The Program for Public Consultation (PPC) conducted a public consultation survey that found overwhelming bipartisan support for prohibiting stock trading by Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, and the Vice President in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as nationally.
This survey is part of the Swing Six Issue Surveys, conducted in the six swing states to gather public opinion on significant policies leading up to the November election. Unlike traditional polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation,” in which they are provided with briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Experts on different sides review content to ensure accuracy and balance.
Legislation to ban stock trading in individual companies among Members of Congress was initially proposed in 2022. Since then, similar legislation has been reintroduced annually to prohibit stock trading by Supreme Court Justices, the President, and the Vice President. According to the proposals, officials would still be allowed to trade in large portfolios, such as mutual funds, and keep their current stocks if they are placed in an independently managed fund, also known as a blind trust. The prohibition would also extend to immediate family members living with the officials.
Prohibiting Members of Congress and their live-in families from trading individual stocks is a policy that transcends party lines. It is favored by 71% to 76% in the swing states, including 68% to 76% of Republicans, 76% to 84% of Democrats, and 72% nationally.
Prohibiting the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices, as well as their live-in family members, from trading individual stocks is supported by 72% to 77% of people in swing states. This includes 68% to 74% of Republicans, 77% to 85% of Democrats, and 74% of people nationally.
Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation, noted, “Americans of all political stripes have great concerns about potential conflicts of interest and self-serving decisions by policymakers.”
According to Kull, pro and con arguments were presented. The most popular argument was that there are “too many potential conflicts of interest when Members of Congress can hold and trade stocks in individual companies.” This argument was found convincing by 83% to 88% of people in the swing states.
The arguments against the new law could have performed better, with only 42% to 51% of respondents in swing states finding the argument convincing. This argument stated that the new law is unnecessary because “we already have laws against insider trading, and Members of Congress can be investigated and charged just like anyone else.”
