A bipartisan majority of Nevada voters believe members of Congress should be barred from holding and trading stocks in individual companies — an ethical question that has ensnared many members of Congress, including several Nevadans.

Seventy-one percent of Nevadans think members of Congress and their family members should be prohibited from trading stocks, according to a new poll — a figure slightly below other swing states. The proposal was slightly more popular among Democrats than Republicans — 77 percent of Democrats were supportive, compared to 68 percent of Republicans. 

The poll was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy and is one of several issue-focused polls the group is conducting in swing states ahead of the 2024 general election. In Nevada, 594 adults were polled in an online opt-in survey from July 10-19, with a margin of error of 4.6 percent. 

“The numbers are just so strong and consistent across the board, it's hard to find a lot of nuance in it,” pollster Steven Kull, a political psychologist at the University of Maryland and director of the Program for Public Consultation, said in an interview. “I think the public as a whole has a response of, ‘Gee, why isn't this already happening already?’’’ 

Members of Congress are currently required to disclose their stock trades within 45 days of the transaction. Among the Nevada delegation, two members have disclosed stock trades in the past three years — Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Rep. Susie Lee (D-NV).

According to analysis from Capitol Trades, which tracks politicians' stock trades, Lee has made 114 trades with a volume of $1.16 million during the past three years. The vast majority have been sales from a joint holdings account with her ex-husband, and Lee has said that she herself does not make any individual trades. She supports a ban on members of Congress trading stock.

The same website shows Rosen reporting several transactions during the past three years, though they all involved automatic exchanges from corporate spinoffs and involved exchanging or receiving stock as underlying assets of retirement accounts or joint brokerage accounts with her husband through their family trust fund. Rosen’s office has said she does not direct stock exchanges.

Rosen and Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) are cosponsors of the ETHICS Act, which would bar members of Congress and their families from trading individual stocks under the threat of civil penalty. 

While neither Cortez Masto nor Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) disclosed any stock trades, they both own mutual funds. Titus also has common stockholdings. Neither Reps. Mark Amodei (R-NV) nor Steven Horsford (D-NV) have disclosed any stockholdings.

Titus is a cosponsor of a bill that would require all members of Congress, their spouses and their dependents to either sell off their stocks or place them into a blind trust — the policy solution that the poll surveyed voters on. Under the proposal, they could still buy and sell shares of mutual funds or index funds. Cortez Masto has cosponsored the Senate version of the proposal.

In open-ended responses, many of the Nevadans polled said the ban seemed like a common-sense solution.

“It would ensure the politicians are there to help the country, and not their personal investment portfolios,” one respondent wrote.

The provisions of the bill polled favorably among all demographic groups, but was most high among older, wealthier and better-educated Nevadans. It garnered the most support among those making between $100,000 and $150,000 (77.9 percent) and Nevadans with a college degree (77.5 percent).

Kull said that pattern was consistent across swing states, leading him to suspect that people with more money and education have more knowledge of how insider information could be beneficial to stock trading.

Respondents were also read arguments for and against the bill, and found the arguments in favor of the ban much more compelling. Majorities of more than 80 percent of respondents were convinced by arguments against member stock trading, while less than 50 percent agreed with arguments that the bans would deter smart people from joining Congress or that existing law was sufficient.

“It doesn't seem like there's any real killer argument out there that would really shift people's thinking,” Kull said.

As one poll respondent who works for a company associated with AirBnB put it, they are not allowed to buy AirBnB stock because they have insider information. Members of Congress should follow the same rules, the respondent said.

“They received privileged information before the public does,” the respondent wrote. “Stockholders should each have the same advantage. If they don't like that rule, they can choose to step down from their political role.”

About the same number of Nevadans supported extending the stock trading ban to the president, vice president and Supreme Court justices — nearly 73 percent of respondents. By a margin of about 9 percentage points, the proposal was more popular among Democrats than Republicans, but had majority support from both parties. The proposal was most popular among Nevadans who have a college degree and men.

Updated at 4:55 p.m. on 8/8/24 to correct information related to the stock transactions Rosen has made while in office.