When you read through a U.S. congressman’s financial disclosure form, it’s a little unsettling. The numbers seem a little too specific. The columns for assets are very long. When you get to a number like $686,000 in one month, you stop scrolling.
That’s what Darrell Issa’s recent trades in the stock market look like. The California Republican has been in Congress for more than twenty years and made a lot of money in the car alarm business before he became a politician. During a notable reporting window, he said that he made an average of $686,000 per month. Most Americans don’t get paid back that month. That’s enough money to pay for a few years.
It is important to know what this number doesn’t mean. Members of Congress must report stock transactions worth more than $1,000 within 45 days, as required by rules largely based on the STOCK Act of 2012. They are supposed to make things clear, not always to imply wrongdoing. As of now, Issa has not been charged with any crime. There are, however, questions that transparency alone can’t fully answer because of the sheer size of the activity.
According to public filings, Issa’s portfolio is made up of a wide range of investments rather than a few big bets. Along with less well-known jobs, big names like Apple, Microsoft, and major banks are listed. It’s possible that the gains are due to broad market momentum, the kind that helped many well-positioned investors during times when stocks were doing well. Prices in the market have gone up. Those runs are often ridden hard by wealthy investors with a wide range of holdings. But even in a bull market, $686,000 a month is a lot of money for most small investors to ever have.
What makes this harder to ignore is the setting in which it takes place. A lot of the time, Congress members are on committees that make policy for areas where they have investments. Issa has been on committees that dealt with technology, intellectual property, and international trade. In these areas, a single law can have a big effect on the stock market. The knowledge lawmakers have is structurally linked to the markets they invest in. This is what the STOCK Act was meant to fix. It’s a different question whether it does or not.
When you look at years of congressional disclosures, it’s hard not to see a pattern: lawmakers who came to Washington with a lot of money tend to leave with a lot more. That’s not just one party’s fault. It’s not just Issa who does it. In spite of that, he is one of the richest members of the House, and his wealth has clearly grown while he has been in office.
In one version of this story, everything is fair. In a rising market, a rich person with a large portfolio that is professionally managed makes a lot of money. The disclosures have been put away. People follow the law. Nothing bad happened. That version makes a lot of sense.
There’s also the idea that the rules are the issue—that monthly gains this big, earned by someone in the legislature, show that the system wasn’t really made to separate public service and private profit. In the past few years, the issue of whether or not to ban stock trading in Congress has come up many times. Every time it’s stopped, it’s been quiet and without much fuss.
The fact that Issa makes $686,000 a month probably won’t change the debate on its own. But that kind of number makes people remember that the argument isn’t over yet.