No matter the party or role in government, it is morally wrong to use the position for personal gain.
Lately, we have seen a lot of republicans supporting the PELOSI ACT. It is unclear to me how much Nancy Pelosi has benefitted from insider trading, if at all, during her tenure in office, but at the end of the day arguing whether she, specifically, has made money due to being a Congresswoman is a red herring. Whether or not she has made money from insider trading while in Congress doesn’t change the fact that it should not be legal to make trades based on non-public information learned due to a position in Congress and I therefore support the PELOSI ACT, even if the name is contrived for dubious political purposes.
I cannot find any statements from Senators Grassley or Ernst, but it seems Zach Nunn supports nearly identical legislation, having introduced it in the House.
With that, I am reminded that President Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust upon entering office to reduce the possibility of conflict of interest.* He also started the tradition of releasing his tax returns annually for the sake of transparency.
As we look to prevent politicians from enriching themselves due to their political position, I would expect widespread condemnation from Congress on President Trump’s decision to accept a $400MM airplane from Qatar and we have seen some republicans, and nearly all democrats, voice concerns about this gift. Formally, this is being designated a gift to the United States, but designated in such a way that only Donald Trump will ever have a chance to use it. I suppose that all depends on what the definition of ‘gift to’ someone is.
“Something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation” – this is how Merriam-Webster defines a gift. It certainly sounds to me that this airplane is being transferred by Qatar to the President, not the U.S. Government, without compensation.
Why does it matter how this gift is designated? Because Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”
I have not seen any statements from Zach Nunn or Joni Ernst, and while Chuck Grassley did voice some concerns about national security implications, he did not mention any legal or ethical concerns with this gift.
Despite the fact that politicians ought to be working diligently to ensure adequate services are provided to their constituents, many also seem to enrich themselves along the way, sometimes significantly.
*An interesting note, the Carter peanut farm was horribly managed during his presidency and was deep in debt when he left the White House.
Sources:
GIFT Definition & Meaning – Merriam-Webster
Did Carter Sell His Peanut Farm When He Became President? | Snopes.com
U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Hawley Reintroduces PELOSI Act to Ban Congress from Trading Stocks – Josh Hawley
Red herring – Wikipedia
S.58 – 118th Congress (2023-2024): Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Representative Zach Nunn Introduces Bipartisan Congressional Stock Trading Ban Legislation – Congressman Zach Nunn
Republicans voice concern over Trump’s support for a new Air Force One from Qatar : NPR
Grassley shares national security concerns over Qatar luxury jet gift to Trump
Fact check: Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust during presidency
Nixon and Carter Made Releasing Tax Returns a Norm. Then Along Came Trump.
