88% of Americans Want Congress to Stop Trading Stocks, Will They Listen?
Summary
Legislation Focus: The podcast discusses the proposed Trust Act, aimed at preventing conflicts of interest by requiring Congress members to divest or place stockholdings in blind trusts.
Public Sentiment: There is overwhelming public support for banning Congress members from trading stocks, with 88% of Americans in favor, highlighting a strong bipartisan consensus.
Conflict of Interest Concerns: The discussion highlights the potential conflicts of interest when Congress members trade stocks, which can erode public trust and create perceptions of unfair advantages.
Current Legislation: The Stock Act of 2012 is criticized for being ineffective, with minimal penalties for non-compliance and no prosecutions, thus failing to address insider trading concerns adequately.
Personal Accountability: Representative Greg Lansman exemplifies personal accountability by selling his stocks and advocating for a ban on Congress members trading stocks, despite the financial cost.
Political Dynamics: The podcast emphasizes the need for leadership support to pass the Trust Act, with a focus on the role of key political figures in advancing the legislation.
Investment Ethics: The conversation underscores the importance of ethical considerations in public service, advocating for transparency and fairness in financial dealings by elected officials.
Transcript
[Music] Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Live from the Compound. I am your host downtown Josh Brown. Congress is now considering a new bill called the Trust Act. This is the Transparent Representation upholding service and trust. It's an acronym, guys. Um, the bill is meant to restore public trust in Congress by requiring members and their spouses to either divest or place their individual stockholdings into qualified blind trusts, thereby preventing conflicts of interest and insider trading concerns. Today, we're talking to Greg Lansman, Representative Greg Lansman, who is a member of the US House of Representatives. Uh you represent Southwest Ohio, which I guess is uh Cincinnati and the surrounding areas. >> That's correct. You got it. >> All right. And um Greg has uh Greg has served on the Cincinnati City Council for 5 years where he led investments in public safety and core services. And prior to that, you were a school teacher. >> Yeah. Son of son of teachers. School teacher myself. Yeah. >> All right. Well, I want to just say thank you so much for being here. This is this is an issue that people are so passionate about. >> I I don't think that most Americans mind very much people getting wealthy and I don't think that Americans have an issue with people doing well in the stock market. That's not the problem. I think what Americans get insensed by is a perceived unfair advantage. not just for Congress people, but for anyone that's got some sort of inside track or has the ability to manipulate things to have it benefit their investments. Would you agree with me? That's that's really the the the crux of the issue. >> Yeah, I mean I couldn't agree more. I mean at the core Americans and we forget this sometimes uh but we have these shared values and one of them is fairness. We that is a shared American value is fairness and uh and and and hard work. So like we all value uh people who work really hard and that it should be fair so that everybody uh everybody gets a shot right uh at any number of things including the American dream. No one should have, you know, some sort of advantage over or or over over everybody else uh because of who they are or what they know or or or their own wealth, right? And their own um access. Uh and so for politicians to, you know, be trading in individual stocks, uh is is problematic because yeah, you don't know as a member of Congress, like I'm not being told, you know, anything that isn't on TV, >> right? >> I think that's true, right? like but nevertheless, you know, we're in the middle of all kinds of big decisions and so we are a little bit closer uh to information that could be useful. And even if you were like me, somebody who had nothing to do with their stocks, like somebody else does all that, >> it still creates the appearance that somehow I'm using information as a member of Congress or that I get as a member of Congress uh to benefit myself and my family financially. And so, yeah, my wife and I sold all of our stocks. >> Well, let's put a let's put a pin in that. We're going to we're going to get there. I want to I want to just stop on something you said and and go a little bit further. It's almost become a running joke um amongst traders. They have uh they have tools that track the trading of some of your colleagues in the House and and in the Senate. Um there's all sorts of conspiracy theories and it does erode trust because it's not just do these people have anformational benefit. It goes further than that. It's do these people have a conflict when they're legislating. I is there a are they pulling levers that will benefit their personal portfolio positions? That's even worse than um the the appearance that there's some sort offormational edge. And I and I think that that's really what we're talking about is is a is a trust issue there. >> Yeah, I think that's fair. And and that sort of uh you know uh >> that that that paytoplay or uh you know the the idea that somebody is compromised, right? um because because of money and that they're doing something in a position of power where they're supposed to be helping the entirety of of their the community they represent and instead they are representing the interests of some some some money folks and and that is a larger issue in American politics that has to be addressed which is you know just the amount of money uh in politics and and you know I don't take corporate pack money and I don't you know trade individual stocks It's all part of a larger sort of decision set of decisions that we've made so that it is crystal clear to people like I work for the 7800,000 people I represent period no one else. >> Yeah. And you would think that your attitude toward this would be the norm, but it's not. And we've got uh I believe the number is 59% of Republican uh Congress people and 41% of Democratic uh Congress people are actively in the stock market which in and of itself there's nothing wrong with that but there are some members and we're not going to get into names who trade thousands of times a year. I mean, it's it's it's really it's it's really a situation where it seems out of control to the outside per like how does this person who's in elected office have all this time for all these trades. >> Well, and one of them uh this this this new kid from Pennsylvania, I genuinely forget his name, but he's just like he loves it. He's he's talking about it all the time and he's he's bragging about like like, "Hey, you know, I you know, I got to make money, too." And you're like, "Dude, then go get another job, >> right? Go run a go run a hedge fund. >> Go run a hedge fund." Like, it's great. Go go go go go make your money. But like, if you choose public service, you work for the public good. This is not a this is not a money-making job. As I tell, you know, my wife said, >> you know, like this can be, you know, a very expensive job. >> I mean, if you do it right, if you do it, you know, if you do it right. >> Right. Um, there's existing legislation on the books. There was something called the Stock Act in 2012 which uh Barack Obama signed toward the end of his second term. The problem with the stock act is that it's toothless and it's barely barely in use. So yes, >> it was it was it was just transparency. Like you got to report all your trades. >> So we have Right. So we have reports. the the penalty is like a $200 fine for not reporting on time and no member of uh Congress has been prosecuted under that act. So, it's sort of seen like a um uh one way one way I've heard things like this described, it's like uh you're you're driving your car into a whole group of people, but at least you're honking your horn. >> Yeah, fair enough. I mean, >> you don't seem to love that metaphor. >> No, only because like got it. >> Yeah. Uh but not >> not for any other reason than just the idea of somebody driving their car into a crowd. >> Um but yeah, I just think like uh you know the transparency sometimes we think is going to solve the problem. >> Yeah. >> But like it's it's remarkable because like some people like this this kid in Pennsylvania, he does not care. >> He doesn't care. like he's proud of the fact that he is like making a ton of money and uh >> he's reveling in the transparency is serving his his ego. >> Yeah. He's like, "Yeah, no, bring it on." Like I'm And I some of that I think is like, you know, the wrong lessons learned from Trump who sort of like leans into the things that like, you know, some of us believe are completely and utterly wrong and he just says, "No, no, I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to be proud of it and, you know, take you know, eat that." I I will say like for me it was that bill, right? Like I got to Congress, I wasn't thinking about the day after the election. So like I didn't put anything in place. Uh because I'm just one of those people who whatever's in front of them. That's what I'm doing. I'm focused and and then you win and you got to start an office and etc. etc. And then you put out we put out a you know the report your financial report and it turns out that our broker you know they list all those stocks. >> Yep. and and you know it was like oh I don't want to do this like I don't I don't like this and so you know I guess in that sense it was helpful for me because I was like yeah I'd like to get out of this I'm going to I'm going to sell all my stocks. >> Well so let's talk about that. So um I read I read the story and I was really I was really uh impressed and I and and I thought it was really admirable what you did. Not only are not only are you proposing an outright ban on people in Congress being day traders on the side, um, but you are doing what the folks would call putting your money where your mouth is. You sold all of your individual stocks. you took a $150,000 capital gain uh attacks uh for having done so and you moved that money into a broadly diversified portfolio of mutual funds that you are not uh involved with and uh no one could look at that and say Greg's got you know some sort of alternative uh agenda here. You did that in May and um I don't think may maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I saw a lot of other representatives following suit, even the ones that claim to support the bill. It's almost as though they're waiting to see what the legislation is before walking the walk. Is that your impression as well? >> Yes. I I mean, you know, maybe somebody did it. I have not heard of anyone else doing it. >> Okay. Uh why do you think why do you think that is? >> It's expensive. >> It's okay. It's it's it's very >> it's very expensive and you know and I don't know you you could you could make the argument that well once it passes I'll do it. Also, by the way, in the updated bill, you don't have to pay capital gains, >> right? >> So, they there's like a carveout for members of Congress to incentivize them to do this. >> I almost think that's fine at this point. Like why would we retroactively punish somebody for whatever the rules were >> as long as like I don't know one maybe I'm annoyed because I already paid my capital gains on it and it was like you know I did the right thing so like I'm not going to benefit but also like why are members of Congress getting a carve out. >> Yeah. >> I mean I guess it's I guess you could make an argument for it but whatever. I just think like cuz somebody asked me when I was doing it, do you think you know you should get a carveout for your capital gains? And I was like no, I don't think so. Like you know like doing the right thing sometimes is you know sometimes it it's expensive. I would have said yes, you do because you were operating based on the the letter of the law as it was and now there's going to be a new there's going to there's a new uh act or bill being proposed and you want to be in compliance with it in advance. Um but why should you be forced I guess to to pay a penalty for doing the right thing? So I probably would have probably would have said give them the car validate on this. Why? Why do I get a carve out and and somebody else doesn't? Like if if you're not a member of Congress and you sell your stocks, >> like why? >> Because you're in public service. And when Hank Pollson left Goldman to join the Treasury or when Gary Conn left Goldman to join the Trump administration, part of the deal is what am I going to do with all this Goldman stock? Well, you're going to sell it and you're not going to pay a capital gain because you're serving your country. >> Nowadays, I don't I don't even think they'd be forced to sell. >> I think they should pay. I think like they these are people like first of all I don't have a ton of money. I'm you know I I I'm okay. Like don't worry about me. >> Yeah. These are billionaires. >> These are billionaires. They should have paid. >> I'm taking Yeah. They should have paid. Everybody else has to pay their taxes. >> I want to get to uh some of the the polling on this because as I said to you before we started recording the this is all going to come back to you in your favor. This is, I would say, among the most bipartisan things there are amongst the general public. Um, public polling, and I I've got data from a whole bunch of sources. Um, public polling shows 86% of Americans, including 87% of Republicans, 88% of Democrats, and 81% of independents, all back prohibiting members of Congress from trading individual stocks. I can't think of another issue, even like clean drinking water probably wouldn't pull that high. So, this is a good issue for you. Another poll, um, this is from data for progress, showed that 70% of likely voters want a ban, 68% say it should extend to spouses. Um, and and when you think of that level of agreement amongst the people, it's almost miraculous that this hasn't happened yet. >> Yeah. No, I think that that is a great point. It's like sometimes politicians uh especially up here are so far behind where the American people are. And if they spent more time at home uh or were in local government like I was for years, I think they'd be better connected to where folks >> uh really are on these issues. Like yeah, they they they've been clear about this for a long time. They also just hate the the big money. Like yes, I I to me this is a big deal. I also don't take corporate pack money and and almost everybody around me does like all of these people up here do and I don't know if the polling is the same but it's high like people >> but do you think that's part of your appeal and and therefore while it might be a financial impediment to your campaign activities it ends up working in your favor because people just trust you more so than the the people that you'd be running against? >> Yeah. People know that at the end of the day I'm I'm with them. period. Like that's all they care about. >> I I love hearing that so much for the country and I love hearing that for your constituents in uh in Cincinnati. It's a really it's a it's a really great message and it's uh refreshing. The last thing I wanted to get to because I know you guys are having quite a week in uh in DC. Um and thank you for making time for this. >> Um I so I wanted to ask you uh where things stand with this legislation. I know it's not top of the list of things that you're working on right now, but do you think that this has a reasonable shot of getting through at some point in the near future? >> Um, yes, if leadership gets behind it. And and and that means >> who So, who is that? Who is that specifically? the president of the United States, the Senate major the Senate the Senate leader, the the the the Senate minority leader Thun Schumer, uh the the speaker, uh Hakee Jeff, like so much of what's happening in Congress right now is all driven by the the top. >> Yeah. >> And and and so like you know, we may push for a discharge petition on this. I did a discharge discharge petition on the Social Security Fairness Act last Congress and got it done. $20 billion is now going out to retired police officers and firefighters and letter carriers and teachers. >> What is a dis so for I'm a Wall Street guy. What is a discharge petition? >> It's a way to force a vote. It's a way to to work around leadership. They hate it >> on a single on a single issue. >> Yep. Two 218 signatures. Uh if you sign that uh you get 200 and we're about to do it on the Epstein files. Um, so we're we're we're at 217 and we're, you know, we have a new member of Congress who's getting sworn in hopefully next week. It should have been this week. >> Uh, but it'll be 218 at which point like it forces a vote on the on the Epstein files. >> I I forced a vote on the Social Security Fairness Act. It passed. uh these retired uh you know public uh you know officials, teachers, police officers, firefighters, they they're not getting 7 $800 a month in their social security. They paid for social security, but because they had a public pension, there was a bill that said you can't have any of your social security even though you paid for it. So now they're getting their money back. And so I think the only way to get this done because leadership won't do it uh because I think they all make a ton of money and you know >> I was gonna say I this White House doesn't strike me as particularly concerned with um financial conflicts. So it's going to be it's going to be tough to make this a hot button issue for that for that >> like this dude in Pennsylvania which is that he revels in it. He's just like, "Look at how much money I made." >> You know, and and the American people hate it. And and and I I think even >> Trump supporters would be like, "I like Donald Trump, but I don't like the fact that he's worth, you know, several billion dollars now because he's been president of the United States." Like, what is he selling? Is he selling pardons? Is he selling this? Is he selling that? Like, they don't like that either. Um, so I I do think that if it were to get to a floor vote, it would pass. And so like the question is, um, are there enough of us who >> are you one of the primary sponsor? Are you one of the primary sponsors of this? >> Okay. And who is who's the leading counterpart on the Republican side that's that's pushing for this? >> Seth Magaziner is the guy on our side. I'm getting it for you. You can just say it. Morgan's bringing it to me. Morgan's mic. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Morgan. >> My Morgan's my the producer on this side. >> Okay, got it. >> She's having a hard time with the Google. >> Who's the uh who introduced it with him? I feel like uh I feel like it might be like a Thomas Massie type. >> Okay. All right. Well, listen. I on behalf of other >> Chip Roy. >> Oh, Chip Roy. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so like you know we're rebels in the sense I mean very different human beings but um you got to have a little bit of like I don't really care I'm going to go do it attitude to force a vote and there's a probably enough of us on this bill to do that. >> So I I was going to close by just telling you on behalf of all investors who do want there to be a level playing field and don't want to see their elected representatives consumed with uh trading activity. Uh we we appreciate your effort on this and uh we'll see if it if it passes maybe we'll have you come back and take a victory lap. Does that sound good? >> Be awesome. Thank you, man. All right. I appreciate >> guys. If you if if you want to learn more about um uh Greg and his work, uh go to landsman.house.gov. Is that the That's the best place for people to see more about what you're working on. Yes. >> Or social media. Just Google Google Greg Lansman, you know. >> Awesome. Uh Representative Greg Greg Lansman, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you guys so much for watching and listening. Like and subscribe. We're going to let Greg go and we'll talk to you soon.
88% of Americans Want Congress to Stop Trading Stocks, Will They Listen?
Summary
Transcript
[Music] Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Live from the Compound. I am your host downtown Josh Brown. Congress is now considering a new bill called the Trust Act. This is the Transparent Representation upholding service and trust. It's an acronym, guys. Um, the bill is meant to restore public trust in Congress by requiring members and their spouses to either divest or place their individual stockholdings into qualified blind trusts, thereby preventing conflicts of interest and insider trading concerns. Today, we're talking to Greg Lansman, Representative Greg Lansman, who is a member of the US House of Representatives. Uh you represent Southwest Ohio, which I guess is uh Cincinnati and the surrounding areas. >> That's correct. You got it. >> All right. And um Greg has uh Greg has served on the Cincinnati City Council for 5 years where he led investments in public safety and core services. And prior to that, you were a school teacher. >> Yeah. Son of son of teachers. School teacher myself. Yeah. >> All right. Well, I want to just say thank you so much for being here. This is this is an issue that people are so passionate about. >> I I don't think that most Americans mind very much people getting wealthy and I don't think that Americans have an issue with people doing well in the stock market. That's not the problem. I think what Americans get insensed by is a perceived unfair advantage. not just for Congress people, but for anyone that's got some sort of inside track or has the ability to manipulate things to have it benefit their investments. Would you agree with me? That's that's really the the the crux of the issue. >> Yeah, I mean I couldn't agree more. I mean at the core Americans and we forget this sometimes uh but we have these shared values and one of them is fairness. We that is a shared American value is fairness and uh and and and hard work. So like we all value uh people who work really hard and that it should be fair so that everybody uh everybody gets a shot right uh at any number of things including the American dream. No one should have, you know, some sort of advantage over or or over over everybody else uh because of who they are or what they know or or or their own wealth, right? And their own um access. Uh and so for politicians to, you know, be trading in individual stocks, uh is is problematic because yeah, you don't know as a member of Congress, like I'm not being told, you know, anything that isn't on TV, >> right? >> I think that's true, right? like but nevertheless, you know, we're in the middle of all kinds of big decisions and so we are a little bit closer uh to information that could be useful. And even if you were like me, somebody who had nothing to do with their stocks, like somebody else does all that, >> it still creates the appearance that somehow I'm using information as a member of Congress or that I get as a member of Congress uh to benefit myself and my family financially. And so, yeah, my wife and I sold all of our stocks. >> Well, let's put a let's put a pin in that. We're going to we're going to get there. I want to I want to just stop on something you said and and go a little bit further. It's almost become a running joke um amongst traders. They have uh they have tools that track the trading of some of your colleagues in the House and and in the Senate. Um there's all sorts of conspiracy theories and it does erode trust because it's not just do these people have anformational benefit. It goes further than that. It's do these people have a conflict when they're legislating. I is there a are they pulling levers that will benefit their personal portfolio positions? That's even worse than um the the appearance that there's some sort offormational edge. And I and I think that that's really what we're talking about is is a is a trust issue there. >> Yeah, I think that's fair. And and that sort of uh you know uh >> that that that paytoplay or uh you know the the idea that somebody is compromised, right? um because because of money and that they're doing something in a position of power where they're supposed to be helping the entirety of of their the community they represent and instead they are representing the interests of some some some money folks and and that is a larger issue in American politics that has to be addressed which is you know just the amount of money uh in politics and and you know I don't take corporate pack money and I don't you know trade individual stocks It's all part of a larger sort of decision set of decisions that we've made so that it is crystal clear to people like I work for the 7800,000 people I represent period no one else. >> Yeah. And you would think that your attitude toward this would be the norm, but it's not. And we've got uh I believe the number is 59% of Republican uh Congress people and 41% of Democratic uh Congress people are actively in the stock market which in and of itself there's nothing wrong with that but there are some members and we're not going to get into names who trade thousands of times a year. I mean, it's it's it's really it's it's really a situation where it seems out of control to the outside per like how does this person who's in elected office have all this time for all these trades. >> Well, and one of them uh this this this new kid from Pennsylvania, I genuinely forget his name, but he's just like he loves it. He's he's talking about it all the time and he's he's bragging about like like, "Hey, you know, I you know, I got to make money, too." And you're like, "Dude, then go get another job, >> right? Go run a go run a hedge fund. >> Go run a hedge fund." Like, it's great. Go go go go go make your money. But like, if you choose public service, you work for the public good. This is not a this is not a money-making job. As I tell, you know, my wife said, >> you know, like this can be, you know, a very expensive job. >> I mean, if you do it right, if you do it, you know, if you do it right. >> Right. Um, there's existing legislation on the books. There was something called the Stock Act in 2012 which uh Barack Obama signed toward the end of his second term. The problem with the stock act is that it's toothless and it's barely barely in use. So yes, >> it was it was it was just transparency. Like you got to report all your trades. >> So we have Right. So we have reports. the the penalty is like a $200 fine for not reporting on time and no member of uh Congress has been prosecuted under that act. So, it's sort of seen like a um uh one way one way I've heard things like this described, it's like uh you're you're driving your car into a whole group of people, but at least you're honking your horn. >> Yeah, fair enough. I mean, >> you don't seem to love that metaphor. >> No, only because like got it. >> Yeah. Uh but not >> not for any other reason than just the idea of somebody driving their car into a crowd. >> Um but yeah, I just think like uh you know the transparency sometimes we think is going to solve the problem. >> Yeah. >> But like it's it's remarkable because like some people like this this kid in Pennsylvania, he does not care. >> He doesn't care. like he's proud of the fact that he is like making a ton of money and uh >> he's reveling in the transparency is serving his his ego. >> Yeah. He's like, "Yeah, no, bring it on." Like I'm And I some of that I think is like, you know, the wrong lessons learned from Trump who sort of like leans into the things that like, you know, some of us believe are completely and utterly wrong and he just says, "No, no, I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to be proud of it and, you know, take you know, eat that." I I will say like for me it was that bill, right? Like I got to Congress, I wasn't thinking about the day after the election. So like I didn't put anything in place. Uh because I'm just one of those people who whatever's in front of them. That's what I'm doing. I'm focused and and then you win and you got to start an office and etc. etc. And then you put out we put out a you know the report your financial report and it turns out that our broker you know they list all those stocks. >> Yep. and and you know it was like oh I don't want to do this like I don't I don't like this and so you know I guess in that sense it was helpful for me because I was like yeah I'd like to get out of this I'm going to I'm going to sell all my stocks. >> Well so let's talk about that. So um I read I read the story and I was really I was really uh impressed and I and and I thought it was really admirable what you did. Not only are not only are you proposing an outright ban on people in Congress being day traders on the side, um, but you are doing what the folks would call putting your money where your mouth is. You sold all of your individual stocks. you took a $150,000 capital gain uh attacks uh for having done so and you moved that money into a broadly diversified portfolio of mutual funds that you are not uh involved with and uh no one could look at that and say Greg's got you know some sort of alternative uh agenda here. You did that in May and um I don't think may maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I saw a lot of other representatives following suit, even the ones that claim to support the bill. It's almost as though they're waiting to see what the legislation is before walking the walk. Is that your impression as well? >> Yes. I I mean, you know, maybe somebody did it. I have not heard of anyone else doing it. >> Okay. Uh why do you think why do you think that is? >> It's expensive. >> It's okay. It's it's it's very >> it's very expensive and you know and I don't know you you could you could make the argument that well once it passes I'll do it. Also, by the way, in the updated bill, you don't have to pay capital gains, >> right? >> So, they there's like a carveout for members of Congress to incentivize them to do this. >> I almost think that's fine at this point. Like why would we retroactively punish somebody for whatever the rules were >> as long as like I don't know one maybe I'm annoyed because I already paid my capital gains on it and it was like you know I did the right thing so like I'm not going to benefit but also like why are members of Congress getting a carve out. >> Yeah. >> I mean I guess it's I guess you could make an argument for it but whatever. I just think like cuz somebody asked me when I was doing it, do you think you know you should get a carveout for your capital gains? And I was like no, I don't think so. Like you know like doing the right thing sometimes is you know sometimes it it's expensive. I would have said yes, you do because you were operating based on the the letter of the law as it was and now there's going to be a new there's going to there's a new uh act or bill being proposed and you want to be in compliance with it in advance. Um but why should you be forced I guess to to pay a penalty for doing the right thing? So I probably would have probably would have said give them the car validate on this. Why? Why do I get a carve out and and somebody else doesn't? Like if if you're not a member of Congress and you sell your stocks, >> like why? >> Because you're in public service. And when Hank Pollson left Goldman to join the Treasury or when Gary Conn left Goldman to join the Trump administration, part of the deal is what am I going to do with all this Goldman stock? Well, you're going to sell it and you're not going to pay a capital gain because you're serving your country. >> Nowadays, I don't I don't even think they'd be forced to sell. >> I think they should pay. I think like they these are people like first of all I don't have a ton of money. I'm you know I I I'm okay. Like don't worry about me. >> Yeah. These are billionaires. >> These are billionaires. They should have paid. >> I'm taking Yeah. They should have paid. Everybody else has to pay their taxes. >> I want to get to uh some of the the polling on this because as I said to you before we started recording the this is all going to come back to you in your favor. This is, I would say, among the most bipartisan things there are amongst the general public. Um, public polling, and I I've got data from a whole bunch of sources. Um, public polling shows 86% of Americans, including 87% of Republicans, 88% of Democrats, and 81% of independents, all back prohibiting members of Congress from trading individual stocks. I can't think of another issue, even like clean drinking water probably wouldn't pull that high. So, this is a good issue for you. Another poll, um, this is from data for progress, showed that 70% of likely voters want a ban, 68% say it should extend to spouses. Um, and and when you think of that level of agreement amongst the people, it's almost miraculous that this hasn't happened yet. >> Yeah. No, I think that that is a great point. It's like sometimes politicians uh especially up here are so far behind where the American people are. And if they spent more time at home uh or were in local government like I was for years, I think they'd be better connected to where folks >> uh really are on these issues. Like yeah, they they they've been clear about this for a long time. They also just hate the the big money. Like yes, I I to me this is a big deal. I also don't take corporate pack money and and almost everybody around me does like all of these people up here do and I don't know if the polling is the same but it's high like people >> but do you think that's part of your appeal and and therefore while it might be a financial impediment to your campaign activities it ends up working in your favor because people just trust you more so than the the people that you'd be running against? >> Yeah. People know that at the end of the day I'm I'm with them. period. Like that's all they care about. >> I I love hearing that so much for the country and I love hearing that for your constituents in uh in Cincinnati. It's a really it's a it's a really great message and it's uh refreshing. The last thing I wanted to get to because I know you guys are having quite a week in uh in DC. Um and thank you for making time for this. >> Um I so I wanted to ask you uh where things stand with this legislation. I know it's not top of the list of things that you're working on right now, but do you think that this has a reasonable shot of getting through at some point in the near future? >> Um, yes, if leadership gets behind it. And and and that means >> who So, who is that? Who is that specifically? the president of the United States, the Senate major the Senate the Senate leader, the the the the Senate minority leader Thun Schumer, uh the the speaker, uh Hakee Jeff, like so much of what's happening in Congress right now is all driven by the the top. >> Yeah. >> And and and so like you know, we may push for a discharge petition on this. I did a discharge discharge petition on the Social Security Fairness Act last Congress and got it done. $20 billion is now going out to retired police officers and firefighters and letter carriers and teachers. >> What is a dis so for I'm a Wall Street guy. What is a discharge petition? >> It's a way to force a vote. It's a way to to work around leadership. They hate it >> on a single on a single issue. >> Yep. Two 218 signatures. Uh if you sign that uh you get 200 and we're about to do it on the Epstein files. Um, so we're we're we're at 217 and we're, you know, we have a new member of Congress who's getting sworn in hopefully next week. It should have been this week. >> Uh, but it'll be 218 at which point like it forces a vote on the on the Epstein files. >> I I forced a vote on the Social Security Fairness Act. It passed. uh these retired uh you know public uh you know officials, teachers, police officers, firefighters, they they're not getting 7 $800 a month in their social security. They paid for social security, but because they had a public pension, there was a bill that said you can't have any of your social security even though you paid for it. So now they're getting their money back. And so I think the only way to get this done because leadership won't do it uh because I think they all make a ton of money and you know >> I was gonna say I this White House doesn't strike me as particularly concerned with um financial conflicts. So it's going to be it's going to be tough to make this a hot button issue for that for that >> like this dude in Pennsylvania which is that he revels in it. He's just like, "Look at how much money I made." >> You know, and and the American people hate it. And and and I I think even >> Trump supporters would be like, "I like Donald Trump, but I don't like the fact that he's worth, you know, several billion dollars now because he's been president of the United States." Like, what is he selling? Is he selling pardons? Is he selling this? Is he selling that? Like, they don't like that either. Um, so I I do think that if it were to get to a floor vote, it would pass. And so like the question is, um, are there enough of us who >> are you one of the primary sponsor? Are you one of the primary sponsors of this? >> Okay. And who is who's the leading counterpart on the Republican side that's that's pushing for this? >> Seth Magaziner is the guy on our side. I'm getting it for you. You can just say it. Morgan's bringing it to me. Morgan's mic. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Morgan. >> My Morgan's my the producer on this side. >> Okay, got it. >> She's having a hard time with the Google. >> Who's the uh who introduced it with him? I feel like uh I feel like it might be like a Thomas Massie type. >> Okay. All right. Well, listen. I on behalf of other >> Chip Roy. >> Oh, Chip Roy. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so like you know we're rebels in the sense I mean very different human beings but um you got to have a little bit of like I don't really care I'm going to go do it attitude to force a vote and there's a probably enough of us on this bill to do that. >> So I I was going to close by just telling you on behalf of all investors who do want there to be a level playing field and don't want to see their elected representatives consumed with uh trading activity. Uh we we appreciate your effort on this and uh we'll see if it if it passes maybe we'll have you come back and take a victory lap. Does that sound good? >> Be awesome. Thank you, man. All right. I appreciate >> guys. If you if if you want to learn more about um uh Greg and his work, uh go to landsman.house.gov. Is that the That's the best place for people to see more about what you're working on. Yes. >> Or social media. Just Google Google Greg Lansman, you know. >> Awesome. Uh Representative Greg Greg Lansman, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you guys so much for watching and listening. Like and subscribe. We're going to let Greg go and we'll talk to you soon.