On stock trades and unionization, lawmakers face big ethical tests

On stock trades and unionization, lawmakers face big ethical tests

Paul Waldman — Read time: 3 minutes

Here’s a handy way to learn something important about your representatives in Congress: Ask whether they think they should be able to trade individual stocks, and how they feel about their own staff joining a union.

Let’s consider the stock question first. In December, a report in Insider revealed that members of Congress were promiscuously violating the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, or Stock Act, which requires members to disclose any stock trades they make within 45 days.

To take just one example, freshman Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) is a particularly vigorous player of the markets. Insider found that he violated the Stock Act 132 times by not reporting trades totaling at least $894,000 on time.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was asked about whether she’d support a bill banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks at all, she was dismissive. “We’re a free-market economy,” she said."They should be able to participate in that.”

But now, perhaps responding to strongly-worded opinion pieces criticizing her position, Pelosi has come around. According to Punchbowl News, she’s working with other House Democrats to fashion a bill that would ban members from trading individual stocks.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) agrees, and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) has already written a bill banning the practice. Even some Republicans support the idea.

The problem here isn’t just about timely reporting. There’s a long and unfortunate history of members of Congress using the knowledge they gain, whether through classified briefings or just the ordinary work of legislation, to enrich themselves with well-timed stock trades. Sometimes it results in convictions for insider trading, sometimes it looks incredibly fishy, but most of the time you just never hear about it.

Even when it’s not corrupt, it feeds the widespread belief among the public that Congress is corrupt, which creates cynicism and division.

So why not just say that as long as you serve in Congress, you must either keep the stocks you have and see how they do until you leave office, or put your holdings into mutual funds, which is what smart people do anyway? Why would that be some kind of hardship?

Let’s ask Tuberville. “I think it’s ridiculous. They might as well start sending robots up here,” he told a reporter when asked about these proposals. “I think it would really cut back on the amount of people that would want to come up here and serve.”

Indeed, what’s the point of being in Congress if you can’t trade individual stocks? It’s not like it’s supposed to be a public service or something.

Now let’s consider the unionization question. Poor treatment of congressional staffers is notorious: underpaid, overworked and subject to the whims of bosses for whom a gigantic ego is practically its own job requirement. If you interviewed in any other sector and saw every wall covered with pictures of the boss, you’d probably run. But that’s what a congressional office looks like, and Capitol Hill is full of stories of tyrannical members creating toxic workplaces.

So some staffers are coming together around the idea of forming a union, or joining an existing one. So far, Pelosi and Schumer have come out in favor of the idea. And Tuesday, the White House confirmed that President Biden supports congressional staffers unionizing.

But if you had to guess which Democrat isn’t so enthusiastic, what name would you pick? That’s right, Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia.

When asked about it, Manchin offered up a word salad that appeared to indicate skepticism. He implied in a vague way that serving the people of West Virginia and having the best staff he can might not be compatible with unionization.

A different Democrat would say the opposite is true: Unions ensure good pay and fair treatment, and when staff members are paid adequately and treated with respect, they perform better. Perhaps Manchin will come to a different opinion once he has had a chance to think about it, much like Pelosi did on stock trading.

These will serve as good tests of where members of Congress stand — not just on public policy, but on how they think of their own personal obligations to the public and the people who work for them. It should be quite revealing.