Which of the following best describes your opinion on how the financial investments of Congress and their immediate family should be governed?

Allowed to participate in the market without insider info (13%) – "This is probably a bit pollyanna of me but I think they should be allowed to participate without insider info and have the integrity to do so honestly, however the fine for violating should be 100-1,000x what it is now per stock and the bar should be set low regarding the burden of proof. Members of Congress are held to a higher standard than the rest of America but that doesn't mean they should get all the perks of participating in the stock market stripped away. I think there are other ways to accomplish this than requiring people to sell their life savings to serve our country in Congress."

Shouldn’t own individual stocks, but other investments are okay (29%) – "To attract potential candidates to Congress, they must be able to envision a growing retirement stream, just like other employees in the American Dream. That said, by restricting their investments to ETF's and Mutual Funds, rather than individual stocks, they would not be so prone to investing in any particular stock or to be influenced so much by any individual company or organization."

• "As someone who formally worked in the financial sector all of my trades were subject to supervision. I had zero insider information and yet I was more closely scrutinized than those in congress and the executive branch. I think anyone with “insider knowledge” in government (congressional, executive, defense, etc) should be subject to the same scrutiny as I was. This law is a great start and should be extended to the executive branch and the penalties for acting on insider information should include non-dependent children."

"No individual stock trading should be allowed. It's nice that we've tried to prevent trading with insider knowledge, but that clearly didn't work (I follow some of those accounts that mimic certain congressional traders and they're making bank; not a crime, but the conflicts of interest are blatant). If Congress is going to make policy that affects the whole economy, they can deal with being limited to the profits or losses of that economy as a whole through index funds."

Shouldn’t own any market-based financial investments (49%) – "They shouldn't be allowed to profit from the info they are privy to. It is completely unfair & unethical. They already have access to investments that the Average Joe does not, as accredited investors. They already profit from kickbacks and peddling their influence, from donors and lobbyists."

• "Legislators with large financial stakes in investments are inherently conflicted when performing their role in government. Similar restrictions should apply to high level roles in the other branches of government, and cover crypto as well. Presidents should certainly not make billions while in office either."

"Serving in Congress is not supposed to be a lifetime appointment. Congress has significant sway over forces that impact the market and have access to lots of information that could influence their behaviors. People in Congress should have no individual stocks and no work arounds. They can shift their investments to mutual funds or IRAs while in office. As to the claim that fewer people will run for office. I believe the contrary-we currently have few people running because of the money it takes to campaign. The more we can get money out of politics, the deeper the pool of candidates will be."

• "It is virtually impossible that members of Congress do not get inside information as part of the hearing process for legislation. They cannot be relied upon not to tell relatives which stocks or bonds they should buy or sell. Preventing access to the markets would be a good start. It doesn't prevent relatives or friends from learning inside information, but it is a start."

"These jobs were supposed to be volunteer jobs but over the years they have become very profitable for those holding office that's supposed to be serving the public. Now people go into these jobs and come out very rich by having these jobs. While most Americans keep getting poorer and poorer by their actions on the job."

Unsure/other (9%) – "The issue is to avoid profiteering. If these people can’t own stocks they have no reason to regulate them or care about them. Having to sell stocks at a loss will compress the candidate pool. Let a manager manage their stock like Universities do, someone with fiduciary requirements to work in the client’s best interest. But closing them out of the market is a baby instead of bathwater overstep."