Last week, I reported on concerns that House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was discouraging support for a bipartisan discharge petition to finally advance the exceedingly popular policy of ending congressional stock trading. Discharge petitions signed by a majority of House members get a guaranteed floor vote. The speculation was that Jeffries would rather keep the concept of a trading ban alive for campaigning (and maybe protect Democrats who want to keep trading) than take advantage of the ongoing rebellion against House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to make tangible progress.
I would say this is wholly confirmed now.
The Democratic leadership is filing their own discharge petition on a stock trading ban, countering one from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) that has 74 signatures, including 15 Republicans, more than enough for a House majority if all Democrats sign on. Punchbowl News has reported that Jeffries’s team is, in fact, discouraging members from signing the Luna petition, and pitching their bill instead. The Prospect has confirmed this, and it extends to outside advocates for a trading ban, who have been told to get in line with Jeffries or risk losing access in the future.
The new proposal differs from the bipartisan bill in one key respect: It extends the stock trading ban to President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Regardless of the considerable merits of that idea, the reality is that no Republican will ever sign on to that, meaning that both competing discharge petitions will fail to obtain a majority.
“This is exactly what Pelosi did a few years ago,” said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette of the Project on Government Oversight, referring to the former House Speaker’s endorsement of a trading ban in 2022 that extended to the Supreme Court, also blowing up a bipartisan negotiation. “This is not only an unserious effort, it’s an attempt to undermine and kill off the only bipartisan legislative vehicle that is gaining momentum. It’s really bad faith all around.”
All year long, Jeffries has been promoting bipartisan negotiations, led on the Democratic side by Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI). The Magaziner-led bipartisan bill is the underlying text of the Luna discharge petition, which Magaziner has signed on to. Yet he is the lead sponsor of this new partisan bill. Magaziner told The Washington Post that he supports both bills, which doesn’t make a lot of sense, since the partisan bill is undermining the bipartisan one. “I think he’s being told to be a good boy, and you get to still be the face of the Democrats on this,” Hedtler-Gaudette said.
In response to questions from the Prospect, Magaziner spokesperson Noah Boucher said that accusing Democrats of undercutting the bipartisan bill “is simply a Republican talking point.” He added that “there may be Republican support for including the President and Vice President in a ban … Rep. Magaziner supports both discharge petitions and encourages all members from both parties to do the same in the hope than one will be able to achieve the necessary number of signatures to force a vote.”
It’s true that a handful of Republicans have defied their leadership on three occasions to join Democrats on discharge petitions. Just this week, they handed a majority to Democrats on a discharge petition to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies. And it’s also true that Donald Trump using the presidency as a moneymaking scheme should be stopped, though in truth he has done that through many, many other ways than playing the stock market.
But the situation gets at the fundamental question in politics of whether it’s better to yell slogans or make progress. The bipartisan bill has the votes, at least in the House. Politically, Democrats would be advancing a policy that 80 to 90 percent of the public supports. Now that’s all gone nowhere, with cynicism winning out.
Meanwhile, the polarization has allowed Johnson a way out of his own unpopular stance. Republicans are vowing to put a congressional trading ban on the floor next month, though the bill would apparently allow members to hold stocks they already own. This wouldn’t end the potential for insider trading, since they could strategically sell those stocks before a congressional action. (The bill would require seven days of public notice before a sale and some “preclearance” setup, which has no chance of being effective.)
It’s another unserious solution, but it sets up the usual dynamic where both sides blame the other and the public is alienated, while an actual solution languishes. “These are press releases masquerading as something real,” said Hedtler-Gaudette.