The STOCK Act 2.0 extends financial conflict-of-interest rules to Federal Reserve officials, requires disclosure of federal payments received by top officials and their families, and sets clear per-violation fines for disclosure failures.
OUR POSITIONThe American Council supports HB3779, the STOCK Act 2.0, and calls on every member of Congress to vote for its passage. Public trust in government depends on the people who hold power being fully transparent about the financial benefits they receive from that same government. This bill takes concrete, enforceable steps toward that standard, and we believe it deserves broad support.
At the heart of the bill is a new disclosure requirement for covered payments. Under Section 2, covered persons must report any application for, or receipt of, money, loans, contracts, or grants made or promised by the federal government within 30 days of receiving notice, and in no case later than 45 days after the payment is made or promised. The report must identify the type of payment, the recipient's name and relationship, the relevant dates, and the amount. A flat $5,000 fine applies for each failure to file. This is not a bureaucratic formality. It is a structural safeguard ensuring that the public can see when officials and their immediate families are receiving federal money while simultaneously making decisions that affect federal spending.
Section 3 closes a gap that has long troubled good-government advocates. Federal Reserve bank presidents, vice presidents, and directors are brought under the financial disclosure subchapter of title 5, the STOCK Act, and the insider-trading provisions of the Securities Exchange Act, with the Inspector General of the Board of Governors designated as the supervising ethics office. The Federal Reserve shapes the economy for every American; the officials who run its regional banks should be held to the same disclosure standards as other senior federal officials. We believe this extension of accountability is both principled and overdue.
Section 5 establishes a new Subchapter IV titled 'Banning Conflicted Interests' and defines a 'covered individual' broadly and specifically. That category includes Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, special Government employees, the Chief Justice, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Federal Reserve bank presidents and vice presidents, and their spouses and dependent children. The definition of 'covered financial interest' reaches securities, futures, commodities, and cryptocurrency, while carving out diversified investment funds, a spouse's compensation and employer-issued securities from the spouse's primary employer, and U.S. Treasury instruments. These are thoughtful exclusions that do not undermine the bill's purpose. They focus accountability where conflicts are most plausible while not penalizing ordinary savings or patriotic investment.
Finally, Section 4 replaces the vague penalty of a fine 'under title 18' for transaction-report failures with a specific $1,000 fine per failure, and gives supervising ethics offices one year to update their rules accordingly. Specificity in penalties matters: vague consequences invite inconsistent enforcement. We believe clear, predictable accountability is a prerequisite for any disclosure regime that is meant to be taken seriously. For all of these reasons, the American Council urges passage of HB3779 without delay.
HB3779 was introduced on June 5, 2025, and referred the same day to four House committees: Oversight and Government Reform, House Administration, the Judiciary, and Ways and Means. Multi-committee referrals of this kind typically mean each panel reviews only the provisions within its jurisdiction, and the bill cannot advance to the floor until each committee acts or is discharged. The breadth of the referral reflects the bill's scope, touching ethics law, financial regulation, and tax code definitions simultaneously. Because the bill was introduced in early June 2025 and no markup has been scheduled as of the available record, the legislative calendar places a premium on constituent engagement now, before committees set their agendas for the remainder of the session.