HB358, titled the No Corruption in Government Act, would impose several ethics and compensation restrictions on Members of Congress. First, it would prohibit Members of Congress and their spouses from holding, buying, or selling most covered financial instruments during the Member’s term of service, including individual securities, security futures, commodities, and comparable derivative-based interests. The bill exempts diversified mutual funds, diversified exchange-traded funds, Thrift Savings Plan investments, and U.S. Treasury securities, and allows holdings in a qualified blind trust. It also requires Members to certify compliance at the start of each congressional session, with those certifications posted publicly and subject to periodic ethics-office audits.
The bill also lengthens post-employment lobbying restrictions for former lawmakers. It would extend the lobbying ban for former Senators from 2 years to 6 years, create a 3-year ban for former House Members, and maintain a 1-year restriction for former House officers. In addition, it would repeal the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for Members of Congress, ending the current mechanism for annual pay increases and making congressional pay subject only to future law.
Overall, the bill is aimed at tightening ethics rules, reducing perceived conflicts of interest, and increasing transparency around lawmakers’ financial holdings. Its legal effect would be to amend title 5 and title 18 of the U.S. Code and to revise the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, directly affecting Members of Congress, their spouses, and former Members who seek to lobby Congress after leaving office.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided material, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill’s structure and title, the measure appears to be framed positively as an anti-corruption and good-government reform, but the available record does not show whether it has bipartisan support, opposition, or amendments.
The main points of contention likely involve the breadth of the stock-trading ban, the inclusion of spouses, the enforceability of the ethics certification and audit requirements, and the length of the post-employment lobbying ban. Potential critics may argue that the restrictions are overly broad or could discourage public service, while supporters are likely to emphasize conflict-of-interest prevention and public trust in Congress.
HB358 would amend federal ethics, lobbying, and congressional pay laws. It would add a new subchapter to chapter 131 of title 5 restricting Members of Congress and their spouses from trading or holding covered financial instruments, require public compliance certifications and ethics audits, amend title 18 to extend post-employment lobbying bans for former Members, and repeal the automatic congressional COLA under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. The bill would directly affect current Members, their spouses, former Members seeking to lobby, and congressional ethics offices responsible for oversight and enforcement.
No votes or committee discussion were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to report from the available history. The bill’s caption and provisions indicate a reform-oriented, anti-corruption message, suggesting likely support from lawmakers and advocates favoring ethics restrictions and skepticism from those concerned about overreach, but the actual balance of support and opposition is not shown in the record provided.
The most likely areas of contention are the ban on holding and trading securities and other financial instruments, especially because it applies to spouses and covers derivatives and commodities; the exceptions for blind trusts and diversified funds may also be debated. The extended lobbying bans could draw objections from former Members and those concerned about career restrictions after public service. Repealing automatic pay adjustments may be popular politically but could be contested as a symbolic or punitive measure rather than a structural ethics reform.