Arkansas – “No one, especially members of Congress, should profit from insider information,” Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton said in a post on X after voting for legislation aimed at restricting stock trading by members of Congress. Cotton said the measure was intended to “rid Congress of this corruption” and ensure lawmakers follow the same rules as other Americans.
“The Democrats who blocked it went back on their word to protect their own wallets—they should be ashamed of themselves,” Cotton said.
Cotton was referring to the Stop Insider Trading Act, a Republican-backed measure that failed to advance in the Senate on Wednesday after Democrats opposed moving it forward. The bill, H.R. 7008, had already passed the House in July on a bipartisan 232-198 vote before reaching the Senate.
The Senate vote was 53-47, falling short of the 60 votes required to advance the legislation. Republicans supported the bill, while Democrats voted against moving it forward.
The legislation would have prohibited members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children from purchasing publicly traded stocks. It also would have required lawmakers to provide public notice between seven and 14 days before an intended sale and established financial penalties for violations, including forfeiture of profits.
Cotton also said that the measure addressed concerns over lawmakers benefiting financially from information they receive as part of their congressional duties.
“No one, especially members of Congress, should profit from insider information,” Cotton wrote, saying the bill would ensure members of Congress “play by the same rules as every law-abiding Arkansan.”
Democrats, however, disputed Cotton and other Republicans’ characterization of the bill. Senate Democrats argued that the legislation did not go far enough because it would not require lawmakers to divest stocks they already own and contained other provisions they opposed.
One of the major points of contention was a voter identification provision that was combined with the stock trading restrictions. The House-passed version included requirements for voters to present photo identification, along with additional identification requirements affecting voting by mail. Democrats argued that the provision was unrelated to congressional stock trading and would create new barriers to voting.
Senate Democrats also argued that the stock-trading restrictions were incomplete because lawmakers would have been allowed to retain existing portfolios rather than being required to sell their current holdings. Reuters reported that Democrats specifically criticized provisions involving existing investments, dividend reinvestment and indirect trading through family members.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., criticized the legislation and argued that it did not adequately address congressional stock trading. Other Democrats described the bill as insufficient and said they supported stronger restrictions that would apply more broadly.
The legislation had been introduced as part of a broader push to restrict stock trading by members of Congress. The House Committee on Administration said the bill was designed to prevent lawmakers, their spouses and dependent children from purchasing securities issued by publicly traded companies. It also included penalties that would require lawmakers who violated the restrictions to pay at least $2,000 or 10% of the value of the covered investment, whichever was greater, and forfeit realized profits.
The bill’s House passage in July initially gave the measure bipartisan support, with 13 Democrats joining Republicans in voting for it. It later became a point of partisan disagreement in the Senate as Democrats objected to the combined legislation and its voter identification provisions.
The dispute over the bill also comes amid renewed national attention on congressional stock trading and whether lawmakers should be permitted to buy and sell individual securities while serving in Congress. Supporters of restrictions argue that lawmakers should not be able to financially benefit from information obtained through their public positions, while opponents of the specific Senate measure argued that its provisions did not establish a sufficiently comprehensive ban.
For Cotton, the Senate vote prompted a direct criticism of Democrats who opposed the measure. In his statement, the Arkansas senator framed the vote as an issue of congressional ethics and argued that lawmakers should be held to the same standards as other Americans, per reports.
Cotton’s comments followed the Senate’s decision to block the bill from advancing, leaving the Stop Insider Trading Act short of the votes needed to move forward before the chamber’s final stretch ahead of the November midterm elections.