Hard no. Govern for us and not for your purse. Represent the people — not yourself.
If it discourages people running, that’s great. We don’t need them.
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
256 points (100.0% liked)
politics
28875 readers
2106 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.
Good. The type of people who would be discouraged by this are exactly the people we want to keep out of power.
US T-Bills only.
And an annual salary equal to the national median income.
That's actually a really good idea.
If someone is discouraged from running for office because it's no longer a corrupt as fuck get rich scheme, good fucking riddance.
Awweeeeee is someone not paid enough by their job 😭😭 fucking cry about it, suit
We SHOULD discourage people who want to run for office for the stock trading opportunities from running for office. FUCK those people.
If Carter was willing to give up his farm, you can muster up enough balls to stop trading stocks while you're in office.
And if it discourages people running for office, that seems like a feature, not a bug.
This fuckwad wouldn’t know a conflict of interest if it bit him in the ass or his son found it while searching through his father’s porn history.
People in positions of power, should be barred from stocks, have fixed and modest incomes attached to the poverty line, and other such fiscal limitations. It has been proven time and again, that the rich will do anything to become richer, no matter who else it hurts.
And no, I am not going to believe people who say "this doesn't reward merit". That is a belief espoused by fools or grifters.
The average income should allow the ordinary person to own a house, be free of debt, and enjoy life. Dickheads like Mike Johnson are far beyond what allows a person to be happy.
He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.
People like you maybe. Hopefully.
A kickass healthcare plan, a lunch allowance, an office allowance, a good salary, no minimum work hour requirements, and a kickass pension not enough for you Mike?
I wonder if Johnson is honest with himself about being a vile, corrupt piece of shit. Or if he kids himself that he's righteous and doing good things in Congress.
When all this is over for maga, he'll still carry the Trump-sized hand impression up his puppet ass for the rest of his days. History will paint all of them exactly as they are.
In "Inglorious Basterds" Christopher Waltz plays Col. Hans Landa a villain for the record books. When asked about it, Christopher Waltz says he achieved this by not playing Landa as the evil character he is written as, "because no one believes themselves to be evil."
In some weird twisted way I believe these Maga believe themselves to be saving the soul of America. These fanatics are so far removed from reality they're literally delusion in their believes they're doing the right thing.
But how would stock trading relate to "saving the soul of America"? A lot of their disgusting actions like gerrymandering or bending to knee to Trump could be painted as a means to stay in power and thus allowing them to be able to continue "saving" America. But personal stock trading?...
Something something freedom
Pretty convinced at this point that all these dickweeds are in some kinda shared psychosis, where in their world of entitlement they get to have it all and being all righteous about it because it's their God-given right goddamn it. Money, power, control over other humans because they never learned how to control themselves.
Buncha king wannabes.
Fuckers be living in fantasy land.
You can still own stocks, you just can't TRADE on insider information, dipshit.
Keep in the indexes like every other schlub has to. That'll give you a bit more incentive to not sell out your fucking country and ensure a HEALTHY market instead of tilting it every which way in favor of whichever lobbyist is currently licking your taint.
Wrong again, doesn’t he get tired of being utterly and completely wrong?
Don't let this pedophile protector fool you, the bill states they can only have INVESTMENT accounts like the rest of us have. Mutual funds, 401k, IRA.
They SHOULD NOT be able to trade stocks as they are insiders and that is a felony for the rest of us who aren't politicians.
Very cut and dry what he is saying, he wants to continue to scam us and do insider trading, while the rest of us struggle to gain 4-13% a year in growth.
He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.
That’s exactly the fucking point. We don’t want stock trading people running for office.
Sure, in a blind trust.
Honestly I wouldn't mind if they weren't allowed to even own stocks at all.
I wouldn't mind that either, but I feel a blind trust for them and all immediate family members is the bare minimum.
Corrupt oligarch says what?
Wasn't he also the guy that claimed he didn't have a bank account?
He suggested that a stock trading ban could discourage people from running for office.
That's precisely the point. If you need 'encouragement' in the form of millions of dollars in personal gain in order to be a government official - you're not the right person for the job.
"If we're not allowed to be corrupt, who want this job?"
Good! The LAST thing we Want is for Politicians to take the Job to HELP people! That would be TERRIBLE! I WANT my Politicians to ONLY do whatever will Make them RICHEST!
"Corrupt politician says politicians should be allowed to be corrupt."
Have funds in an index fund but not specific stocks.
I could accept owning stock, but no buying or selling as of the moment you register as a candidate until a year out of office
That’s still a conflict of interest - while it would prevent trading on insider information, it does enable making decisions what will increase returns on your investment.
There’s an entire universe of indirect investments where you’re not directly involved in decisions. That should be the requirement
You apparently don't even have a checking account, Mike. On these matters, I trust you as far as I can throw you. Which isn't very far, by the way; I'm not that fit.
How about we eliminate corruption eh?
If you've solved it, please let us know. Nobel in Economics is in your future.
What's the point of being negative here?
And I say no.
Lawmakers should be pilloried.
You can run for office for a maximum of 12 years and then you're summarily executed.
It's good we're offering serious alternatives instead of nonsense that will be easily dismissed.
shrug
"Congressmen should just be able to profit off fluctuations in the market based on their legislative insider knowledge" seems pretty nonsensical and easy to dismiss outside of the US Capital Building.
But inside the building, its wildly popular.
Whatchagonna do?
Interesting idea. I can see it as a real disincentive to capable people who might otherwise be interested in politics. I was thinking perhaps they could be limited to index funds. Otherwise a politician might try to hide their deals via a spouse, family member, or even something more extreme.