Stop Lawmakers From Predicting Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1]
- Committees
- Committee on House Administration (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 24, 2026
Bottom line
The 'Stop Lawmakers From Predicting Act' aims to prevent conflicts of interest and insider trading by restricting congressional families from profiting from information gained through public service via prediction markets, backed by financial penalties and robust enforcement mechanisms.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from engaging in prediction market transactions tied to government policy, actions, political outcomes, or any event they learned about through congressional service. It establishes financial penalties for violations, paid by the Member, and explicitly prohibits using official allowances or campaign funds for these penalties. The supervising ethics office is tasked with enforcement and issuing interpretive guidance.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill enhances public trust in government by closing a potential loophole that could allow individuals with privileged information to profit from it. They contend it addresses ethical concerns by ensuring that congressional service is not used for personal financial gain through speculative markets, thereby promoting integrity and accountability in the legislative process.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that existing ethics rules and insider trading laws are already sufficient, and this bill adds unnecessary complexity or restricts personal financial freedom without clear evidence of widespread abuse. They might also raise concerns about the broad scope of 'any other event which has come to the attention of a covered individual as a result... of the service,' suggesting it could be overly vague or difficult to enforce without infringing on privacy.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and informed review by any interested reader.
Section 2(a), adding 5 U.S.C. 13152(a)
Prohibition on Prediction Market Trading
This provision forbids Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from entering into agreements or transactions in prediction markets where the outcome depends on specific government policies, government actions, political outcomes, or any event they became aware of due to the Member's congressional service. This broadly covers speculative trading based on insider knowledge or influence.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a crucial step to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety, ensuring that public service is not leveraged for personal financial gain through speculative markets.
Critics contend
Some might argue that existing ethics laws already cover insider trading and that this specific prohibition might be overly broad or difficult to define and enforce without chilling legitimate financial activities.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for public trust and ethical conduct in government against potential concerns about over-regulation of personal financial activities for public servants and their families.
Section 2(a), adding 5 U.S.C. 13153(a) and (b)
Financial Penalties for Violations
This provision mandates a fee for any covered individual who violates the trading restrictions. The fee is calculated as the greater of $2,000 or ten percent of the transaction's value, plus any net gain realized from the prohibited transaction. The fee is paid by the Member of Congress responsible for the violation or whose spouse/dependent caused it.
Section 2(a), adding 5 U.S.C. 13153(c)
Prohibited Sources for Penalty Payments
This provision explicitly prohibits Members of Congress from paying the incurred fees from their official representational allowances (such as the Members' Representational Allowance or Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account) or from campaign contributions and other donations received for federal office activities. This ensures that personal funds are used for penalties, not taxpayer money or political donations.
Section 2(a), adding 5 U.S.C. 13153(e)
DOJ Referral for Unpaid Fees by Former Members
This provision grants the supervising ethics office the authority to refer a former Member of Congress to the Department of Justice if they resign or retire before paying a fee incurred under this subchapter. It ensures that accountability extends beyond a Member's tenure in office, preventing evasion of penalties by leaving Congress.
Defines 'covered individual' to include a Member of Congress, a dependent child as defined in section 13101, or a spouse of a Member of Congress. This significantly broadens the scope of individuals subject to the trading restrictions beyond just the Member.
Section 2(a), adding 5 U.S.C. 13151(1)
Why it matters:Placing definitions at the beginning of a subchapter is standard legislative practice. The cross-reference is also a common method for avoiding redundancy in statutory language.
Case for: Supporters argue that including spouses and dependent children is essential to prevent evasion of the rules, as a Member could otherwise use family members to conduct prohibited transactions, undermining the bill's intent.
Case against: Critics might argue that extending restrictions to family members could be an overreach, potentially infringing on the financial autonomy of individuals who are not directly serving in Congress.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly expands the number of individuals subject to the trading restrictions, thereby increasing the bill's effectiveness in preventing indirect profiting from congressional service.
Prohibits trading on 'any other event which has come to the attention of a covered individual as a result, directly or indirectly, of the service of a Member of Congress in the United States Congress, regardless of any connection to the congressional duties of such Member.'
Section 2(a), adding 5 U.S.C. 13152(a)(4)
Why it matters:This broad language could be seen as an attempt to make the prohibition as comprehensive as possible, anticipating and closing potential loopholes that might arise from narrowly defined categories of information.
Case for: Proponents would argue this broad language is necessary to prevent any form of insider trading or profiting from privileged information, even if tangentially related to congressional service, ensuring maximum ethical coverage.
Case against: Opponents might argue this language is overly vague and could lead to arbitrary enforcement or significantly restrict a covered individual's ability to engage in legitimate financial activities if any information could be tenuously linked to congressional service.
Estimated impact: This provision creates a very wide net for what constitutes prohibited information, potentially increasing the compliance burden and risk for covered individuals due to its expansive scope.