The Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, introduced by Senator Jeff Merkley, would ban congressional stock ownership and trading. This bill would be an important step towards improving accountability and reducing corruption in Congress.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Jeff Merkley (Oregon) introduced the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, a consensus bill aiming to address a long-standing gap in our laws that has allowed the controversial stock trading to flourish among lawmakers, resulting in significant public distrust in our elected officials.

The ETHICS Act, the product of months of conversations and years of advocacy, would prohibit Members of Congress, as well as their spouses and dependent minors, from owning or trading securities, commodities or futures – a ban supported by 70 percent of American voters. To meet this obligation, Members could divest their stocks completely, exchange their stocks in individual companies for mutual funds, or place their assets into a qualified blind trust. The legislation would also include meaningful new penalties for rules violations.

“The ETHICS Act is the reform that the public has been waiting to see,” said Kedric Payne, Vice President, General Counsel and Senior Director for Ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “Voters are seeking assurance that their representatives in Congress are not sidelining constituent needs in favor of self-enrichment. The Senate should swiftly take up this legislation or the stock trading scandals will continue to go unpunished and deteriorate public trust.  The ETHICS Act is a long overdue step towards restoring ethics in Congress.”

As our elected officials debate and craft laws that directly impact the lives of Americans, voters have a right to know whether their representatives are acting in the public’s interest or towards the furtherance of their own financial gain. The ETHICS Act is an important step towards ensuring that these concerns are understood and addressed. 

Washington, D.C. – This week, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted a letter to the committee of federal judges with authority to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Attorney General for potential criminal and civil penalties related to violating the Ethics in Government Act.  

In its letter to the Judicial Conference, CLC asserts that there is reasonable cause to believe that Justice Thomas intentionally disregarded the requirement to report gifts of free private plane and yacht travel.  

Justice Thomas’ public statement did not deny an investigative report from ProPublica which revealed that he received expensive trips from an individual for  20 years, putting the reputation and ethical standing of the Supreme Court on the line. 

Kedric Payne, Vice President, General Counsel and Senior Director for Ethics at Campaign Legal Center and former Deputy Chief Counsel of the Office of Congressional Ethics, issued the following statement: 

“The public has a right to know that those serving as members of the highest court of the land are doing so in good faith for all, not just a select few. With public trust in the Supreme Court as an institution at an all-time low, the high court has a duty to make addressing its latest ethical woes a priority.  

Other federal justices follow disclosure rules outlined by the Ethics in Government Act on a regular basis, and a Supreme Court justice should be no exception. Inaction from the Judicial Conference could serve to normalize such violations across the judiciary and potentially obscure who is influencing judges tasked with making impartial decisions that uphold the rule of law.”  

A diverse democracy is a strong democracy. 

This Diversity Month, CLC recommits itself to fighting for Americans of every race, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, economic status and political affiliation to participate in and affect the political process. 

While we should explore every avenue to achieve the ideal of a diverse, equitable and inclusive democracy, there are two policies that are proven to protect and expand access to democracy for all Americans: state Voting Rights Acts (state VRAs) and public financing initiatives.  

State VRAs build on the legal protections offered by the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (federal VRA), which was enacted as the direct result of civil rights activism seeking to dismantle the Jim Crow laws that denied Black Americans the freedom to vote. 

Over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at key pieces of the federal VRA which has led to a proliferation of discriminatory anti-voter laws that target Black, Latino, Asian and Native voters and other voters of color. 

The evisceration of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has also allowed self-interested politicians to manipulate voting maps to silence communities of color. State VRAs are an important tool to protect and center those communities and can go above and beyond the federal VRA to ensure every voice is heard and every vote counts equally. 

We must also ensure elected officials are responsive to and representative of the interests of all their constituents, not just a handful of wealthy donors. 

For too long, wealthy donors and special interests have been able to control who has the means to run for office. While there are more women and people of color serving in Congress than ever before, we still have a long way to go before our government is as diverse as the American electorate. In races for the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, women of color raise less on average than all other candidates. While women of color make up 25% of the U.S. population, they make up only 4% of U.S. House candidates. 

Public financing initiatives that provide vouchers or match small-dollar campaign contributions make it possible for a more diverse pool of candidates to run for office and increase candidates’ engagement with a broader, more diverse pool of constituents, all of which leads to a healthier and more inclusive democracy.

The freedom to vote and the doors to public office should be accessible to every American. If our government is to truly be of, by and for the people, it must be reflective of the people. At Campaign Legal Center, we value a diverse democracy that’s open to all. 

In comments submitted today to the Oversight Board of Meta, Campaign Legal Center made specific recommendations regarding the importance of transparency as an election integrity tool, and the risks of harm posed to the democratic process by mis- and disinformation disseminated during an election cycle, including the post-election period. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) submitted public comments (linked here) to the Oversight Board of Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, regarding political misinformation and ongoing threats to democratic processes and institutions.  

“The public has a right to know who is paying for messages on Meta’s platforms seeking to influence elections,” said Erin Chlopak, senior director for campaign finance at Campaign Legal Center. “Meta is well positioned to provide information that enables voters to fully evaluate the credibility of election-related content and the motivations of those who pay to disseminate it on Meta’s platforms. Meta has a mixed history of adhering to its own requirements, making it clear that more can be done to increase transparency – which is one of the most important tools available to secure elections.” 

“Meta has a responsibility to maintain the highest level of scrutiny and moderation of election-related content on its platforms,” said Catherine Hinckley Kelley, senior director for policy and strategic partnerships at Campaign Legal Center. “From threats of violence against election workers to the January 6th attack on our country, we’ve seen the harm caused by misinformation even after the polls have closed. The removal and demotion of misleading or threatening content meant to disrupt the democratic process is a critical safeguard against future attempts to overturn election results.”