Back in July, the Senate Finance Committee voted to advance a piece of legislation that could bring some much-needed reform to Congress, The bill, brought forward by Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, would “prohibit Members of Congress (or their spouses) from holding or trading certain investments,” according to the proposed legislation.
Although the bill’s name, the PELOSI Act (Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments) is aimed at former speaker Nancy Pelosi, the proposal has some bipartisan support. It faces an uphill battle, however, as far too many members of Congress fear losing a privilege that has amassed many of them millions of dollars.
While this specific bill may not be voted on for some time, the questions it raises will continue to be relevant for the foreseeable future. Since reading the proposal, I have become more aware of a concerning trend in the way we view the roles of members of Congress–a trend I think this bill would help to counteract.
In criticizing our elected leaders, we are often too quick to assume malevolence or bad intentions, concluding that the harmful decisions politicians make are always part of a larger plot to promote a particular ideology or party; for example, when Republicans act against the public interest, we might assume their main motive is to support Donald Trump and the MAGA movement as a whole.
However, the assumption that politicians are always dedicated to some greater legislative ideology or agenda actually gives them too much credit. Unfortunately, many elected officials are more motivated by their own comfort and personal gain than any sort of political agenda; unless, of course, their own well-being is at the center of that agenda.
Over the past few decades, a seat in Congress has increasingly become a position that grants its occupant high levels of influence and wealth, and we have not done enough to stop this deterioration. We have slowly lowered our expectations of our elected officials, and in the process we have transformed the offices they hold from offices of public service to positions of luxury.
After all, there is a reason why we call those who hold elected office public servants. Or at least we used to–it seems we use that terminology less and less. In the vision of the framers of the Constitution, taking an oath of office was, fundamentally, a sacrifice: it meant giving up some personal comforts in the interest of the common good. As the Oath of Office says, a person holding public office must preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution to the best of their ability. And that means personal well-being sometimes has to be sidelined.
Few people could capture the role of the public servant better than Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the following in 1779 that “in a virtuous government, public offices … should be burdens to those appointed to them which it would be wrong to decline, though foreseen to bring them intense labor and great private loss.”
To be a public servant, in Jefferson’s mind, was to take on a great burden. Do we think in those terms now? Or do we write off some levels of corruption and selfishness if it “gets the job done?” It seems like we’ve adopted a mindset much closer to the latter.
It’s no surprise, then, that members of Congress run away, hide, or pretend to take phone calls when faced with angry constituents in the halls of Congress or the streets of Washington. It’s also no surprise that our members of Congress unabashedly take millions from PACs to stay in office, or that Speaker Mike Johnson called the House to recess a week early so his friends could get more vacation time instead of dealing with the business of the American people.
While we should remember that our elected officials are human, we also need to remember that they should represent the best of our society–or else they don’t deserve to be in positions of power. If members of Congress want long vacations and the opportunity to make millions trading stocks, then they should remain private citizens.
It would be naive of me to suggest that there aren’t deep ideological interests that motivate our politicians to support causes that are detrimental to the public good. But there are also political decisions that are made out of sheer laziness and self-interest, because elected office has been denigrated to the point where these are acceptable uses of it.
I strongly believe that Hawley’s bill would help begin the road to a more effective Congress. Senator Elizabeth Warren has signaled support for the bill, but it’s crucial that other members of Congress agree to take this step. You can visit congress.gov to contact Congressman Jim McGovern, Senator Ed Markey, and others to urge them to support this vital legislation.
Olin Rose-Bardawil of Florence is a recent graduate of the Williston Northampton School where he was editor in chief of the school’s newspaper, The Willistonian. He will be attending Tufts University to study political science in the fall.