According to recent reports, a US legislator, notorious for his public stance against congressional stock trading, is potentially among the estimated 20% of Senate members who possess or seem to own substantial portions of Apple Inc’s stock. As the controversy unravels, critics caution that such conflicts of interest could potentially obstruct significant legislation aimed at curbing the tech giant’s allegedly anticompetitive activities.
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), renowned for his public denouncement of his Republican rival David Perdue over personal stock trades during his victorious Senate campaign in 2020, has painted himself as a stalwart of the campaign to prohibit congressional stock trading. The legislator from Georgia is a co-sponsor of a bill that seeks to prevent members of Congress, including their spouses and children, from stock trading while in office. The proposed law also mandates them to either place their existing assets in a blind trust or liquidate them entirely.
However, before establishing his personal blind trust in 2021, Ossoff reportedly owned Apple stock worth between $1 million and $5 million. It is speculated that he remains a shareholder, even as he serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee tasked with regulating the company.
Two bipartisan bills, the Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), are currently under the spotlight. These bills, which have been stalled for quite some time, propose new restrictions on how Apple and Google manage their controversial app stores. Despite being advanced out of the committee in 2022, these bills were never brought up for a full floor vote by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Ossoff backed the advancement of these legislative pieces. However, sources familiar with the process suggest that the Georgia Democrat expressed concerns about the potential adverse impacts on user security and data privacy. These concerns align with Apple’s arguments against the bills.
Stock trading is a rampant practice within Congress, with one study finding that nearly one-fifth of lawmakers had transactions that posed conflicts of interest with their committee assignments. As of 2021, 53% of lawmakers, including 223 representatives and 61 senators, owned stocks, according to research by the Campaign Legal Center.
Ossoff is among the few senators who have transferred their assets into a blind trust managed by a third party, thereby relinquishing control of their holdings while in office.
Critics argue that despite Ossoff’s stock trading bill gaining endorsements from ethics watchdog groups, including the Project on Government Oversight, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, FreedomWorks, and Issue One, not everyone is convinced about the effectiveness of qualified blind trusts.
Even the Senate Ethics Committee’s guidelines on qualified blind trusts note that the initial holdings, being known to the grantor, continue to present a potential conflict of interest until they are sold or their value drops below $1,000. Critics assert that Ossoff needs to provide proper oversight and scrutinize legislation in a manner that represents his constituents and not his stock trades.
The proposed pro-competition bills, if passed, could be a significant setback for Apple, which was recently sued by the Justice Department for allegedly employing illegal tactics to maintain the iPhone’s dominance. Apple has reportedly mobilized a group of lobbyists to lobby against the renewed consideration of these bills.
Critics speculate that the competition legislation, which reportedly worried Apple CEO Tim Cook enough in 2022 that he personally called senators to lobby against it, could be obstructed by lawmakers whose personal profits might take a hit if a crackdown occurs.
The problem of owning stocks and potential conflict of interest isn’t just limited to Ossoff. Based on a review of public financial disclosures, at least 14 other US senators currently own Apple stock. This group includes both Republicans and Democrats.
While the controversy continues, it highlights the larger debate surrounding the ownership and trading of individual stocks by members of Congress. Critics argue that even if members of Congress are not engaging in unethical conduct, their ownership interests in companies they oversee can create actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
