In a rare display of unity, both parties in the U.S. Congress have introduced legislation aimed at curbing stock trading by government officials and their relatives. The “Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act,” modeled after the previously implemented Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, seeks to prevent insider trading among members of Congress, the president, the vice president, and senior executive branch officials.

The new legislation leaves no room for exceptions when it comes to officials’ stock trading in blind trusts, aiming to promote transparency and accountability in government activities. Penalties for violations are set to vary in accordance with the severity of the offense, with additional civil penalties being considered for cases involving “substantial monetary value” or those deemed of an “extraordinary nature.”

One of the key provisions of the Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act requires Washington officials to promptly file reports whenever they receive grants, loans, contracts, or other payments from the federal government. Notably, these reports will exclude salary compensation and tax refunds, ensuring that all financial interactions between officials and the government are openly documented.

To strengthen compliance, the legislation proposes increasing the current fine for failing to submit transaction reports under the STOCK Act. If passed, the fine would rise from $200 to $500, sending a clear signal that adherence to financial reporting requirements is a top priority.

However, despite the promising intent behind the legislation, the timeline for committee consideration or advancement of the bill to the full Senate remains uncertain. Both parties will need to navigate potential roadblocks and negotiate any differences that arise during the legislative process.

Notably absent from the measure’s summary is any mention of prohibiting stock trading by Supreme Court justices. This exclusion could potentially spark discussions and debates in the future, as the public seeks to understand the rationale behind the decision not to include the judiciary branch in the restrictions.