PILLAR 2

Congress — Oversight and Separation of Powers

• The Grievance: Congress is constitutionally responsible for oversight of executive power, yet oversight hearings, investigations, and enforcement mechanisms are often inconsistent or ineffective.
• The Demand: Congress must publish a formal oversight plan identifying investigative priorities, hearing schedules, document-preservation rules, and enforcement mechanisms tied directly to legislation and appropriations.

Why It Is Important to American Nationals and Citizens

The legislature is designed to act as the primary check on executive overreach. When Congress fails to exercise robust oversight, administrative agencies can operate without accountability, leading to waste, fraud, and the erosion of public trust. Clear, structured oversight plans are necessary to ensure that executive agencies remain accountable to American Nationals and Citizens through their elected representatives.

Key Empirical Data & Context:

Public confidence in Congress has declined to single digits, driven in part by partisan gridlock and perceived personal conflicts of interest among lawmakers. A significant source of public concern is congressional stock trading, where lawmakers are perceived as using non-public information for personal financial gain.

Despite the passage of the STOCK Act in 2012, violations remain common and penalties are minimal. This perceived lack of integrity undermines the legitimacy of the legislative branch and its ability to conduct effective oversight.

Systemic Implication: Bipartisan proposals aim to introduce significant financial penalties to restore public trust.

Public Confidence in Congress: 7% to 8%.

Systemic Implication: Consistently ranks as the least trusted public institution in the United States.

STOCK Act Violators (117th Congress): 78 Members.

Systemic Implication: Demonstrates a widespread, bipartisan failure to adhere to statutory financial disclosure timelines.

First-Time STOCK Act Fine: $200.

Systemic Implication: A nominal penalty that fails to act as an effective deterrent against late or missing disclosures.

Proposed Insider Trading Ban Fine: Up to $50,000.

Systemic Implication: Bipartisan proposals aim to introduce significant financial penalties to restore public trust.