This is not a crackpot theory, this is how the Constitution works. You cannot impose specific restrictions on Congress on personal rights that ordinary members

This is not a crackpot theory, this is how the Constitution works. You cannot impose specific restrictions on Congress on personal rights that ordinary members of the public have (trading stocks and other property assets) without a specific clause set out for it in the Constitution. Their private property rights are explicitly protected by the Due Process of the 5th amendment and Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment (same as you and me): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.]" They do not lose 5th and 14th amendment protections in their private affairs just because they were elected to Congress. Bribery is illegal for everyone, not just Congress. Trading stocks are not. That being said, you'd be naive to believe that implicit bribery does not occur in U.S. politics. And in practice, it's very difficult to prosecute a bribery case against a member of Congress as it's not permissible to introduce acts of legislation as evidence in court (US v Helstoski, 1979). In US v Brewster (1972), it was found that taking of a bribe was not protected by the Speech and Debate clause since the taking of the bribe was not related to "performance of a legislative function". Even then, though, Brewster was found not guilty despite quite overtly requesting a bribe. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/501 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/501 [3] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/442/477.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/442/477.h...