I fully agree, and I'd like to extend it to their families as well. But... you ask "why not" and the simple reason is that only they could enact such a law. And even when the laws are in place -- Trump ran roughshod over the foreign emoluments clause, and there were zero consequences. Why would the richest and most powerful Democrats set such a precedent, only to have it turned around when they're in power and stand to profit?
Are you advocating that if a relative of mine runs for office and is elected (whether I supported their candidacy or not), I should be prohibited from owning stock?
It could work the other way around, ie if your close relations have stock that may affect your governing decisions and they refuse to commit to re-investing more generally in the event of your election, then you are prohibited from running for office.
Obviously there would be complications, but are you advocating society shouldn't strive to clearly separate governance of the public from private, conflicting pecuniary interests? I can't tell if you're dismissing the problem or saying there's a better solution ...
I'm mostly thinking of spouses, parents and children, and I think that a blind trust should probably suffice (you could own stock, just not have direct control over it).
Yes - it definitely seems like it should be more or a "let's hope we can see both" type thing rather than an "either or type" thing. I think publicizing existing holdings is huge in that it can be done based on existing data sets as unusualwhale has shown and it is something that "we the people" can do, today - perhaps just by sharing this article.
Eradicating politicians doing insider trading is a much longer slog that we are mostly just hoping "those with the power" will enact against their own self interests.
