another that would attach an unrelated voter identification requirement to the bill. Those additions drove away many Democrats who might otherwise have supported the measure, and the bill’s prospects in the Senate remain unclear.
Rep. Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, was blunt in his criticism before the vote. “This bill, quite simply, is a sham,” he said on the House floor, calling the voter ID provision a “poison pill” deliberately designed to doom the legislation.
Supporters of the bill, formally titled the Stop Insider Trading Act, described it as the most meaningful step Congress has ever taken to rein in stock trading by its own members.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, acknowledged he had hoped for a stronger measure. “I had legislation that would have required divestiture. I preferred that approach,” he 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 wrote the legislation, called it “transformational.”
Critics pushed back, arguing the bill falls well short of a genuine trading ban. Under its terms, lawmakers could keep any stocks they already own and would still be allowed to sell them — they would just need to give public notice at least seven days before doing so. The bill would prohibit members of Congress, along with their spouses and dependent children, from purchasing individual stocks while serving in office. Certain investments, including widely held investment funds and some trust-held assets, would be exempt.
The bipartisan support the bill had built up weakened further when Republicans added the voter ID provision — a central element of a separate election measure backed by President Donald Trump that has repeatedly stalled in the Senate.
Notably, the legislation does not apply to the president or vice president. President Donald Trump disclosed in May that during the first quarter of this year, he made more than 3,600 buy and sell orders, many involving companies whose bottom lines have been directly affected by his decisions in office.
Outside ethics organizations were critical of the final product. The Campaign Legal Center urged Congress to vote the measure down, 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 every Republican backed the bill either. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who lost his primary earlier this year to a candidate backed by President Trump, took aim at his own party for inserting the voter ID language. “Republicans added voter-ID in the legislation. Not to get Dems to vote for voter-ID,” Massie wrote on social media. “But to get them to vote against the stock trading ban, so they can use it in the Nov. election.”
Congressional stock trading has grown into a major campaign issue in recent election cycles, with candidates from across the political spectrum calling for an end to the practice. Lawmakers have faced ethics scrutiny and, in some cases, criminal investigations over trades critics say were made using nonpublic information gained through their official duties.
Before Wednesday’s vote, a number of Republicans facing difficult reelection battles lined up to speak in support of the measure. “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.”
Momentum behind the issue gained steam last year when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., used a discharge petition to force a floor vote on a trading ban, bypassing House Republican leadership in the process.
