Indeed. It doesn't appear to be such a huge burden to ask Federal elected officials, who are all paid a substantial salary and have great benefits, to put their assets in a blind trust, like in that old Onion joke[0].

[0]: https://www.theonion.com/you-people-made-me-give-up-my-peanu...

Is that still satire? The URL says The Onion, but the article sounds totally serious.

FTA: Blind trusts wouldn't be allowed.

>The new bill would bar Washington officials from owning or trading stocks, even in blind trusts.

The implication is that blind trusts are just wealth managers with a facade of independence.

Thanks for pointing that out -- I missed that originally. It seems heavy-handed. Either blind trusts are actually blind (that is, real independence on the part of the trustee, not just a facade) or they aren't. If it's the latter, then that should be the part that needs dealing with. But I have a hard time believing that this is a real problem; trust law is extremely well established.

In the end, what we want to do is align the personal incentives of our elected representatives with the incentives of society as a whole. That includes the ability for elected officials to (indirectly and passively) participate in the stock market, just like how millions of Americans do with their 401ks and IRAs. The problem is the rampant insider trading, not that congresspeople own stock.

If this bill would make it so that elected officials can only own Treasury notes and real estate, well, it will probably end up inflating the value of those assets instead ;-) but jokes aside, it appears an undue burden.

Even if they don't own war machinery stocks themselves in many states they need war to keep running the war industries and employment up as without high employment numbers it's hard to get reelected.

I presume they'll just receive the money from their lobbyists in those industries but it's definitely better than having that AND their own stock "great investments".