I definitely don't like the idea of insider trading by lawmakers, for all of the reasons that are obvious to everybody. On the other hand, if they put their mon

I definitely don't like the idea of insider trading by lawmakers, for all of the reasons that are obvious to everybody. On the other hand, if they put their money in a blind trust, the conflict is still there. My reasoning is that the blind trust will still want to put their money in the "best" investment, and the lawmakers can influence which investment is "best" through policy and legislation. The easiest example that I see is the continued long term growth of the stock and the real estate markets. (Disclosure, I'm invested in those markets too). It's pretty easy to imagine passing stock- and real estate-friendly legislation, which is great for me, but not necessarily great for society as a whole, and not necessarily done by any kind of majority consent. But at least in the case of a blind trust, while you can't eliminate conflict of interest altogether, at least it makes the conflict more transparent.