The small episode this week that helps explain why people distrust Congress

Boston Globe

2 days ago

The need for this legislation was shown by a
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
That backdrop made the Senate debate feel overdue. But to move further, Democrats needed to be on board. The legislation was originally dubbed the
Advertisement
The committee debate on Wednesday quickly turned combative with the main dispute rising between Republicans on the panel. Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri quipped, 'I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee.' Fellow Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, one of the chamber's wealthiest members who was seated next to him, shot back: 'I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money. But somehow, if you've made money, you're supposedly — I think Senator Hawley suggests — you shouldn't be serving, because you might trade stocks.
Advertisement
'Anybody want to be poor? I don't,' continued Scott.
To many Americans, that's exactly the problem. Public service doesn't suffer from a shortage of wealthy members, it suffers from the perception that political access and information is being leveraged to enrich the already rich.
Even in this moment of supposed reform, political calculation won out. To avoid a Trump veto, senators inserted a carve-out delaying the ban for presidents and vice presidents until after the 2028 election, effectively shielding Trump and
JD Vance for now. The bill squeaked through committee on an 8‑7 vote, with Hawley the lone Republican supporting it along with Democrats.
When Trump was asked about by reporters if he would sign it, he appeared open-minded.
'Well, I like it conceptually,' said Trump. 'I don't know about it. But I like it conceptually.'
Hours later, Trump went on Truth Social to ridicule Hawley as a 'second-tier senator,' sending a clear signal that if it ended up on his desk the bill would end up in a veto.
Advertisement
What changed?
Senate leadership is already signaling it's unlikely to ever bring the bill up for a floor vote. In the House, Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican, says she'll try to force a vote in September, but she's facing the same entrenched resistance that has killed past attempts at reform.
The backdrop of wealth disparity only makes the spectacle more glaring. According to OpenSecrets, the median net worth of US senators is about $1.7 million, with some far richer: Scott is worth closer to $200 million, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner is worth $248 million, Kentucky Republican Mitch McConnell has $34 million, North Dakota Republican John Hoeven is worth around $60 million. More locally, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren's estimated net worth is roughly $10 million, and Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse has close to double that.
Compare that to the rest of America: The
That asymmetry may drive a reason the public supports a ban by overwhelming margins. It could also just be the basic premise that elected leaders shouldn't get rich in office using insider information. This shouldn't be a hard sell. Instead, they may well punt and mock the lone Senate Republican willing to side with public opinion.
Advertisement
For those who believe Washington operates for insiders, this episode offers no rebuttal. A common-sense ethics reform, years in the making, popular across party lines, even grudgingly backed by Pelosi, got watered down, politicized, and left to die.
And for what?
James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.