HR-9367-119
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 5 - 4.
Sponsored by Bryan Steil (R-WI)
What it does
This bill would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children from entering into contracts or transactions on prediction markets — platforms where participants bet on the outcomes of government policy decisions, political events, or government actions. Violations would result in financial penalties paid personally by the member (or the member whose family member violated the rule), equal to the greater of $2,000 or 10% of the transaction value, plus any profits made. Penalties could not be paid from official congressional office funds or campaign contributions, and would be deposited into the U.S. Treasury.
Who benefits
The general public, who would gain a structural safeguard against members of Congress profiting from insider knowledge of government actions. Prediction market platforms and their ordinary users, who would face less risk of market manipulation by politically connected participants. Competitors of members of Congress in future elections, who could use violations as a basis for accountability. Taxpayers, who would receive penalty revenue deposited into the Treasury.
Who is hurt
Members of Congress and their immediate families who currently participate in prediction markets, who would lose access to a legal financial activity. Prediction market platforms (such as Kalshi or Polymarket) that may see reduced trading volume or liquidity if politically informed participants are excluded. Spouses and dependent children of members who have no direct role in policymaking but would be subject to the same restrictions. Members who serve on committees with broad jurisdiction, who may find it difficult to determine which events fall under the bill's broad "any other event" catch-all provision.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that members of Congress possess non-public information about pending legislation, regulatory decisions, and government actions that gives them an inherent and unfair advantage on prediction markets — the same informational asymmetry that motivated the STOCK Act of 2012 for securities trading. They contend that prediction markets have grown significantly in legal accessibility and trading volume, creating a new and largely unregulated avenue for insider profiting that existing ethics laws do not cover. The bill's broad catch-all provision, covering any event a member learned of through their service, closes loopholes that narrower definitions might leave open.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's catch-all prohibition — covering "any other event" a member learned of through their service "regardless of any connection to congressional duties" — is so broad it could restrict members from participating in markets on events entirely unrelated to their official work, raising due process concerns about vague enforcement standards. They contend that delegating interpretive guidance to the supervising ethics office, without clearer statutory definitions, may create inconsistent enforcement across the House and Senate and could face post-Loper Bright judicial scrutiny if agency interpretations are challenged. Critics may also argue the restriction on family members who hold no public office raises fairness concerns.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate the conduct of its own members under Article I and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18). No significant Commerce Clause or enumerated powers issue arises here, as this is an internal congressional ethics rule. The bill's vague "any other event" catch-all could raise a Fifth Amendment Due Process notice concern, though courts have generally upheld broad ethics restrictions on public officials. Post-Loper Bright, any interpretive guidance issued by the supervising ethics office would receive independent judicial review rather than deference if challenged.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to restrict its own members' financial activity; the supervising ethics offices (House and Senate) enforce the rules and issue interpretive guidance, with potential referral to the Department of Justice for former members who resign before paying penalties.
Historical precedent
The STOCK Act of 2012 similarly restricted members of Congress and their staff from trading securities based on material non-public information obtained through their official duties, establishing the direct legislative precedent for this type of congressional ethics restriction.