President Donald Trump is passing on an easy chance to drain the metaphorical swamp he's promised to improve since arriving in Washington, D.C., nearly a decade ago.
The president pledged he would "absolutely" sign a bill banning members of Congress from trading stocks, which enjoys overwhelming public support, and he could easily throw his support behind one of several bills with bipartisan support, but he attacked Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) last week instead of backing his proposed ban, wrote MSNBC opinion editor James Downie.
"Until not too long ago, insider trading laws did not apply to members of Congress," Downie wrote. "This went about as you would expect: Investigations revealed that lawmakers profited off of stock transactions made during the 2008 recession and the 2010 health care debate. In 2012, Congress passed the STOCK Act, which made insider trading laws applicable to members of Congress and their staffs, and required disclosures of trades within 45 days for both transparency and enforcement."
"The STOCK Act has been a failure, and its shortcomings have been apparent for some time," Downie added.
Dozens of members of Congress and their staffers have violated the law, and some lawmakers and their families have traded stocks in industries affected by their work on legislative committees, but an ideologically diverse group – from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) – have pushed for a ban.
"Current Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has recently expressed guarded support, but like Pelosi has not shown any interest in actually letting legislation come to the floor," Downie wrote.
But Hawley and other Republicans, including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), have been pushing various bills to ban or limit stock trading by elected officials, but Trump aimed his fire at one backed by Hawley and all the Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that would prohibit trades by the president and vice president, although the Missouri Republican insists the dispute was based on a misunderstanding.
"Let’s give Trump the benefit of the doubt — a fraught exercise at any time — and assume his post was indeed a case of miscommunication," Downie wrote. "Now that that’s cleared up, the president could pick up the phone tomorrow and get a ban passed. He could pick Hawley’s bill, Burchett’s or whichever other Republican he wants to receive credit. He could tell Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to give him something to sign, and they’d obey. It’s the only way any law passes in this Congress anyway."
"But he hasn’t, because the president doesn’t care about politicians self-enriching," the columnist added. "His presidency was never about draining the swamp; he is the swamp. And even the tiniest effort to rebut that image is, for him, a bridge too far."
