The issue of congressional stock trading has taken center stage in the political landscape, emerging as a critical point of discussion in the Democratic primaries and causing a ripple effect across different states. The topic, which has often incited citizens’ suspicions about politicians exploiting their positions for personal gain, is now shaping the narrative of numerous campaigns across America.
In Dallas, Colin Allred, a former representative who served three terms in the U.S. House and ran unsuccessful campaigns for the U.S. Senate, has encountered numerous inquiries from constituents about the profit-making activities of politicians in Washington.
“People often ask me, ‘What about the stock trading in Congress? What about people getting rich in Congress?’” Allred said. “And I have to tell them, they’re absolutely right. There’s a pressing need for us, as politicians, to hold ourselves to a higher standard.”
Allred is currently challenging Representative Julie Johnson in the Democratic runoff for a Dallas-area House seat. This runoff is scheduled for Tuesday. Allred’s campaign strategy has revolved around channeling populist anger over congressional stock trading. He has publicly criticized Johnson for her trading activities involving companies like Palantir, a data analytics firm with known ties to President Donald Trump’s administration.
In response, Johnson has stated that her trades were managed by a financial manager, not herself. She accused Allred of being solely motivated by self-interest. To support her accusation, she pointed to financial disclosures that showed Allred’s wealth nearly doubling during his tenure in Congress. However, Allred countered, explaining that his assets were in a blind trust, and the increase in his wealth was primarily due to his wife’s income as a partner at a law firm.
Regarding her trading activities with Palantir stock, Johnson pointed out that the total profit made from the trade was only $90. “My opponent is trying to make it seem like it was hundreds or thousands,” she lamented.
These back-and-forths are indicative of larger debates within the Democratic Party concerning the role of money in politics. Allegations of self-dealing or being bought by special interests, once chiefly voiced by progressive hardliners and political reformers, have become a common feature of Democratic primaries.
This increased scrutiny of lawmakers’ personal wealth arrives as the party seeks to fine-tune its anti-corruption message against Trump and draft a strategy for revamping Washington should the Democrats secure power in the midterms.
President Trump had previously campaigned on the promise to “drain the swamp,” leveraging Americans’ disdain for the Washington establishment. Now that his family is reportedly profiting while he’s back in the White House, Democrats are eager to reclaim the initiative on an issue that could resonate powerfully with voters.
“The challenge is that, currently, no party can claim the mantle of anti-corruption,” observed Daniel Lobo-Lewis, a political consultant based in Washington. “Many voters outside of the beltway perceive both parties as corrupt, because they see all politicians as being bought either by donors or by their own self-interest.”
In an attempt to address this perception, Lobo-Lewis and Nico Agosta founded the Political Integrity Project last year. The organization tracks stock trading and corporate donations involving members of Congress.
The Political Integrity Project also asks candidates to sign an “integrity pledge,” committing to refrain from trading stocks or accepting corporate donations while in Congress. Furthermore, signatories vow not to work as lobbyists after leaving office. To date, approximately 90 challengers and seven sitting lawmakers have signed the pledge.
“If we want to start rebuilding trust in our political institutions, it begins with straightforward changes like this that enjoy overwhelmingly high approval ratings,” explained Lobo-Lewis.
Despite calls for reform, Congress has yet to enact a ban on stock trading for its members. Although insider trading is already illegal for members, just like it is for anyone else, multiple proposals on Capitol Hill have failed to gain momentum.
A bipartisan bill to ban congressional stock trading was stalled this year despite receiving Trump’s endorsement during his State of the Union address. Democrats remain divided over the number of alleged loopholes in their competing proposals.
The theme of anti-corruption has also permeated Democratic primaries, with candidates’ personal wealth frequently becoming a point of contention. In a Democratic-leaning Utah congressional district, State Senator Nate Blouin criticized his main rival, former Representative Ben McAdams, for having equity in a Utah data center firm. Blouin also lambasted others in the race for past investments and jobs.
McAdams defended himself by stating that the equity, worth several thousand dollars, was payment for a past contract completed by his government consulting firm while he was a private citizen. His campaign further defended the data center project, asserting it would not consume water and would run on clean energy.
In another twist, a spokesperson for McAdams accused Blouin of concealing his corporate donations by removing them from campaign disclosure reports. The spokesperson claimed this act was not only deceitful but also broke campaign finance law.
In response, Blouin denied breaking the law and explained that he removed the donations as he had returned the money to each donor.
“It was actually quite uncomfortable to return some of those,” admitted Blouin, as some of the firms included local businesses and clean energy companies. “But there is a perception that campaign contributions from lobbyists and companies influence votes, and I think there is some truth to that.”
In a New York City congressional district that includes both Wall Street and the Democratic Socialists of America’s headquarters, former city comptroller Brad Lander accused Representative Dan Goldman of attempting to secure another term by using his wealth to match campaign contributions. Goldman, an heir to the Levi Strauss family fortune, refuted this claim, stating that he entered all his assets into a blind trust after assuming office in 2023.
A spokesperson for Goldman denounced Lander for running a deceitful campaign based on false claims that Goldman is beholden to special interests. The spokesperson emphasized that Goldman had raised more campaign funds than Lander without accepting any corporate PAC money. Goldman has invested his personal money into the race, the spokesperson added, to ensure that NY-10 voters can be confident that he is beholden only to them and his principles.
Lander, in return, criticized Goldman’s spending as “not illegal, but it is certainly anti-democratic when a quarter-billionaire like Dan Goldman not only pours millions of his inherited wealth into his elections but also solicits money from the same forces that are rigging the economy and exacerbating the affordability crisis.”
Campaigns in California are also experiencing tensions over stock trades. Even representatives who support a ban on congressional stock trading are facing scrutiny.
Democratic Representative Brad Sherman of California is battling multiple primary challengers who have criticized him for holding stocks while serving in Congress. Despite the criticism, Sherman neither trades individual stocks nor opposes a ban on stock trading.
“I only own three individual stocks, which I inherited from my mother when she passed away, which were originally acquired by my grandmother,” Sherman explained. “I have never sold them because I made a promise to my constituents that I would not buy and sell individual stocks.”
One of Sherman’s primary challengers is Jake Levine, a former climate adviser to President Joe Biden, who signed the pledge from the Political Integrity Project. However, Sherman accused Levine of refusing to disclose crucial elements of his $18 million stock portfolio and actively trading stocks while serving on the National Security Council. Levine has countered that he cannot disclose the portfolio because it is managed by his family, and he has no oversight.
In the race to succeed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California State Senator Scott Wiener has critiqued his progressive opponent, Saikat Chakrabarti, over his personal wealth. Chakrabarti, a former software engineer who earned millions as an early employee at the tech firm Stripe, later served as the first chief of staff to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Wiener accused Chakrabarti of having “enormous investments” and “trying to buy this seat” while “spreading bogus conspiracy theories” with his wealth. He criticized Chakrabarti for not disclosing the last decade of his stock trades.
“If you’re making a ban on stock trades a central part of your campaign – as Saikat is doing, running around saying that everyone under the sun is corrupt – how about you tell the voters about your own stock trading history,” Wiener stated.
Chakrabarti responded that his wealth as a private citizen is not relevant to his future time in office and that he would place all of his assets into a blind trust should he be elected. He criticized Wiener for being supported by super PACs funded by the AI firm Anthropic and other major corporations.
“This is all part of a larger problem, which is just the whole idea of corruption in our politics,” Chakrabarti said. “If you’re in Congress, you sit on committees that oversee a lot of these industries, and it’s unethical to be using that insider information, that knowledge to make stock trades. But that doesn’t apply to a private citizen.”
As the debate over congressional stock trading continues, the issue is becoming a defining factor in the political landscape. Candidates across different states are being forced to confront their trading histories and financial disclosures, changing the dynamic of many campaigns and potentially influencing the outcome of the upcoming midterms.
This article has been updated to correct the last name of the co-founder of the Political Integrity Project. It is Agosta, not Agosto.
