Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The STABLE GENIUS Act prohibits the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, certain candidates, and related covered individuals from issuing, sponsoring, endorsing, buying, selling, holding, or otherwise acquiring digital assets during campaign filing through election, while in office, and for one year after leaving office. Covered digital-asset holdings must be placed in a supervising-ethics-office–approved qualified blind trust, whose trustee must divest assets within six months and meet certification and independence requirements.
Left praises anti-corruption; right calls it overreach against property rights.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory prohibition that is reasonably well-specified in definitions, time horizons, trustee requirements, and penalties, and it integrates with some existing statutory provisions.
The STABLE GENIUS Act prohibits the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, certain candidates, and related covered individuals from issuing, sponsoring, endorsing, buying, selling, holding, or otherwise acquiring digital assets during campaign filing through election, while in office, and for one year after leaving office.
Covered digital-asset holdings must be placed in a supervising-ethics-office–approved qualified blind trust, whose trustee must divest assets within six months and meet certification and independence requirements.
Supervising ethics offices must publish qualified blind trust agreements; violations expose covered individuals to civil penalties up to $250,000, disgorgement, and criminal penalties (fines and up to 18 years imprisonment) if the violation causes $1,000,000 aggregate loss or financial benefit to the official or associates.
Ethics framing gives some bipartisan traction, but broad coverage, enforcement severity, legal uncertainty, and implementation complexity lower odds without significant narrowing.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory prohibition that is reasonably well-specified in definitions, time horizons, trustee requirements, and penalties, and it integrates with some existing statutory provisions. It delivers concrete prohibitions and enforcement paths but leaves several implementation and definitional ambiguities unaddressed and contains no funding provisions.
Left praises anti-corruption; right calls it overreach against property rights.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left praises anti-corruption; right calls it overreach against property rights.
Generally supportive because the bill targets corruption risks and improves transparency around officials' crypto holdings.
Appreciates limits on novel, hard-to-audit investments that can create conflicts of interest.
May want the scope expanded beyond digital assets to other financial instruments.
Supportive of anti-corruption aims but cautious about definitions, administrative feasibility, and constitutional questions.
Sees merit in limiting crypto-related conflicts while wanting clarity on 'digital asset' scope and consistent ethics-office procedures.
Prefers adjustments to avoid inadvertent penalties for routine, small holdings.
Likely opposed as government overreach restricting lawful private investments and candidates' financial autonomy.
Views the broad digital-asset definition, forced divestiture, and heavy criminal penalties as punitive and vague.
Concerned it selectively targets crypto and could chill candidacy or private-market participation.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Ethics framing gives some bipartisan traction, but broad coverage, enforcement severity, legal uncertainty, and implementation complexity lower odds without significant narrowing.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left praises anti-corruption; right calls it overreach against property rights.
Ethics framing gives some bipartisan traction, but broad coverage, enforcement severity, legal uncertainty, and implementation complexity l…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory prohibition that is reasonably well-specified in definitions, time horizons, trustee requirements, and penalties, and it integrates with so…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.