Are the Happy Days for crooket politicians ending.

In the S enate a Bill on ondr tradingm The Bill is named the Pelosi Bill in honor of Nancy Pelosi - yjr nohhy Insider trading in the History of the USA

And the House Bill dwaling wth the issue On a si,i;ar oe for the S enate rgat strict cotrol will be for the first time in US History be treated as a cime,

Wonder whther Bernie support that Bill? If he does not it means he is as crooked as his collegues are,

Iy will also expose rapid increaes in assets totally unrelated to their income as Senators and House members,

How Many American Politicians Own Stocks and Shares?

A significant portion of American politicians, specifically members of Congress, own stocks and shares in the United States. The most recent comprehensive data comes from annual financial disclosures and watchdog reports:

1. In the 117th Congress (2021-2023):
2. 284 members (53%) of Congress owned individual stocks. This includes 223 Representatives and 61 Senators1.
3. Of these, 263 owned both individual stocks and widely held investment funds (like mutual funds or ETFs).
4. An additional 212 members (40%) owned only widely held investment funds, not individual stocks.
5. Only 39 members (7%) reported owning neither stocks nor widely held investment funds1.
6. Recent Estimates (2024-2025):
7. The pattern remains consistent, with stock ownership in Congress being extremely common. In 2024, only about 5% of senators and representatives did not own any stock or popular funds6.
8. More than 220 members (over 40%) were found to own individual stocks in 2020, collectively holding at least $225 million in stock assets5.

Key Context

1. Both parties are heavily invested in the stock market. Tech and energy stocks are particularly popular, with tech accounting for nearly half of Democratic investments and about 15% of Republican investments in 20244.
2. Active trading is common: Some members, like Rep. Josh Gottheimer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, conduct hundreds of trades and manage portfolios worth tens of millions of dollars6.
3. Potential conflicts of interest: At least 50 lawmakers or their households are invested in defense contractors, raising concerns about conflicts between legislative duties and personal financial interests8.

Summary Table

Conclusion

More than half of American politicians in Congress own stocks and shares, with the majority either holding individual stocks, widely held investment funds, or both. Only a small minority-about 5-7%-do not own any such financial assets16. This widespread ownership has fueled ongoing debates about potential conflicts of interest and legislative proposals to ban or restrict stock trading by lawmakers.

@DumbMike, this all seems obvious. Just like caping political donations to fund campaigns. Rather let the tax payer fund political campaigns, than billionaires. Or allowing politicians to make money as lobbyists during and after their terms.

However, the proof is in the pudding. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are shareholders, does this mean they will sell their shares, or step down from politics?

Do More Left-Wing or Right-Wing Politicians Own Shares?

More right-wing (Republican) politicians own stocks and shares than left-wing (Democratic) politicians in the United States Congress.

1. According to recent data, 59% of the members of Congress who own stock are Republicans, while 41% are Democrats5.
2. Stock ownership is widespread and bipartisan, but the proportion is higher among Republicans5.
3. Both parties have significant investment activity, with Democrats tending to favor tech stocks (49% of their investments) and Republicans investing more heavily in energy and tech (15% in tech)4.

Summary Table

Conclusion:

While stock ownership is common among both parties, a greater share of Republican (right-wing) members of Congress own stocks compared to their Democratic (left-wing) counterparts

What Is the PELOSI Act? Is It Real or Just Political Theater?

The PELOSI Act-officially titled the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act-is a real, currently proposed piece of legislation in the U.S. Congress. It is not just "reality TV politics," though it is named in a way that draws media attention.

What Does the PELOSI Act Propose?

1. Ban on Stock Trading: The act would ban members of Congress and their spouses from holding, purchasing, or selling individual stocks while in office. Lawmakers could still invest in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), or U.S. Treasury bonds258.
2. Compliance Period: Current and newly elected lawmakers would have 180 days to comply with the new rules after the law’s enactment or after taking office125.
3. Enforcement: Lawmakers who violate the ban would have to forfeit any profits from improper trades to the U.S. Treasury and could face additional monetary penalties imposed by House and Senate ethics committees125.
4. Bipartisan Support: The bill has support from both Republicans and Democrats, and former President Trump has publicly stated he would sign such a ban if it reached his desk12359.

Why Is It Called the PELOSI Act?

The bill is named after former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose husband, Paul Pelosi, has drawn scrutiny for his highly successful and well-timed stock trades. While Nancy Pelosi herself does not personally trade stocks, her family's investment activity has been a lightning rod for criticism and a symbol in the debate over congressional stock trading ethics568.

Is It Just Political Theater?

1. Legislative Reality: The PELOSI Act is a real bill, formally introduced and debated in Congress258. Multiple versions and similar bills have been proposed in both the House and Senate14.
2. Political Messaging: The bill’s name is a clear political statement, aiming to highlight perceived conflicts of interest and to capitalize on public frustration with congressional stock trading. However, the legislative text and bipartisan support indicate it is more than just a symbolic gesture1258.

Current Status

As of May 2025, the PELOSI Act has been reintroduced and is under consideration. It reflects a genuine push to address concerns about lawmakers profiting from insider information, though whether it will pass and be signed into law remains to be seen1258.

In summary:

The PELOSI Act is a real legislative proposal aimed at banning members of Congress and their spouses from trading individual stocks while in office. While its name is politically charged, the bill itself is substantive, with bipartisan backing and a serious intent to address public concerns about conflicts of interest in Congress1258.

SB

As [er normal yu are talkig shit, Mutal Trust holdings are not reall wht is vovered in this type of the same hing since owning it is nto te iue becaue it is not really inluenced by poltcal and administrative decisions having a irec impact on decisions on poliical or administrativ decisions not KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC - but to the Poliicians. Tht kind of avigs and invesments re NOT includeed in the Act, Most of the Repubicans have thse kind of shaes either used for investment purposes - some even ahving inherited by them and used as permanent saving and invetment prposes,

That is not the bject of the legislaion since it is not based on political and administrative decisions not known to anybody - bar hemselves. Many politicians made money out of business ventures they were invovled in before becoming Senators and House members - eg both Vance and Senato Hawly became wealhy before they enter politics and he position is that members who do insider knowledge rade in stocks is not tolerated by the Republcan Party and forbidden by the members,

The situation is that in the past decade and after the departure of Bush Junior tries to stop the abuse resulting from Insider Trading diectly influenced by political or administration known to them and nobody else, The Republican Party used two methods to stop such conduct - nmely -

1. by banning members invovled from Cmmittee memebrshipof C omittees handing secret issues not known to the public and making suire they are not re-elected for instance in the case of Senator Romney of Uah and Senator O'Connelin the next S ente election. and House mem bers lost their seats hen ousted by Paty members from being future candidates in future; and
2. by submitting legislation to stop the abuse by Congress Members,

Two recent exaples are that Obama himself who became a millioarie throug Insider Stock Trading refused to sign into Lw an at smitted to himand gtted te elgilation taotally and then ant Congress to approve his version so h and the Democrat leadeship could continue to abuse the system. Obama made millions ou o insider trading as a Senator and corruption while he was President, He and Bush Junior are best riends now and equally corrupt as Presidents, Their VP;s Cheyne and Biden were as corrupt as they were. When Cheyne was in charge in the Wars in Iraq and Afghnstan the frm he ffecively got contracts from the Defens Department running nto billons evey year and is sill used by the Defense Department and when the operations in Afghanstan ended - the Company moved to the Ukraine War with perations theyare invovle in working from Poland. Obama and Biden se the same system to gt ribes back from China, Iran and Ukraine, partl snce he comans they got hares in benefit fom insider knowlege.

Before the lates effort Pelsi and Schumer refused to have draft legislation submitted to he Senate when the Democrats had he majoriities in he House and the Senate in 2023 and 2024. And after the lsses by the Dmocats the new efforts to pass laws to stop INSIDER KNOWLEDGE not known to the Public to enrich themselves. The Democrats routinely oppose such legislation with everything at their dsposal while the support of the Republcans by are near to nanimous.

The Mutual Trust invesments are not regarded as political manipulation methods fo personal enrichmets - but Insder Trading should be a crime. The Stats you sbmitted above are both misleading and dishonest sice Mutual Trust iestment has not been used in the past for Insder Trading purposes and will not be used in such trading anyway and is not included in the present legislation as proposed.

. . , , . ,

.

You stupid fool. This is commonplace in America, with over 50% of the top politicians owning stock, mostly Big Tech, which has had the highest returns.

How can you call out one side when the other side is just as guilty?

No Dimness

The mstter is not stockholding in general - although investments in Mutual Trust is not an issue as you made it out t be initially -but of Insider trading based on secret knowledge not avaiable to the Publc and anybody else, That s why the proposed legislation exluded Mutual Trust investments that cover a basket of shares and not indivudal shares, Those are specifically what most Republicans do,

However individual shareholding in Big Tech and Pharma as wella s other shares are orbidden n the popsoed legislation and shareholders must get rid of heir shares in companies other han Mutal Trust holdings is excluded fom the legisaltaion. That is why the legislation is suported by the Republicans and the Democrats fight it all out, That part is missed in your latest comments.

The proposed legislation exclude Mutual share baskets and include all other sharholders holding and trading individual stocks. within six mnths or in case of new members within 6 months after election. You know and have no eal facts of stockhoding in Big Tech by indvidual Republicans.

I think nobody knows bar perhaps Kennedy kne about the 50% cut in medicine products Trump signed two days ago, THe Democrats wil have a fit about that bcause they had big shares in that monopoly, but only a few would have lsot as a result of sch sharehlfing and moly by Democats who lve monopolies and buy share accordingly.

What you do no take intoa ccount the Republicans support the elilation - while the Dmocats figh it all out. f that des not tell you smething about the real situation as to Inside Trading. nothing will,,

Ou Maaik is stupid enough . . . and brainwashed enough . . . to think that one political party in any particular country (cuntry in Shitoric for ou Maaik's benefit) is significantly different to any other.