Mike Johnson has lost control of the House of Representatives. Since reopening the chamber in November after a 53-day sojourn, he has seen continued Republican retirements and resignations in advance of an expected loss of power in next year’s midterms. Voting days have often devolved into recriminations involving individual members. Consensus to avoid a major legislative embarrassment by allowing Affordable Care Act health insurance premiums to skyrocket has been lacking. And Johnson has on several occasions lost control of the agenda-setting power to schedule floor votes, the most basic authority of a House Speaker.
Discharge petitions, which if signed by a majority of House members can go around the Speaker and obtain an automatic floor vote, have succeeded on two occasions in recent weeks. The discharge petition for the bill to release the Jeffrey Epstein files resulted in a resounding vote of approval and passage into law, a major embarrassment for Johnson’s attempt to shield Donald Trump from scrutiny over his relationship with the disgraced pedophile. House members also forced consideration of the Protect America’s Workforce Act, a bill that would overturn Trump’s executive order stripping collective-bargaining rights from one million federal workers; that bill will get a House vote this week.
A third discharge petition has been filed that would finally bring up for floor consideration a congressional stock trading ban, one of the most popular policies of the past decade. Yet this petition has moved slowly out of the gate despite overwhelming and bipartisan public support; legislation banning stock trading by members of Congress is favored by more than 80 percent of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
“This could be a huge win for Democrats, and would be a huge missed opportunity if not taken.”
The current petition has more than enough Republican support to get a floor vote if all Democrats sign it. Some insiders working on the matter believe that Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is missing a chance to deliver his caucus, further embarrass Johnson, and take credit for securing a key legislative priority.
“This could be a huge win for Democrats, and would be a huge missed opportunity if not taken,” said Aaron Stephens, a legislative strategist with P Street, the lobbying arm of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “If every Democrat got on the discharge petition, we could pass this bill in the House within days, with immense public support.”
Jeffries did respond to allegations from Republicans that he was holding up the discharge petition on Tuesday, saying at a press conference that “it’s Democrats who are serious about enacting a congressional stock ban, and we’re committed to using every tool available to make sure that this happens.” But they can do that right now, observers charge.
When the Prospect asked Jeffries’s office if the leader supported a discharge petition that would get a bipartisan congressional stock ban to the floor, a spokesperson would only refer to his comments at the press conference and didn’t respond to additional questions.
DOZENS OF HOUSE CANDIDATES HAVE PROMISED to ban members from trading stocks in campaign ads in recent years. It’s hard to find a legislative initiative that has been referenced more. Countless studies and stories have revealed the inadequacy of the current system of disclosing congressional stock trades, and lawmakers of both parties are periodically dinged for strategically buying or selling shares right before key decisions are made on Capitol Hill.
Yet legislation to address the problem has never received a green light from House or Senate leadership. This stands to reason, based on the results of a new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which found that lawmakers who receive a leadership position in Congress outperform rank-and-file members of Congress by 47 points on their stock trades after their ascension. Given that leaders in Congress set the voting schedule, it makes sense that they would not want to pass a bill to negatively impact their personal financial situation.
The discharge petition, filed by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), offers a way out of this conundrum. It came out of Luna’s stated frustration with Johnson delaying a final vote on a stock trading ban. The language in the petition corresponds to the Restore Trust in Congress Act, a bipartisan bill resulting from a monthslong consensus-building process that has 108 co-sponsors, 86 Democrats and 22 Republicans. (The preamble to the discharge petition refers to a different bill from Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee, but the language in the petition is from the Restore Trust in Congress Act.)
Luna has been claiming in conservative media that Democrats have been “blocking signatures” on the discharge petition. She said on Fox News that Jeffries “doesn’t want to have his Democrats sign on to the legislation,” and intimated that Jeffries wanted the ban to include members of the executive branch as well as members of Congress, a sticking point in negotiations.
That’s what Jeffries responded to on Tuesday. “I’ve never had a conversation with her, know nothing about her commitment to this issue,” he said, claiming that Luna “parachuted in” and started “shooting off at the mouth,” without engaging in “the bipartisan conversations that have been ongoing.” Those conversations, which resulted in the Restore Trust in Congress Act, have been led on the Democratic side by Reps. Seth Magaziner (D-RI), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Jeffries said.
Yet all three of those Democrats have signed the discharge petition in the past 48 hours. Magaziner and Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), the lead co-sponsors of the Restore Trust in Congress Act, endorsed the discharge petition when it was released, saying in a joint statement: “The clock is now running. If leadership does not move quickly to put forward a strong ban on congressional stock trading, the members of the body will act.”
Magaziner’s office did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Luna’s. Jeffries’s office would only refer to this week’s remarks.
There are now 37 names on the discharge petition, 21 of them in the 24-hour period after the Prospect started calling around on the bill. More are likely to come. Representatives contacted by the Prospect who are co-sponsors of the Restore Trust in Congress Act indicated that they would sign it. “I think I already signed it … but if not I assume (I will),” said Rep. Dave Min (D-CA).
Most recently, Rep. Rob Bresnahan, who was caught selling stock in Medicaid managed care provider Centene right before voting to cut Medicaid, signed the discharge petition.
Of the 37 names on the petition, 13 are Republicans. That’s more than enough to reach a majority in the House if all Democrats endorsed it. “Democratic leadership should show that they are serious about this by encouraging members to sign the discharge petition,” Stephens said.
(UPDATE: As of Thursday morning, the number on the petition had climbed to 41, with 14 Republicans.)
Given intense public support, a public vote to end congressional stock trading would likely garner overwhelming support. The bill would still have to pass the Senate, of course, but posting a huge number would put pressure on the Senate to do so. And if Republicans blocked consideration, Democrats would have another tool to use against GOP incumbents on an 80-20 issue, Stephens noted. “If you don’t think Thune will pass it, then it would be better to pass it in the House,” he said.
In his comments, Jeffries deflected to Speaker Johnson’s unwillingness to schedule the stock trading ban for a vote, but he did also intimate that the stock trading ban should be extended “to the executive branch, to Donald Trump, to JD Vance, or perhaps even to the Supreme Court.” Republicans have been reluctant to put restrictions on their president and vice president, though a Senate version of the ban does include executive branch officials. White House adviser Stephen Miller was recently sold stock in a mining company shortly after the administration took a stake in it.
“We’re committed to this issue as Democrats, we want to make it happen,” Jeffries concluded in his remarks. “The only open question about whether we’re going to move forward … is whether Republicans have the will to partner with us in a bipartisan way.” But it seems like there are already enough partners to seal the deal, and Jeffries just needs to endorse the process to take advantage.
Some expressed concern to the Prospect that Democrats may prefer to have a live issue to use in campaigns rather than legislative passage. But the situation is set up to Democrats’ benefit if they take the initiative. Jeffries has the power to not only pass a popular bill, but take credit for it.