Why Members of Congress NEED To Banned from Trading Stocks - The Chris Cuomo Project

Summary of "Why Members of Congress NEED To Banned from Trading Stocks"

Podcast: The Chris Cuomo Project
Host: Chris Cuomo
Episode Title: Why Members of Congress NEED To Banned from Trading Stocks
Release Date: April 10, 2025

Introduction

In the episode titled "Why Members of Congress NEED To Banned from Trading Stocks," veteran journalist Chris Cuomo delves into the contentious issue of stock trading by members of Congress. He argues that allowing legislators to engage in stock trading presents significant conflicts of interest, undermines public trust, and necessitates immediate policy reform. Cuomo systematically dismantles the existing framework that permits such activities and underscores the urgent need for stricter regulations.

The Core Argument: Conflict of Interest and Lack of Trust

Cuomo begins by asserting that prohibiting stock trading among Congress members is a straightforward yet impactful change that would enhance government trustworthiness.

"Members of Congress should not be able to trade stocks. They should not be in the investment game when they are in public service." [00:00]

He emphasizes that the current allowance for stock trading creates a "semblance of impropriety," questioning how legislators can be trusted to make unbiased decisions when they have financial stakes in the companies affected by their legislation.

"How does that ever pass the smell test?" [00:45]

Comparative Standards: Sports Betting vs. Stock Trading

Cuomo draws a parallel between professional athletes betting on their own games and Congress members trading stocks related to their legislative actions. He highlights the irrationality of allowing such behavior in public service while strictly prohibiting it in sports.

"Why don't we allow players in professional sports to bet on their own games?... Because it doesn't pass the smell test. Oh, but members of Congress can. They can make bets on the companies that they are influencing." [03:15]

Current Legislative Framework and Its Failures

Examining the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012, Cuomo critiques its ineffectiveness. He points out the insufficient enforcement mechanisms and the lack of serious penalties for violations.

"How many members of Congress have been charged with violating the Stock act?... Zero. Zero." [12:30]

He further criticizes the Ethics Committee's limited capacity to monitor and enforce the act, noting that the committee is understaffed and comprised of fellow Congress members who may lack impartiality.

"What's the enforcement? Find me enforcement. You won't find it." [05:50]

Case Studies: Representative McCall and Nancy Pelosi

Cuomo presents specific instances to illustrate the problem. He discusses Representative McCall's trading activities related to the Pivot Act, a cybersecurity bill, and Nancy Pelosi's husband's investments that align with her legislative actions.

"One of the companies that would benefit from the Pivot act, which is a bill in your committee right now, you buy the stock of. How is that?" [07:40]

"Nancy Pelosi doesn't own a share of stock. Says her people. Oh, but her husband is a prolific venture capitalist." [14:20]

These examples demonstrate how stock trading by lawmakers or their spouses can directly benefit from pending legislation, raising questions about insider trading and ethical standards.

Market Impact and Public Perception

Cuomo highlights the broader impact of congressional stock trading on the market, noting that trades by influential lawmakers like Pelosi can move markets due to their perceived insider knowledge.

"Pelosi's filings have moved markets in and of themselves because so many immediately copy her trades due to her trading track record and her influence in Congress." [17:00]

This phenomenon not only affects market stability but also erodes public confidence in the integrity of elected officials.

Proposed Solutions: Banning Stock Trading and Implementing Blind Trusts

Cuomo advocates for a clear-cut prohibition on stock trading by members of Congress. He suggests that any existing investments should be placed in blind trusts managed independently, eliminating any direct or indirect influence legislators might have over their financial interests.

"Your elected representatives... should not be able to invest. Not in equities, not in publicly traded stocks, bonds. I think that whatever they have should be put in a blind trust managed by somebody else." [23:10]

He argues that such measures are essential for ensuring that public service remains focused on constituents' needs rather than personal financial gain.

Challenges and Opposition

Addressing potential opposition, Cuomo notes that attempts to ban stock trading have bipartisan support but consistently fail to pass due to vested interests within Congress itself.

"Bills banning members of Congress from trading have bipartisan support. Well, then how come they never pass?" [20:40]

He attributes the stagnation of such proposals to the self-serving nature of lawmakers who benefit from the current system.

Conclusion: An Urgent Call for Ethical Reform

Cuomo concludes by reiterating the necessity of banning stock trading among Congress members to restore public trust and eliminate conflicts of interest. He emphasizes that without significant changes, the integrity of the government will continue to be compromised by the financial pursuits of its legislators.

"This is a no brainer for how to make government better." [28:50]

He calls on listeners to demand transparency and ethical conduct from their elected officials, advocating for reforms that prioritize the public good over personal wealth.

Key Takeaways

Conflict of Interest: Allowing Congress members to trade stocks related to their legislative actions creates significant conflicts of interest and undermines trust.
Ineffective Legislation: The STOCK Act of 2012 lacks sufficient enforcement and has resulted in zero charges against lawmakers, highlighting its ineffectiveness.
Influence on Markets: Trades by influential lawmakers like Nancy Pelosi can move markets, raising concerns about insider trading and ethical standards.
Proposed Reforms: Banning stock trading for Congress members and mandating blind trusts are essential steps to ensure government integrity and public trust.
Bipartisan Failure: Despite bipartisan support, bills aimed at banning stock trading by lawmakers consistently stall due to vested interests within Congress.

Cuomo's comprehensive analysis underscores the urgent need for ethical reforms in Congress to prevent conflicts of interest and restore public confidence in government institutions.

Transcript

Chris Cuomo (0:00)

You want to fight. You want to fight for a change that really matters? I have a change that would absolutely make our government more trustworthy. And more about you. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. This is not something anyone in Congress wants, and that's exactly why we need it. And you know what? It is a very simple rule change. It's been proposed before. It has always stalled or died. And in fact, it stalled right now. And you know what it is? Members of Congress should not be able to trade stocks. There it is. They should not be in the investment game when they are in public service. They should have to wait. And whatever investments they have should be put in a trust, a blind trust, where whoever is running it does not communicate with them. And it's about preservation of assets. Well, that's not fair. Who said anything about fair? Do you want to serve or not? The conflict standard is semblance of impropriety. All right, Those are big words to say a very simple thing. Smell test. How does it smell if these men and women can trade in the same companies whose fates they control with legislation? How. How does that ever pass the smell test? And every piece of evidence we have leads us to the same conclusion. And I have been doing my homework, and I will take you right through it. Here is what I've come up with. Okay, we start with a question. Why don't we allow players in professional sports to bet on their own games? Why don't we allow them to bet on their own games, even if they're only going to bet that they win? Right. Doesn't everybody want to win? Why can't you bet that you'll win? Why isn't it allowed? Why isn't it even a thought? Well, why doesn't even anybody open to it? Why did Pete Rose get blackballed even though he was never vote betting as far as we know that he was going to lose? Because it doesn't pass the smell test. Oh, but members of Congress can. They can make bets on the companies that they are influencing. Really? Come on. You know, it doesn't pass the smell test, so why does it exist? Because it's good for them. Now, here's the problem. Okay? There is an obvious standard necessary. Okay, if there's an obvious standard necessary in sports, how is there not in public service? Oh, well, they have to record them within 45 days of any trades, and then they go to the Ethics Committee. Oh, really? The Ethics Committee? The Ethics Committee that's staffed by. Who. Who. Who are the members oh, other members of Congress. Oh, right. Oh, and by the way, even if those members of Congress on that Ethics committee were beyond reproach, how much staff do they have? Oh, somewhere between two dozen, three dozen people. So it's a 2536 to review in the House, 330 something people stock trades every 45 days. Any individ. So we're talking about what, hundreds of thousands of transactions they barely make inside trading cases out of the SEC or the doj. And that's all they're looking for with trained professionals. And you think these people who are working for the House Ethics Committee are going to be able to police all that stuff and catch everything? No, no, no, no. That's why you have these apps now that are tracking people who are doing it. Go check out Quiver Quantitative. That's why I had the CEO, the young James Kardatsky on my show at News Nation. Hope you watch. 8p and 11p every weekday night. What does Quiver Quantitative do? Well, it gives you more tools. That's what a quiver is. It's a place where you hold arrows. Right. It gives you more tools where you get to watch how the members of Congress trade stocks. And what do we see? Well, the first thing we see is that they do a lot of trading of stocks. The second thing we see is that a lot of members of Congress get really rich while in public service when they're not making that much money. Which means that their investments work out really well. So much so that a lot of people try to now echo the investments of the people in Congress. So much so that they've become market movers. Now isn't that enough? Isn't that enough? As soon as you know that there are enough people watching what members of Congress do with their stock trades that they can actually move the markets with their activity. Isn't that proof that they shouldn't be able to trade? And look, if you don't like it, get out. Only serve one term, two terms get out then. I mean, but how, how does this work for anybody's advantage except their own? Who is this good for? How can it not be a problem? Look, the more you look, the more it stinks. How can it be that you have the same excuse structure on both sides? You talk about something that tells you that you have a real problem. When McCall on the right and Pelosi on the left offer the exact same excuse for why they've invested in stocks that are in bills that are before them for consideration right now. And we're not talking about Apple and Google and you know, sometimes they're companies with big market caps, but they're not companies you've ever heard of before or that are sitting in a lot of your, you know, hedge your mutual funds. And you can see it in the volume. Look, I'll give you a specific example. Okay? So McCall is right now pushing this thing called the Pivot act, right? It's about cybersecurity. It's not a bad bill. It's about putting money into training people who are going to be our cybersecurity people. And it's a big deal. I mean, think about it. If people did physically what they do cyber wise to attack us, we'd be at war with like three different countries right now. You can come in here and shut down our power grid, you can attack our companies, you can steal all our Social Security numbers, and it's just cyber warfare. But if you, like you were to come in and blow up a train station, we'd attack you. Isn't that weird? There's such a nonchalance about it. It's odd. It's going to change, though. So anyway, the Pivot act is about that. And one of the companies that are involved in this was invested in by one of the members of Congress who are considering that act in his committee right now. So one of the companies that would benefit from the Pivot act, which is a bill in your committee right now, you buy the stock of. How is that. Okay, make the case to me. All right, I'll make the case. Well, he's betting on it because he believes in it. And if it's a good company, then what's the difference? Because he's about to give them an infusion of cash with his bill, that's why. Because they're going to benefit from it and their stock will likely go up. And he's buying it before that happens. How is that not insider trading? Oh, because he reports the trade. Oh. Assuming people look at it. And then who's going to make the case? They're all members of Congress. I know of one who got nailed for it. Chris Collins, Republican in New York, got busted for some kind of trade activity. But it's very, very rare. Very rare. And you got to look at it that way. And what did McCall say when we asked him about why he bought the stock of a company that's going to benefit potentially from a bill that's in his committee right now? Oh, wasn't me. It was my wife. My wife bought it. My spouse, I don't know what she does, I don't have anything to do with it. And there's a third party manager that just happened to identify this cybersecurity company that's one of the beneficiaries of a bill that's in your committee. Even if that's all true, doesn't it smell bad? Isn't that the conflict standard? Shouldn't it be Nancy Pelosi? Same deal. And this has happened many times with Nancy Pelosi. Oh, Nancy Pelosi doesn't own a share of stock. Says her people. Oh, but her husband is a prolific venture capitalist. Yeah, but she doesn't have any idea what he does. So he just happened to have bought different stocks that were in meaningful pieces of legislation before his wife at the same time that they were before her? I mean, what is the standard? What is the smell test? What is the conflict? What is the insider trading threshold that makes any of this okay? It's an absurd situation. It can't be. Okay, so why do we allow it? You complain about how much money they make. Well, why don't you look at the source of it? But they don't stop it. Why? Because it's good for them. And what do you see? Once in a while, somebody pops up and says, I want to stop that trading. Those bills stall or die. Google it. There's one right now that stalled. And you could argue that Pelosi was no fan of having it happen. Why? Because then her husband can't make gazillions of dollars with trades. And look, what if it's only one or two of them? So what? I mean, shouldn't public service come first? I mean, shouldn't. And this 45 days to report. What happens if they don't report their trades in 45 days? There's no enforcement. Find me enforcement. You won't find it. How many members of Congress have been charged with violating the Stock act, which tells you how you're allowed to invest or not? How many? Zero. Zero. What does that tell you? Well, they're not looking. They don't have enough to look, and they don't want to look. So they're just kind of falling back on this fugazi idea that there's a stock act and we have rules and we have standards. Bills banning members of Congress from trading have bipartisan support. Well, then how come they never pass? Ask yourself that question. Support comes from Seoul. Now, full disclosure here, right? Transparency is trust. I am not big into drinks. Drinking, okay? I haven't had drinks in a long time. And when I Do on occasion have it. I regret it almost immediately. Why am I telling you this? Because that doesn't mean I still don't like a substance that helps me relax, helps slow down my processing, helps me de stress. That's why I'm talking to you about Soul. I am a big fan of hemp derived THC and CBD products, right? Because sometimes, look, you just need a little something. You want something either to pick you up or to slow you down. Either way, Soul can help. SOL is a wellness brand that believes that feeling good should be fun and easy. Specializes in delicious hemp derived THC and CBD products designed to boost your mood and help you unwind. Now the big seller is the out of the Office Gummies. Designed to provide a mild relaxing buzz, boost your mood, enhance creativity and relaxation. I dig it. Bring on the good vibes. Treat yourself to Soul today. Right now, Soul is offering my people 30% off an entire order. How? GetSoul.com use the code CUOMO. GetSold.com use the promo code CUOMO. 30% off. Support comes from Select Quo insurance matters. You run in your household, you build in a family, you get in your assets. How are you going to protect it? Life is uncertain. There is no guarantee that we have anything. But right now, this can be scary or it can be empowering. Either way, you need Select Quote. Why? Select Quote is one of America's leading insurance brokers. 40 years almost. They have under their belt of experience how many people they helped over 2 million customers. How much money in policies is that? 700 billion in coverage since 1985. Now look, there are a lot of people selling insurance out there, but for a lot of them, you know, it's kind of like a cookie cutter deal, right? One size fits all and personal volume business. Right? A lot of policies may cost more, cover less. Select Quote has a team of licensed insurance agents that work for you. They tailor policies for you for your life insurance needs as an individual, as a family, with your own set of priorities. And they know how to do it and do it quickly. Can be as little as a 15 minute consultation. Get the right life insurance for you for less@SelectQuote.com Chris C. Go to SelectQuote.com Chris C. Today and you'll get started. SelectQuote.com Chris C. I'll tell you a funny story. So we do this thing with Quiver Quantitative and we ask for comment from Representative McCall and Representative Pelosi. McCall sends the it was my wife. I have no idea. Pelosi. We get no response So I say she didn't respond. Surprise. Why would you do something like this? Turns out she did respond. It was in my producer's junk folder, the response. And they responded pretty quickly. And I gotta tell you, I think it's one of the few times the software got it right. This was a junk response. It's the same as McCall's. Nancy Pelosi doesn't own a share of stock. It's her husband, who's a venture capitalist. She has no idea what he does. Really? And he just happened to invest in a cybersecurity stock that was relevant to consideration before her? I mean, even if it's true, does it pass the smell test for you? I mean, doesn't the answer have to be no? And you don't think it's a little curious that they both have their spouses doing trading? You know what I mean? How many of us have husbands or wives who have their own separate financial life that we don't really know anything about? Oh, I have no idea what she does with her money. I have no idea what my wife does. Sometimes I think to myself, I don't know how she does what she does in terms of, you know, certain expenditures, but she knows what we have. I know what she has. And she has her own business. She's actually legit. Like, she could actually have a lot of shit going on that I don't know. And yet I do. So what does that tell you? It's pretty far fetched, isn't it? Well, that's the wall of separation in our house. We don't talk about money because I don't want to influence her in any way. Oh, because you don't benefit from what they're investing in, right? I mean, Pelosi is ridiculously wealthy. No, no, no. It's not her. It's her husband. Oh, then it doesn't count. Come on. It's such bullshit. It's the same thing that we see with fundraisers. Cuomo, did you invest in Tom Jones's election? No. Oh, but your wife maxed out. Oh, yeah, but that's her. That's like Sam Alito. Oh, I didn't know about the flag on the house. My wife did that. Yeah, because wives hang a lot of flags from houses. You know, if I had a dime for every time I caught my wife trying to hang another Fugazi flag off the side of my house. Hey, what is that? Don't worry about it. Okay. Okay. Hey, Cuomo, nice Gadsden flag you got flying up. Is it? I didn't see it. My wife hang another flag from the house that I missed again. You know, my wife's in the. She's got the flag duties at the house. You know, we split it up. You know, I do the potting, and she's the flag raiser, picks the flags. That's her whole thing. She's flagged. Crazy flag tastic, we call it. Come on. I mean, you want things to be better, start doing the obvious shit, okay? This is the functional equivalent to us having a bag of kung pao chicken strapped to our faces and worried about why we're fat. I mean, it's such an obvious. No, no. And then you look up the stock act. Okay, let's look up the stock act. You gotta. You're gonna love this. So this is what they passed to police themselves. It's called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge act, okay? And it was passed in 2012 to present insider trading. Okay? So first it bans insider trading, which is good because it's illegal. Okay? So it's good that they banned it for Congress, too. But just think about that. That they felt the need to articulate that members of the House shouldn't do that when it's already federal law. All right? Mandatory disclosure. That's the 45 days. What's the staff to oversee it? What's the enforcement? What's the proof of enforcement? What's the proof of prosecuting those who've ever violated it? They've never had a viol in now 13 years. Really? Online access. The disclosures have to be posted in an easily searchable format online. But this was rolled back in 2013 to give people more flexibility, really, to make it easier for them. And it also applies to the executive branch. Extends disclosure requirements to senior executive branch officials. Many lawmakers have missed deadlines. No serious penalties, no enforcement mechanisms. Efforts to strengthen the law, including banning lawmakers for owning or trading stocks, have been proposed but never passed. Come on. You want things to get cleaner and more about you and less about benefiting the elite and the insiders. Where does it make better sense to start? And what is the likelihood that a spouse invests in something and it has no indication, no connection to anything that the other spouse has to do with it. And then you look at the stocks, and you look at how the markets have reacted to what they know lawmakers are doing, specifically Nancy Pelosi, and you see that this just doesn't pass the smell test. And no, I'm not saying she's lying. She doesn't have to be for it to not pass the smell test. Okay, I get that you're not. This is why we don't allow it, Nancy. Because your good word is being besmirched. Because I can't believe that your husband doesn't know anything about what you're doing. Doesn't make sense when he's investing in things that are related somehow to what's before you in that moment. Oh, but I have so much before me right now. There's so much that we'd be closed out from. Good. Then get out of public service and invest. What am I missing? Well, you're kind of infringing on their liberties. How you wanted to serve. You wanted to serve. I'm infringing on your liberty to make millions of dollars because we're not going to pay you millions of dollars. So I think this is a no brainer issue that gets no attention. Okay? And very often people ask questions that I find a little trite, you know, like what would be the three things you would do if you had a magic wand? And often I'm like, I don't know, man. You got to deal with the circumstances and what area of policy, what area of governance, what area of reality, what part of the world, you know, what you would do to make things better is so subjective. This is a no brainer for how to make government better. Your elected representatives, your president, your senators, your members of Congress should not be able to invest. Not in equities, not in publicly traded stocks, bonds. I think that whatever they have should be put in a blind trust managed by somebody else. They shouldn't even get statements for while they are on. And look, and we could build it in where we'll pay for an accountant to review to make sure that they're not getting swindled, you know, whatever, during the pendency of their service. But what good comes from them trading stocks? Well, I'll tell you what good comes from it. You got a lot of people who don't make an amazing amount of money, even though they're all going to wind up in the top 5%, right. Once you get over $175,000. I think you're dealing with the top echelon of earners. I think you're dealing with the top five, 8% of earners. You know, we have this weird top heavy situation now where one of the fastest growing populations in the country is billionaires. Did you know that like the top 1% is like exploding in terms of population, which I guess they're not going to be the top 1% anymore. Right. But it's that you're going to have this separation. The gap is yawning. Okay? You're having, look, this argument with the tariffs right now. You have all these people, we want our jobs back. In Detroit, you used to be able to have a job, have a house, have a car and have a little shack on the lake. And now you can't have any of those when that's what the tariffs are going to bring, those jobs back. I think that's magical thinking. Okay? I think the problem is real. I think that this is a solution. Tariffs, when does that ever happen? When nothing has ever happened that way in history before, why would you think it will happen that way now when it's put into place as clumsily as this has been so very often, it's hard to make a fix that makes a difference. This is a way to make a fix that makes a difference. That is a no brainer. And to the extent that it is an infringement on their rights, isn't that what you sign up for with service? Isn't that what service is supposed to be about? Maybe we should pay these people more in exchange for not letting them trade or invest. But why? I mean, this situation with McCall and the pivot act smells with Pelosi and Palo Alto Strategies or whatever it's called, smells. And it's not just a one off, it's not a one time thing. And I'm not just picking on Pelosi. It's just that Pelosi matters, right? I mean, she's a big deal, former speaker of the House, huge influence in the Democratic Party and people watch her. And if you look Tempest, look at that small company, it shot up immediately after the purchase. And the price chart, if you look at it, you can see how when there was this January 14th filing, it was an inflection point for the stock. Why? People saw that Pelosi moved it. Okay? Pelosi's filings have moved markets in and of themselves because so many immediately copy her trades due to her trading track record and her influence in Congress. Isn't that enough? Isn't that enough? And then you say, well, yeah, let's fix it. Oh yeah. And then it stalls. And one of the people who gets blamed by their own party for the stall is Nancy Pelosi. Democratic leaders unveiled a draft to tackle the issue of trading stocks in Congress. And there was little time left because of the recess to review it, dooming its chances to a floor vote. Now who manipulated the timing? Speaker Pelosi that's who was speaker at the time, told reporters the bill didn't come to the floor because it didn't have the votes to pass. But other people like Spanberger and others, said that the leaders were slow walking the stock trading proposal. Now, this was a few years ago. Why? Because nothing changes if nothing changes. You want to make a different difference in government. You want to make a difference in government. You want them to be more focused on you and less on them. Don't allow members of Congress to trade stocks and take that away as a factor of how we see what they do and how they view what they're supposed to be doing for us, not their own bottom line. What do you think? Thank you for subscribing and following here to the Chris Cuomo Project. Thank you for wearing your independence and getting the free agent gear. Thank you for checking me out at NewsNation, AP and 11p every weekday. And if you like the pod, you don't like the ads and you want my wellness journey, my fitness, my Long Covid stuff, the philosophy that goes along with it, my doctor's reckonings of what works and what doesn't. For Long Covid and vaccine injuries, all for five bucks a month. Please subscribe to my substack. Please do it today and I'm going to start doing a live every week just for those folks. I'll see you soon. The problems are real. Our approach is obvious. Let's get after.