Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
The PELOSI Act (H.R. 3388) would add a new subchapter to Title 5 banning Members of Congress and their spouses from holding, purchasing, or selling most securities, certain derivatives, and commodities during a Member’s term. Exclusions include diversified mutual funds, diversified ETFs, and U.S. Treasury securities, and compensation from a spouse’s or dependent child’s primary occupation.
Scope of ban versus property rights and investment freedom
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive policy change that is reasonably well-specified in statutory form: it defines key terms, establishes prohibitions with limited exceptions, delegates implementation and enforcement to existing ethics committees, prescribes penalties and reporting, and mandates an audit.
The PELOSI Act (H.R. 3388) would add a new subchapter to Title 5 banning Members of Congress and their spouses from holding, purchasing, or selling most securities, certain derivatives, and commodities during a Member’s term.
Exclusions include diversified mutual funds, diversified ETFs, and U.S. Treasury securities, and compensation from a spouse’s or dependent child’s primary occupation.
Members get 180 days after enactment or after starting a term to divest; violations require disgorgement of profits and allow supervising ethics committees to assess civil fines equal to 10% of the value of nondivested covered instruments every 30 days.
High public salience but intrusive, broad restrictions on officeholders' private finances historically struggle to clear both chambers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive policy change that is reasonably well-specified in statutory form: it defines key terms, establishes prohibitions with limited exceptions, delegates implementation and enforcement to existing ethics committees, prescribes penalties and reporting, and mandates an audit. The bill establishes multiple accountability mechanisms but omits several operational and fiscal details that would be needed for comprehensive implementation.
Scope of ban versus property rights and investment freedom
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope of ban versus property rights and investment freedom
Likely to view the bill favorably as a strong, direct anti-corruption measure that reduces conflicts of interest.
Would see the prohibition as restoring public trust by preventing members benefiting from market-sensitive knowledge.
Generally supportive of stronger conflict-of-interest rules but attentive to fairness, implementation, and legal practicality.
Sees merit in preventing trading on privileged information while needing clearer mechanics for divestment and spouse income protections.
Mixed-to-negative view: supports anti-corruption goals but concerned about property rights, federal overreach, and discouraging public service.
May see the ban as heavy-handed and legally vulnerable.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High public salience but intrusive, broad restrictions on officeholders' private finances historically struggle to clear both chambers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope of ban versus property rights and investment freedom
High public salience but intrusive, broad restrictions on officeholders' private finances historically struggle to clear both chambers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive policy change that is reasonably well-specified in statutory form: it defines key terms, establishes prohibitions with limited exceptions, dele…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.