Under the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, members of Congress must disclose a stock trade within 45 days of the trade with no exceptions. These seven members have not just delayed reporting but have failed to disclose trading activity. 

Washington D.C. – Today, Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed complaints with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) for failure to disclose stock trades in compliance with the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act.  

While previous CLC complaints have addressed members who delayed disclosure beyond the mandated window or filed disclosures in an improper manner, these seven members — Reps. Cindy Axne (D-IA), Warren Davidson (R-OH), Lance Gooden (R-TX), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Roger Williams (R-TX) and Del. Michael San Nicolas (D-GU) — have conducted significant stock trading activity that has not been disclosed at all. 

The actions of these House members demonstrate a widespread, systemic issue in Congress that crosses ideological and geographic lines. All members of Congress and their staff receive mandatory STOCK Act training. This ongoing trend of STOCK Act violations shows that merely the threat of a nominal fine is not deterring members of Congress from breaking the law.  

“The lack of accountability we’ve seen in regard to STOCK Act compliance is basically giving elected officials the green light to buy and sell stocks based on information gained from committee meetings without any transparency for their voters,” said Kedric Payne, general counsel and senior director of ethics at Campaign Legal Center. “Until we see meaningful enforcement paired with real transparency, I see no end to this troubling trend.” 

The fact is that members are not being held accountable for financial transactions that could very reasonably arouse conflict of interest concerns. Of particular concern with this group is the fact that five of these seven members — Axne, Davidson, Gooden, San Nicolas and Williams — sit on the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services. 

As members of Congress craft laws that directly impact the lives of all Americans, voters have a right to know whether their representatives are acting in the public’s interest or for their own financial gain. When elected officials prioritize gaining personal wealth, they are not only hurting their own accountability, but they are diminishing public trust in government. 

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.

Rhode Island’s political spending transparency rules have been upheld by the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals observed that “a well-informed electorate is as vital to the survival of a democracy as air is to the survival of human life” while upholding the state’s 2012 Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications Act. 

Read the ruling here.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC), along with Common Cause Rhode Island and the League of Women Voters of Rhode Island, filed an amicus brief in the case, in support of the state and the transparency law.

“Rhode Islanders have a right to know who is spending in an attempt to influence their votes,” said Austin Graham, CLC legal counsel. “The First Circuit’s decision preserves that right by upholding Rhode Island’s transparency rules for election spending and helps to ensure state voters remain well-informed – which, to quote the First Circuit’s opinion, is ‘as vital to the survival of a democracy as air is to the survival of human life.’”

“This ruling represents a win for Rhode Island’s voters. We deserve to know who’s paying to influence our elections,” said Common Cause Rhode Island Executive Director John Marion. “Voters need to be able to ‘consider the source’ of information when deciding whether or not to believe it. And if the ‘source’ is shielded, then we have no way of judging motivations behind the information or whether it’s trustworthy.”

Among other provisions, Rhode Island’s political transparency rules require groups spending $1,000 or more on electioneering ads to disclose donors that gave at least $1,000 to fund the ads and provide that ads run by certain groups must include “top-five” disclaimers identifying their five largest contributors.

In 2019, the Gaspee Project and Illinois Opportunity Project challenged the law, seeking to spend thousands of dollars distributing election-related mailers to Rhode Island voters without identifying themselves or their large contributors to the public.

In August 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the complaint, finding the provisions constitutionally serve the state’s vital interest in equipping voters with essential information about special interests spending to influence their vote.

The appeals court held that Rhode Island's law satisfies exacting scrutiny and is narrowly tailored to the state’s important interest in an informed electorate, rejecting the plaintiffs’ attempts to compare their privacy concerns to NAACP v. Alabama and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta.

The law was proposed and passed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that itself upheld federal disclosure requirements for independent expenditures.

At Campaign Legal Center, we are advancing democracy through law. Learn more about our work.