Hailing simple, positive measures in the General Assembly that can make a difference
Sometimes the best bills are straightforward and don't carry divisive baggage. That means they also don't get enough attention. So, I want to highlight some great legislation moving through the General Assembly.
The first would eliminate a backlog of untested rape kits in Indiana by providing additional funding. This one is a no-brainer. The fact that women out there were raped, and the state just lets their case languish is frankly appalling. These women deserve justice and closure.
House Bill 1413 would disperse $2.5 million to law enforcement agencies to process their backlog of untested rape kits, according to the Indianapolis Star.
The money will pay for equipment that's sorely needed in the state's crime labs. The insufficient amount of equipment has led to the current six- to eight-month delay in testing, according to the bill's author, Rep. Becky Cash, R-Zionsville.
The current proposed state budget includes the money, and my hope is the Senate agrees to keep it in.
Also in the budget is a sales tax exemption for feminine hygiene products and adult diapers. The cost to state coffers is about $11 million but these are necessary items people need — just like food — and should not be taxed.
And speaking of taxes, a newborn tax credit is a welcome move by lawmakers.
Senate Bill 497, from Sen. Greg Walker, would provide a tax credit of up to $500 per newborn child. Eligible taxpayers would have an Indiana adjusted gross income at or below 720% of the federal poverty level. That is about $112,000 for a single person; about $152,000 for a family of two and about $231 for a family of four.
A fiscal impact statement said each year, approximately 80,000 babies are born in Indiana, and around 3,000 adoptions are finalized.
There are bills moving in both chambers that would exempt testing strips from drug paraphernalia statutes. Senate Bill 312 and House Bill 1167 both would allow Hoosiers to use items marketed to detect the presence of a drug or controlled substance, including field test kits and test strips.
House Bill 1167's author, Rep. Jennifer Meltzer, said the strips can detect dangerous substances like fentanyl and xylazine. She said local health departments, nonprofit groups and others are distributing test strips to Hoosiers in active addiction, helping them avoid potentially lethal overdoses. Meltzer reintroduced the bill after it failed last year.
This bill will save lives.
Another bill would provide much-needed oversight on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation.
CONTACT US
Senate Bill 516 would require the quasi-public agency to tell local units of government about acquisitions of more than 100 acres — whether it's bought in one or multiple transactions — at least 30 days before those purchases close.
This comes after the IEDC snapped up thousands of acres in Boone County for a massive innovation park before locals knew what was happening.
The bill from Sen. Brian Buchanan also tasks the IEDC and the executives of communities that host innovation development districts — like one within LEAP — with annually compiling reports about the districts' activities over the last calendar year.
The more transparent these projects, the more Hoosiers will be comfortable with them.
And the last bill I will highlight is perhaps not one that is necessary but welcome — easing restrictions on wine delivery.
Senate Bill 107 would allow Indiana's wine dealers to deliver wine directly to customers and would create an opportunity for gourmet wine businesses to deliver wine directly to a consumer's home or office.
'The luxury of convenience that was introduced as a necessity by the COVID-19 pandemic delivery services should be a luxury that is here to stay for customers and businesses alike,' said Sen. Ron Alting. 'SB 107 paves the way for wine dealers to deliver directly to customers, creating an equal chance for growth alongside liquor and beer vendors.'
This list should show Hoosiers that most of the bills passed in the General Assembly are bipartisan in nature and helpful to Hoosiers. And I say cheers to that!
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
38 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Republicans are (quietly) making 2028 moves
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. It seems too early, but it's not. Just as Democrats are plotting how to win the next presidential election, Republican candidates are too. But while Democrats will try to outdo themselves in their opposition to President Donald Trump, Republicans will have to navigate a party that Trump has rebuilt around his own political instincts. I talked to CNN's Eric Bradner about which Republicans are likely to run for president in 2028 and how they will balance making their own name with paying homage to their current leader, who likes to joke about not leaving office no matter what the Constitution says. Our conversation, conducted by phone and edited for length, is below. WOLF: Will Trump try to run for a third term despite what's in the Constitution? Because it's something that he's teased, right? BRADNER: There is no constitutional path for him to seek a third term. But that doesn't mean ambitious Republicans who want to be a successor can flout Trump. They can't be seen as at odds with him. They're trying to stand out in their own ways, but they can't be seen as going against Trump and suggesting that he is ineligible for a third term, even though the Constitution makes that crystal clear to be problematic. WOLF: He likes to joke about running, but has also said he will not run. So let's assume, for the moment, that he doesn't try to do something that would violate the Constitution. How do potential Republican candidates plot a campaign for voters while still staying in his good graces? BRADNER: You have to do it carefully. Part of it is, while Trump is still so popular with the Republican base, demonstrating that you are supportive of his agenda. That can look different depending on whether you are the vice president, in the Senate, in a governor's office. So far, we're seeing ambitious Republicans traveling to some of the early voting primary states and using their speeches to highlight their support for Trump's agenda and looking for ways to cast themselves as the successor to that agenda. It's made much more difficult by the fact that Vice President JD Vance is obviously positioned as Trump's understudy. But they're looking for ways to show that they are, at least in some ways, ideologically aligned with Trump and are taking substantive actions to support his agenda, while sort of pitching some of their own accomplishments and their own differences in terms of approach. But it's clear that most Republicans that are already hitting the 2028 travel circuit are looking for ways to align themselves. WOLF: The Democrats are trying to change the early primary map and de-emphasize Iowa and maybe even New Hampshire. Is the Republican calendar going to be what it has been in recent decades where we go: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. Or is that going to change? BRADNER: It won't be official for a while, but Republicans appear to be on track to keep the same calendar. I talked to Jeff Kaufmann, the longtime Iowa Republican Party chairman, recently, and he said he had already made his case to the White House to keep Iowa's caucuses first, and said they were very receptive. Republicans didn't have the kind of disaster that Democrats had in Iowa in 2020 and have shown no real inclination to shake up their primary… WOLF: But Republicans did have a disaster in 2012 — just ask Rick Santorum. BRADNER: They did. But 2012 at this point will have been 16 years ago, and they have passed on opportunities to change the calendar since then, and there doesn't seem to be any momentum to do so now. WOLF: Who are the Republicans who are flirting with a campaign at the moment and are actively in those states? BRADNER: Even within the last couple of months, we've seen a number of Republicans visiting the early states. Look at Iowa alone. This month, Glenn Youngkin, the Virginia governor, visited Iowa to headline the state Republican Party's annual Clinton dinner. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was there for an event hosted by The Family Leader, a conservative Christian group led by Bob Vander Plaats, a well-known activist there. Recently, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was in Iowa, where he got a little bit of a chilly reception at times because he was making the case for changes to Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' And Florida Sen. Rick Scott was there also touting his support for further reductions in spending that the bill included. He also got a bit of a frosty reception from some of the attendees at the fundraiser that I talked to afterward who really wanted to hear more support for Trump's agenda from him and less about their defenses. WOLF: The most obvious heir to Trump would be Vance. What is the thinking among Republicans? Do they believe the nomination is his to lose, or will he really have to work for it? BRADNER: He clearly starts in the pole position. But I was a little surprised during a recent visit to Iowa how frequently the name of Secretary of State Marco Rubio came up, often in the same breath as JD Vance. Both of them, despite their own very public criticism of Trump in the past, now seem to be viewed as team players; as closely aligned with Trump and with his current administration, obviously, as leading members of it. There's interest in Rubio in part because he has run for president before, unlike Vance. A lot of people in the early voting states remember Rubio visiting them in 2016, when he finished third in Iowa in what were pretty competitive caucuses. So a lot of these early-state Republican voters have met Rubio before. They've already formed opinions of him. They like Vance, but they don't know him yet. They haven't had a chance to go through the usual process with him. He obviously starts with an advantage as Trump's legacy, but based on the conversations I've had, it doesn't appear to be a lock. I think a lot of Republican voters are going to want to at least meet and hear from a broader range of candidates. WOLF: That 2016 Iowa race you mentioned, Rubio came in third. Trump came in second. The winner was Sen. Ted Cruz. Is he going to run again? And would he do better this time? BRADNER: He certainly has never stopped acting like someone who wants to be president, right? He has obviously remained in the public eye and has been supportive of Trump, including in that contentious interview with Tucker Carlson, for which Cruz faced a bit of online backlash. He's built a fundraising network. He is someone who has clearly already been a runner-up in that 2016 primary, and probably would enter 2028 with vast name recognition. So he has a number of potential things going for him if he, if he does want to run. WOLF: The party has changed around Trump, who doesn't really have a political ideology so much as political instincts. Now Republican candidates will have to adjust to Trump's populism. Will a person like Sen. Josh Hawley, who sounds very populist, do better than a more traditional Republican like, say, Youngkin? BRADNER: It certainly seems like that lane could be open, although I would say as of right now, Vance probably starts in the pole position there. He has populist instincts that he displayed for quite some time before he became Trump's vice president. You're right about Trump having political instincts that these potential candidates are going to have to react to and adjust to on the fly. Being nimble in interviews and messaging is always important, but it's going to be especially important in a landscape where Trump is the dominant figure in the party. While he won't be on the ballot, he is very likely to have interest in steering things. WOLF: How do you group the potential field? There are senators, there are governors, there are people in the administration. BRADNER: I think that's the right starting point. People in the administration, which you can kind of divide into two groups, right? Vance and Rubio are by far the best known and are the ones that I have heard from Republican voters about the most clearly. There are some other folks, like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and potentially others who are former governors, are Trump allies and have their own ambitions, but don't carry the sorts of advantages that Vance and Rubio have. Then there's a group of governors, and to me, this is potentially the most interesting group, because they have their own agendas outside of Washington and are less tied to whatever's going on in the White House or on Capitol Hill on any given day. Youngkin, the Virginia governor, ran an impressive campaign in 2021, and because Virginia does not allow governors to run for second terms, he is just a few months away from leaving office, which means he will be a popular Republican elected in a Democratic-leaning state who now is out of a job and has all day to campaign. A couple other Republican governors who are in that basket would include Sanders, who obviously is forever aligned with Trump due to her time as his White House press secretary, and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who is chairman of the Republican Governors Association, which gets him a way to build connections with donors all over the country. Kemp is among the Republicans who have had the biggest differences with Trump on the list of prospective 2028 candidates because he didn't support Trump's claims that Georgia was stolen from him in 2020. But the two of them seem to have played nice in more recent years and Kemp is conservative. He does have his own record in Georgia that he can talk about. Then finally there are the senators. Tim Scott is one who ran for president in 2024 and did appear to end that race with a closer relationship with Trump than when he started it, which was a really tricky thing to (do). The problem Scott faces is one that Trump laid out in 2024, which is that he's a better salesman for Trump and his agenda than he is for himself. There are other senators, Rand Paul (Kentucky), Rick Scott (Florida), Josh Hawley (Missouri), Tom Cotton (Arkansas), who I think everyone will be keeping an eye on. But it's going to take some lucky breaks for them to make a ton of headway in a potentially crowded field, especially when they'll be having to spend so much of their time participating in and reacting to what's happening in Washington. They don't have the kind of freedom that governors have at this stage. WOLF: There are also two governors that are closely aligned with Trump's policies in Texas and Florida, which are the two biggest red states in terms of electoral votes. What about Ron DeSantis (Florida) and Greg Abbott (Texas)? BRADNER: Both are clearly aligning themselves with Trump's most popular policies, which is strict immigration enforcement, border security and ramping up deportations. For DeSantis, building 'Alligator Alcatraz' was a clear example of political maneuvering to be seen publicly as having Trump's back. Both of them are absolutely on the 2028 landscape, and DeSantis, in particular, appears to have smoothed over the tensions that remain from his 2024 run. DeSantis is one to watch because he has already built a fundraising network. He has already traveled the early states and made those inroads, so launching a presidential campaign, perhaps earlier and perhaps without some of the mistakes that hampered his 2024 effort, would certainly be possible. WOLF: What about someone from Trump's new coalition? Robert F. Kennedy ran as a Democrat and an Independent in 2024; why not a Republican in 2028? BRADNER: If Kennedy runs in 2028, it'll be a fascinating test of how durable parts of Trump's winning 2024 coalition are once Trump is off the ballot. How big is the so-called MAHA movement that was merged into Trump's MAGA movement? Does party loyalty still matter at all in Republican primaries and caucuses? Or are figures who weren't even Republicans — like Kennedy and potentially former Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, who grabbed headlines recently with wild accusations that former President Barack Obama committed treason — received with open arms? Have cultural issues like abortion, where they've long staked out positions at odds with the GOP base, lost some sway? WOLF: Vance would run from within the administration. Rubio would have to leave the administration. Extricating yourself from Trump's orbit without drawing his ire would be kind of an incredible feat. What would be the timeline to do something like that? When should we start to expect to see would-be presidential candidates leave the Trump administration? BRADNER: The traditional answer would be shortly after the midterms, but it also depends on, obviously, the point you raised about Trump and a third term, and whether that sort of freezes the start of the 2028 primary and stops candidates from campaigning openly. It depends on what Vance does. I think people who are in the administration will have to react to the speed at which the field appears to be developing. I can tell you that in the early states, party leaders, activists, donors, party faithful are already eager to hear from these 2028 prospects and I doubt there will be much room to wait long past the midterms. So potentially late 2026, early 2027 is when anybody in the administration that wants to run for president would probably need to be in motion. WOLF: A lot of what happens will depend on how popular Trump remains with Republicans and how successful his second term is. Is there a lane for a Nikki Haley or somebody who has been critical of Trump, or should we assume that everybody who tries to run will just be swearing fealty to him? BRADNER: Only time will tell. Right now, none of these major Republican figures are publicly distancing themselves from Trump, but if Republicans are shellacked in the midterms, if they lose the House or — much, much longer shot — if they lose the Senate, that could change the landscape significantly. Primary voters want to win, and they're loyal to Trump, but if his popularity nosedives; if the party performs poorly in the midterms; if his tariffs wind up damaging the economy; if the roiling controversy over his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files continues — all these sorts of things could wind up becoming political time bombs that could change the landscape and lead Republicans, even if they aren't publicly criticizing Trump, to do more to show their differences and to pitch themselves as their own person.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats contemplate walkout in Texas
Democratic legislators in Texas could flee the state to prevent the GOP from approving new maps that could expand Republicans' congressional majority. Texas and national Democrats have vowed to fight back while blasting the GOP plans, which could give Republicans five more seats, as discriminatory. Visiting with Democratic state lawmakers in Austin, U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) vowed Thursday that 'all options' should be on the table to stop the GOP plan. But because Democrats are a minority in the state Legislature, they have few options to stop the GOP and face an uphill battle legally and politically. One very real option would be to seek to deny the quorum necessary to keep the Texas state House and Senate functioning, something Democrats might have the numbers to accomplish. 'Democrats don't have many arrows left in their quiver. There simply aren't a lot of things they can do to be able to challenge these maps in the near term,' said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. A quorum break could be the 'nuclear option,' Rottinghaus said, 'because most members don't want to do it that way. They want to stay and fight.' 'But the problem is that they simply don't have a lot of tools legislatively, or in terms of their total numbers to stop or slow things here in Austin.' The map proposal, filed this past week during a special session called by Gov. Greg Abbott (R), comes after President Trump pressed Texas Republicans to draw new maps to protect the party's narrow 219-212 House majority. A public hearing before the state House's Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting was held Friday. Republican state Rep. Cody Vasut, chair of the redistricting panel, said he expects committee action in the coming days, followed by a full state House debate early next week. Specifics of the proposed lines could change as the plan works its way through the state chambers. But it's unlikely that Democrats have enough leverage in the state Legislature — where Republicans are 88-62 in the House and 19-11 in the Senate — to significantly change things in their favor. Faced with similar dynamics in 2003 and 2021, Democrats walked out to stall the Legislature on redistricting efforts and voting restrictions. 'Breaking quorum is a big task, and there's a lot of problems that come with it,' said Lana Hansen, executive director of Texas Blue Action, an Austin-based Democratic advocacy group. 'And I think this situation is particularly volatile because … this [redistricting] is a call from the president of the United States.' Fleeing would likely draw more attention to the brewing redistricting battle, but Abbott could continue to call sessions and the Democrats' absence would stall other business. A quorum break would also be expensive, due to new rules that impose fines for each day a lawmaker has fled, as well as the threat of arrest. Democrats are reportedly fundraising to help pay up if that happens, according to The Texas Tribune. 'In the past, it worked to sort of pause the conversation and start over,' Hansen said of the previous quorum breaks, but she noted that Republicans still got their way. 'At the end of it, it wasn't as successful as we had hoped.' Asked about a potential walkout, U.S. Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) told reporters Thursday that 'there are a lot of ways to fight.' Jeffries, asked whether he's urging Texas Democrats to break quorum, said ' all options should be on the table ' but deferred to Texas Democrats. If Democrats can't block the GOP efforts within the Legislature, they'll likely pursue legal action as leaders in and out of the state decry the proposal as discriminatory. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas), one of the lawmakers whose district would be impacted, called the moves 'part of a long, ugly tradition of trying to keep Black and brown [Texans] from having a voice.' Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) called it 'a power grab to silence voters and suppress votes.' Democrats' chances of success with potential legal challenges likely relies on the fate of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), said Mark McKenzie, an Texas Tech associate professor of political science who has practiced law in the state. A major Louisiana redistricting battle is set to be reheard by the Supreme Court next term, and Republicans are increasingly bullish on chipping away at the VRA. 'I think the Democrats, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't eviscerate the Voting Rights Act … would have a good case, in terms of African American majority districts in Texas and how they'll be impacted,' McKenzie said, noting that they might be harder pressed to argue the same of Latino voters, who have increasingly leaned toward the GOP in Texas. 'Legally speaking, the Democrats are not in a great position,' McKenzie added. The party appears to be gearing up for a political battle either way. 'The current map violates the law, and this congressional map will double and triple down on the extreme racial gerrymandering that is silencing the voices of millions of Texans,' Jeffries said Thursday in Austin. 'We will fight them politically. We will fight them governmentally. We will fight them in court. We will fight them in terms of winning the hearts and minds of the people of Texas and beyond.' House Majority PAC, a House Democratic super PAC, announced a new Lone Star Fund this week. It is hoping to raise millions for 2026 challengers if the lines are redrawn. 'If the GOP and the Trump administration think that Texas is the first state that they should look at doing this in, the place that he's most concerned with losing ground in, then we are in play, and my hope is that national investment will come this way,' Hansen said. 'There's still an opportunity for Democrats in Texas. We just might not be able to help flip to the congressional majority that we would like.' And Democrats may have avenues for offsetting GOP gains in Texas with redistricting efforts in other states. 'There's a phrase in Texas: 'what happens here sometimes changes the world.' Well, this is the case where what's happening here is setting off a cascade effect across the country,' said Jon Taylor, the University of Texas at San Antonio's department chair of political science. The developments in Texas have sparked congressional map conversations in several other states, including in California — where Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has said the Golden State might make its own midcycle changes if Texas moves forward. There's also a chance that Lone Star State redistricting backfires on Republicans. For one, the party may appear more focused on redistricting than on deadly Independence Day floods, another special session agenda item. It may also be hard to predict midterm voting patterns. 'Just because Trump won in 2024 in certain parts and certain areas that are currently held by Democrats doesn't mean that's going to translate to success in a midterm election of '26, particularly a midterm election that, nationally, is expected to be potentially a wave election for Democrats,' Taylor said. 'So you could end up with a situation where you've drawn districts that are supposedly for, you know, friendly for Republicans, and all of a sudden, in a year where the economy is going south, Trump's opinion poll numbers continue to decline, you end up with Democrats winning in districts that were designed for Republicans.'
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Push to ban lawmaker stock trading gets new life
The years-long effort to ban members of Congress from trading stocks is back in the spotlight following a House Ethics Committee report that took issue with transactions made by a member's spouse, and after a Senate panel advanced legislation to prohibit lawmakers from making transactions. And some lawmakers are vowing to keep the topic front and center into the fall as they look to make headways on a matter that has mystified Congress. Leading that effort is Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who plans to file a discharge petition on legislation to prohibit lawmakers and their immediate families from owning, trading or controlling stocks, commodities or futures, directing lawmakers to divest their holdings within 180 days of the bill's enactment. If the procedural gambit is successful, the legislation, sponsored by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn), would hit the floor in the fall. But if the past is prologue, getting the measure over the finish line will be a tall task. Supporters, however, are optimistic they will find success. 'I think America is aware of what's going on,' Burchett told The Hill. 'They know it's not natural for somebody to, day in and day out, pick stock and have a 100, 200, 300 percent return, and they're tired of seeing Congress members making $170,000 a year retiring worth millions.' While the idea of banning members from trading stocks is widely popular among the public, some lawmakers for years have balked at the push, raising concerns about the level of pay for members — a $174,000 salary, which has been frozen since 2009, constituting a 30 percent pay cut when adjusting for inflation. And even among those who support banning members from trading stocks, there is disagreement about the details. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week advanced a bill that would bar not only members, their spouses, and their dependent children from buying and trading stocks, but also the president and vice president — with a carve-out for President Trump, since the requirement would not apply until the start of the elected officials' next terms. The hearing over the bill became contentious, with some Republicans on the panel arguing against a ban altogether, Democrats arguing in support and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) asking why Trump should be exempt. Trump, who earlier in the day had said he liked the stock trading ban 'conceptually,' attacked Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) for his support of the bill. Hawley later said Trump was under the mistaken impression it would apply to him. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who as leader of the House opposed a stock trading ban and after whom Republicans cheekily named a previous effort to ban trading — threw her support behind the bill as well. Pelosi had opened the door to supporting a stock trading ban in 2022, but her outright endorsement was nonetheless notable. But Burchett's bill that Luna hopes to force a vote on, as well as several other stock trade bills — such as the Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust (TRUST) in Congress Act, from Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) — do not include the barring trades by the president. Despite those hangups, proponents of the ban are optimistic they can get it done this time around. 'It's an increasingly public fight that people care about,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a large supporter of a prohibition on lawmaker stock trading, told The Hill. 'And Congress is running out of runway with the people.' 'We will force votes,' he added. The difficulty in crafting a stock trading ban is personified in Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), who has caught heat for continuing to trade stocks despite saying he wants to ban member stock trading. Bresnahan, a businessman whose estimated net worth is in the multi-millions, has continued to report many stock trades despite writing a letter to the editor during his campaign calling to ban stock trading. Bresnahan has introduced a stock trading ban bill and says that he has no involvement with the trades that his financial advisers have made on his behalf. While he has said he wants to keep his current financial advisers and create a blind trust that would put a more stringent firewall between him and those trades, he has found problems in crafting that plan with the House Ethics Committee. Local public news organization WVIA noted that Bresnahan could simply ask his advisers to not make any more trades, but Bresnahan dismissed that idea. 'And then do what with it?' Bresnahan said to WVIA News. 'Just leave it all in the accounts and just leave it there and lose money and go broke?' Despite some critics, supporters of a stock trading ban are plowing full-steam ahead, hoping to make headway on the headwinds created by the House Ethics Committee. 'Members of Congress should be banned from trading individual stocks because their access to privileged, nonpublic information creates unavoidable conflicts of interest that erode public confidence in government,' Luna said in a statement. 'As lawmakers, we receive classified briefings, shape economic policies, and interact with industry leaders, giving us insights that can influence stock prices.' 'Even if no laws are broken, the appearance of profiting from this access fuels distrust among Americans,' she added. 'The American people do not trust the US government, and this is a step forward to building that trust.' The impetus for the current push was a report from the House Ethics Committee that said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) violated the lower chamber's code of conduct when his wife traded stocks for the company Cleveland-Cliffs — which has a facility in Kelly's district — after the congressman learned non-public information about the firm. On April 28, 2020, Kelly learned that the Commerce Department would make an announcement that would benefit Cleveland-Cliffs. The day after, the congressman's wife, Victoria Kelly, bought 5,000 shares of the company for $23,075. The department's news was ultimately made public on May 4. She sold all her shares of the company in January 2021 shortly after Cleveland-Cliffs acquired a steel manufacturing corporation, turning a $64,476.06 profit. 'Representative Kelly's conduct with respect to Cleveland-Cliffs and his wife's stock purchase raised significant concerns for the Committee, even if it did not rise to the level of insider trading or clearly violate conflict of interest rules,' the committee wrote in its report, later adding that Kelly 'has not demonstrated sufficient appreciation for the harm to the institution caused by the appearance of impropriety.' It is, to be sure, already illegal for members of Congress to make transactions based on information they receive through their job, and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which was enacted in 2012, requires that lawmakers report their stock trades within 30 days. But some ethics advocates believe the law should be stronger. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), while he said he is supportive of the efforts to ban stock trades, has noted the difficult position the restrictions could put on members and their families, given the salary for members of Congress has been frozen since 2009. That amounts to around a 30 percent pay cut when adjusting for inflation. Most members make a salary of $174,000. 'If you stay on this trajectory, you're going to have less qualified people who are willing to make the extreme sacrifice to run for Congress,' Johnson said in May. 'I mean, just people just make a reasonable decision as a family on whether or not they can come to Washington and have a residence here, residence at home, and do all the things that are required.'
