At the first-ever minimum salary for Congressional (non-intern) staff (which actually doesn't go into effect until September), it could actually pay the salary for 22 people with a little left over.
And lots of work is done by interns, who now do get some pay ($20k is allocated to each House office and $50k to each Senate office of this purpose annually), but not much.
(Yes, any private employer doing this would have the Labor Department all over them for wage and hour violations. Guess who those rules don't apply to?)
I was trying to clear up your confusion that staff (and other expenses) were paid out of a congresspersons $150,000 salary (which is also a bit higher than that btw).
I am trying to assert that political machines require money. Taxpayer money is one avenue the stock market is another.
I am also saying that the money allocated, by taxpayer money, may not be enough. One way to alleviate this tension is investing in the stock market.
If I am not mistaken, if this ban passes, would they not also vote to increase their salaries? (I would think so, because a source of income was made illegal) So, to conclude, I don't want to give more money to politicians. Let them make money in the stock market and actually enforce the laws already in place that governs their trades.
What is this hunch based on, given that you didn't know they had another $1,000,000+ to spend?
Politicians trade stocks
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts.
Homer: Explain how!
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.
Mr. Cole: That money could be put to use, to gain more money.
Paul: Explain how!
Mr. Cole: Money can be exchanged for stocks and bonds. The value of these securities shifts over time. Performing analysis on these securities can help you produce probabilities on how the value may change.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30064.pdf