1. United States
2. Va.
3. Letter

I am writing regarding your vote in favor of the so-called congressional stock trading reform bill. Like many Americans, I support strong restrictions on Members of Congress using privileged information for personal financial gain. That is precisely why I was disappointed to see you support legislation that has been advertised as ending congressional insider trading when, in reality, it falls far short of that goal. From my reading of the bill, it does not prohibit Members of Congress from retaining individual stock holdings acquired before taking office. Instead, it primarily limits future purchases while allowing existing portfolios to remain intact. That is not the comprehensive reform the public has been demanding. Calling this an “insider trading ban” is, at best, misleading. Equally troubling is the decision to attach unrelated election provisions to an ethics bill. If Congress wishes to debate changes to voter identification requirements, that debate should occur on its own merits—not be bundled into legislation that is publicly marketed as ethics reform. Combining unrelated issues into a single bill makes it difficult for constituents to evaluate your vote and undermines transparency in the legislative process. I also have serious concerns that some of the voting provisions could impose burdens on eligible voters and raise constitutional questions. Whether one supports or opposes voter identification laws, those issues deserve independent debate rather than being inserted into legislation with an entirely different stated purpose. My concern is simple: Did you read this legislation in its entirety before voting for it? If so, why did you support describing it as a bill to stop congressional insider trading when its actual provisions leave significant avenues for Members of Congress to continue owning and profiting from individual stocks? If you did not fully review the bill, that is equally concerning. I believe the American people deserve straightforward representations of what legislation actually does. We deserve ethics reforms that genuinely address conflicts of interest, and election laws that are debated openly and independently—not packaged together under politically appealing titles. I would appreciate a direct response explaining why you believed this bill accurately reflected the reforms it was publicly claimed to achieve.