- Potential benefitReduces Members' ability to trade many securities while in office, lowering insider trading opportunities.
- Potential benefitExtends post-employment cooling-off periods, decreasing near-term influence-peddling and lobbying by former members.
- Potential benefitPublic certifications and biennial audits increase transparency and oversight of lawmakers' financial compliance.
No Corruption in Government Act
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, the Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subs…
The No Corruption in Government Act would (1) ban Members of Congress and their spouses from holding, buying, or selling most securities, commodities, and synthetic derivatives during a Member’s term, with limited exceptions and certification/audit requirements; (2) lengthen post‑employment lobbying bans to 6 years for former Senators and 3 years for former House Members (with a 1‑year rule for certain officers); and (3) repeal the automatic cost‑of‑living adjustment for Members’ pay. The bill creates disgorgement, tax, and civil‑fine penalties for violations, requires public certification of compliance, and phases in effective dates across Congresses and departures from office.
Progressives prioritize anti‑corruption and transparency measures
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies substantive statutory changes and supplies many concrete elements (definitions, exceptions, timelines, audit/certification requirements, and explicit edits to existing statutes).
The No Corruption in Government Act would (1) ban Members of Congress and their spouses from holding, buying, or selling most securities, commodities, and synthetic derivatives during a Member’s term, with limited exceptions and certification/audit requirements; (2) lengthen post‑employment lobbying bans to 6 years for former Senators and 3 years for former House Members (with a 1‑year rule for certain officers); and (3) repeal the automatic cost‑of‑living adjustment for Members’ pay.
The bill creates disgorgement, tax, and civil‑fine penalties for violations, requires public certification of compliance, and phases in effective dates across Congresses and departures from office.
Content is broadly popular in rhetoric but directly constrains lawmakers and requires both chambers to approve; Senate hurdles and probable intra-Congress resistance reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies substantive statutory changes and supplies many concrete elements (definitions, exceptions, timelines, audit/certification requirements, and explicit edits to existing statutes). It integrates with existing law through targeted amendments and clerical changes.
Progressives prioritize anti‑corruption and transparency measures
Who stands to gain, and who may push back.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
- Potential burdenMembers and spouses may face reduced investment choices and potential forced divestments, affecting personal finances.
- Potential burdenCompliance, certification, publication, and biennial audits increase administrative workload and enforcement costs.
- Potential burdenDisgorgement, fines, and denied tax deductions could penalize inadvertent or technical violations disproportionately.
Why the argument around this bill splits.
Progressives prioritize anti‑corruption and transparency measures
Overall supportive.
The bill directly targets conflicts of interest, insider trading, and the revolving door, which aligns with progressive priorities on transparency and reducing elite capture.
It strengthens ethics oversight through audits and public certifications.
Cautiously favorable but pragmatic.
The core aims—preventing insider advantage and cooling the revolving door—are sensible, but practical implementation, legal defensibility, and privacy impacts need clarity.
Would seek measured fixes to reduce unintended consequences.
Mostly opposed.
The bill is viewed as federal overreach into private financial affairs, potentially infringes on property and employment freedoms, and may burden former employees’ right to work.
The pay‑adjustment repeal is a modest redeeming feature.
The path through Congress.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is broadly popular in rhetoric but directly constrains lawmakers and requires both chambers to approve; Senate hurdles and probable intra-Congress resistance reduce odds.
- Level of support among rank-and-file Members
- Potential legal challenges to investment or penalty provisions
Recent votes on the bill.
No vote history yet
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Go deeper than the headline read.
Progressives prioritize anti‑corruption and transparency measures
Content is broadly popular in rhetoric but directly constrains lawmakers and requires both chambers to approve; Senate hurdles and probable…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies substantive statutory changes and supplies many concrete elements (definitions, exceptions, timelines, audit/certification requirements, and explic…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.