For years, the public has watched members of Congress enter office with modest wealth and leave as millionaires. Lately there has been a lot of talk about Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s net worth soaring from o to $30,000,000 while holding office for only a few years. Before that it was Nancy Pelosi’s net worth which had spared because of stock trades. It doesn’t matter which party we are discussing, if you are elected to Congress your net worth usually increases despite a salary of $174,000.
While not every lawmaker fits that pattern, the trend is widespread enough to raise an uncomfortable question: Why does serving in public office so often coincide with becoming significantly richer?
The answer isn’t singular, it’s a mix of structural loopholes, weak oversight, and a political culture that has grown far too comfortable with blurred boundaries between public service and personal gain.
First, lawmakers have unusual access to market-moving information. They may not receive insider trading tips in the traditional corporate sense, but they do sit in classified briefings about industries, national emergencies, regulatory changes, and international events—information that can directly influence the stock market. Even though insider trading by members of Congress is technically illegal, enforcement has been almost nonexistent. The STOCK Act, passed with great fanfare, has proven toothless, relying heavily on self-reporting and generating little more than headlines when a violation occurs.
Then there’s the revolving door. Many lawmakers know that their time in Congress, whether it lasts four years or forty, is a springboard to highly paid consulting, lobbying, or corporate board positions. The incentive to stay friendly with powerful industries is obvious: today’s legislative committee assignment can become tomorrow’s seven-figure job offer. When lawmakers are surrounded by people who earn fortunes influencing public policy, it’s no surprise some start thinking about their own exit strategy.
Another factor is the broader ecosystem of influence—book deals, speaking fees, donor relationships, and political branding. Once a member of Congress gains national visibility, doors open. Publishers offer advances. Special interest groups pay for speeches. Media attention boosts name recognition, which often translates into opportunities completely unrelated to governing. These aren’t illegal, but the optics are troubling: the wealthier and more insulated lawmakers become, the further they drift from the daily struggles of their constituents.
We also shouldn’t ignore the rules they write for themselves. Congressional salaries haven’t skyrocketed, but perks, allowances, benefits, and tax advantages—paired with the ability to use campaign funds for a wide range of expenses—create financial cushioning that ordinary Americans could only dream of. Add in homes, travel reimbursements, and connections to donors willing to help with everything from fundraising to consulting gigs, and the picture becomes clear.
The result is a structural problem, not a partisan one. And when public service becomes a reliable pathway to private wealth, trust erodes. Voters see the imbalance clearly: while families struggle with rising costs, many lawmakers enjoy rising fortunes.
What’s needed is simple, even if it’s politically inconvenient:
Ban individual stock trading for members of Congress and their immediate families.
Strengthen the STOCK Act with real enforcement, stiff penalties, and independent oversight.
Reform lobbying rules and extend cooling-off periods after leaving office.
Increase transparency on outside income, consulting work, and book deals.
Serving in Congress should be a public duty—not an investment strategy.
Don’t hold your breath that changes will be made. Of course, term limits would stop the enrichment. But Congress won’t enact limits and they won’t stop insider trading. The money grab will continue unless we the people put a stop to it.
