Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for stock trading bans, lying penalties, lobbying rules, campaign windows, and whether politicians should face the same accountability as everyone else.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares ethics approaches — but there's much more to explore.
Trust in government has collapsed to historic lows. Only 20% of Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing most of the time — down from 77% in 1964. The reasons are not mysterious: members of Congress trade stocks on insider information, rotate into seven-figure lobbying careers, accept gifts and perks unavailable to ordinary citizens, and face essentially no consequences for provable lies. The system is designed to protect those inside it.
Both parties talk about ethics reform. Neither has delivered meaningful change. The House and Senate Ethics Committees — controlled by members who police themselves — have issued exactly one expulsion since the Civil War that was not related to a criminal conviction. The STOCK Act requires financial disclosure but imposes no real penalties for violations. Lobbying restrictions have massive loopholes. Campaign finance laws are written by the same people who benefit from the current system.
The Common Good Party proposes something neither major party has been willing to deliver: a comprehensive ethics overhaul with independent enforcement, real penalties, and structural changes that treat public service as a public trust — not a stepping stone to wealth.
How the three approaches stack up on ethics in politics.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lying penalties | No formal proposal | Oppose — free speech concerns | Independent fact-check commission, correction requirements |
| Campaign windows | No limits proposed | Oppose limits — free speech | 6-month House, 9-month Senate, 12-month presidential |
| Stock trading | Some support ban (bills introduced) | Some support ban, others oppose | Complete ban — blind trusts or index funds only |
| Revolving door | 2-year lobbying ban | 1-year cooling-off period | 5-year ban, no consulting loopholes |
| Financial disclosure | Strengthen STOCK Act, better enforcement | Current system adequate | Exact-dollar, real-time, full spousal, independent audit |
| Congressional housing | Maintain current benefits | Maintain current benefits | Standard federal employee benefits — no special perks |
| Ethics enforcement | Congressional ethics committees | Self-policing, oppose external oversight | Independent Office of Public Ethics, outside congressional control |
| Lobbying rules | Strengthen disclosure, some restrictions | Maintain current framework | Real-time lobbying disclosure, close shadow lobbying loophole |
| Transparency | Support FOIA expansion, some reforms | Limited FOIA changes | Open calendars, meeting logs, donor meetings public |
| Accountability | Congressional oversight, occasional investigations | Self-governance, oppose external bodies | Independent enforcement, real penalties, public accountability |
Sources: OpenSecrets, Government Accountability Office, Pew Research Center, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats have introduced several ethics reform bills, including proposals to ban congressional stock trading (the TRUST in Congress Act, the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act), strengthen lobbying disclosure, and expand the STOCK Act. The party passed H.R. 1 (the For the People Act) in the House, which included ethics provisions alongside voting rights and campaign finance reform. However, the bill died in the Senate. Democrats generally support a 2-year lobbying ban and stronger financial disclosure requirements.
Democrats have at least put ethics reform on the legislative agenda. The stock trading ban bills represent genuine progress. H.R. 1 was a comprehensive attempt at structural reform. The party's support for stronger financial disclosure and lobbying restrictions moves in the right direction. Individual Democrats like Jon Ossoff, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Jeff Merkley have championed ethics reform consistently.
The Democratic leadership blocked stock trading ban votes for months despite bipartisan support, because many senior members — including then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi — benefited from the current system. The 2-year lobbying ban is better than nothing but inadequate — former members spend two years in "consulting" roles before formally registering as lobbyists. Ethics enforcement remains in the hands of congressional committees that have no incentive to discipline their own colleagues. And Democrats have not touched campaign windows, lying penalties, or the fundamental structure of congressional self-policing.
For more on ethics reform, see the full ethics explainer.
Republicans generally oppose new ethics regulations, framing them as government overreach or threats to free speech. Some individual Republicans support stock trading bans, but the party leadership has not prioritized ethics legislation. The Republican position favors self-governance by congressional bodies, opposes independent ethics enforcement, maintains current financial disclosure requirements as adequate, and frames campaign speech restrictions as First Amendment violations. The party emphasizes that voters can hold politicians accountable through elections.
First Amendment concerns about restricting political speech are not frivolous — any framework that penalizes political statements must be extremely carefully constructed to avoid chilling legitimate debate. Excessive regulation can also create compliance bureaucracies that favor incumbents and well-funded candidates. Some Republican members have shown genuine commitment to ethics reform on an individual basis, including supporting stock trading bans and voluntary term limits.
The argument that elections provide adequate accountability is demolished by the data: Congress has a 20% approval rating and a 95% reelection rate. Self-policing has produced exactly one substantive ethics expulsion in over a century. Describing stock trading restrictions as government overreach — while members trade on insider information unavailable to the public — is not principle; it's self-dealing. And using First Amendment arguments to protect provable lies by public officials conflates freedom of speech with freedom from accountability.
The reality is that both parties benefit from the current system. The revolving door, insider trading, and self-policing serve the interests of the political class regardless of party. Opposition to reform is bipartisan in practice even when it's nominally Republican in rhetoric. The system works perfectly — for the people inside it.
For more on congressional self-dealing, see our ethics explainer.
The Common Good Party proposes the most comprehensive political ethics reform in American history. Our plan: complete ban on congressional stock trading (blind trusts or index funds only); an independent Office of Public Ethics with investigation and penalty authority, outside congressional control; a 5-year post-service lobbying ban with no consulting loopholes; exact-dollar, real-time financial disclosure with full spousal inclusion; defined campaign windows (6/9/12 months); an independent fact-checking commission for demonstrable lies of material fact; standard federal employee benefits for all members (no special perks); open calendars and meeting logs; and real-time lobbying disclosure.
Neither major party will reform a system that benefits both of them. The revolving door serves Democratic lobbyists and Republican lobbyists equally. Congressional stock trading enriches members of both parties. Self-policing protects everyone in the club. The CGP plan breaks every one of these feedback loops. Independent enforcement means politicians don't investigate themselves. A 5-year lobbying ban means you can't sell out to the industries you regulated. Stock trading bans mean you can't profit from information the public doesn't have. Campaign windows mean you spend more time governing and less time fundraising.
Every advanced democracy has stronger political ethics enforcement than the United States. Independent ethics bodies are standard. Stock trading restrictions are universal. Lobbying disclosure is more comprehensive. Campaign periods are shorter. And public trust in government is higher. This is not coincidence. When politicians face real accountability, they behave better — and the public trusts them more. The US system of self-policing with no consequences has produced exactly the outcome you'd expect: a political class that enriches itself at the public's expense.
Ethics reform sounds abstract until you see what it means in practice. Here's how the CGP plan would change the system.
Want to explore the full Common Good accountability package? See our policies on campaign finance, term limits, and SCOTUS reform.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about ethics in politics.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full ethics explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into political ethics.
Politicians who police themselves will never hold themselves accountable. Read the full plan and see which approach actually delivers the ethics reform 80% of Americans want.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.