Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon enjoyed a 123.8% increase in the value of his stock portfolio in 2024 – a stunning gain that more than doubled his holdings . The figure, reported in a new analysis by financial data platform Unusual Whales, far outstripped the broader market’s performance. By comparison, the S&P 500 index rose 24.9% last year . Even elite hedge funds didn’t come close – stock-focused hedge funds achieved a weighted average return of only about 12.75% in 2024, according to a Goldman Sachs analysis.
We would like to note that the Salem Business Journal’s editorial team has attempted to reach out to Senator Wyden’s office several times with phone calls and emails over the course of a few months, trying to give him the opportunity to respond or provide other facts or evidence to contradict our findings. If they did respond, we would have given them the opportunity to provide us evidence, and allow us to make changes on the story based on new evidence. His office never responded.
Wyden’s windfall placed him among the top stock-performing lawmakers on Capitol Hill. In fact, he was one of five members of Congress whose portfolios more than doubled in value in 2024, alongside figures like Rep. David Rouzer (R-N.C.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) . Nearly 50 members of Congress beat the market last year – a trend Unusual Whales noted has recurred in recent years. “When Congress members consistently outperform benchmarks like the S&P 500, it raises serious questions about fairness,” the Unusual Whales report observed, adding that lawmakers should “focus on serving the public interest, not their portfolios” .
Wyden, a Democrat first elected in 1996, currently serves as chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, a role that gives him influence over tax, trade and economic policy. The outsized success of his investments has intensified scrutiny of whether members of Congress enjoy an unfair advantage in the stock market – and whether current ethics laws are sufficient. Wyden’s 123.8% return was nearly five times the S&P’s gain , an outcome that some analysts say is difficult to chalk up to luck alone. While there is no evidence of illegality, ethics watchdogs and even some of Wyden’s colleagues say the situation underscores public suspicions that lawmakers could be profiting from inside knowledge of coming legislation or economic shifts.
Trades by Wyden’s Family Raise Conflict Questions
Senator Wyden has defended his conduct, noting through spokespeople that he and his wife keep their finances separate . However, past trading activity by Wyden’s family members has drawn criticism for its timing and scope. A New York Times investigation found Wyden among nearly 100 lawmakers whose trades “at the very least, look dicey” in light of their official duties . In Wyden’s case, his wife, Nancy Bass Wyden – a New York bookstore owner – bought and sold shares of oil giants ExxonMobil and Shell while Wyden sat on congressional committees overseeing energy policy . Wyden himself also conducted trades in companies led by executives who were testifying before his Senate committee when he was the panel’s top Democrat , according to that report. A spokesperson for Wyden told the Times that the senator and his wife maintain separate finances .
Another example came in the semiconductor sector. In 2020 and 2021, as Sen. Wyden pushed for federal subsidies to bolster U.S. chip manufacturing, his wife purchased between $245,000 and $600,000 worth of stock in Nvidia – one of the country’s leading chipmakers . Those transactions coincided with Wyden’s backing of major chip industry legislation, including the CHIPS Act, which promised billions in support for companies like Nvidia . Ethics experts note that such trades by a lawmaker’s immediate family – while not prohibited under current law – can create the appearance of a conflict of interest. “The minute you have congressmen or their family members trading in individual stocks, the odor is not very good,” said James Cox, a Duke University law professor, warning that even if nothing illegal occurred, it undermines public trust . Craig Holman, a lobbyist with the watchdog group Public Citizen who helped draft ethics rules, agreed. “I have the greatest confidence in the integrity of Ron Wyden and I don’t think he’s manipulating the semiconductor business,” Holman told The New York Post. “But … it does have that appearance and it can be a real political problem.” Holman encouraged Wyden to ensure neither he nor his wife trade stocks in industries he oversees in Congress .
Wyden’s critics have seized on the issue. Republican activists in New York even urged him to step down from his Finance Committee chairmanship, after disclosures showed his wife held as much as $3 million in Big Tech stocks like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and Google . They argue Wyden’s household investments pose a conflict as he helps shape tax and trade policies affecting those firms . And in Oregon, prominent Republicans have openly accused Wyden of hypocrisy. Christine Drazan, a former Oregon House Republican leader, issued a statement in regards to Wyden’s market gains. “I agree with Senator Merkley that members of Congress should serve the people, not their portfolios. While Senator Wyden consistently accuses Republicans of favoring the ultra-wealthy at town halls across Oregon, he is the ultra-wealthy. Perhaps he can explain to those struggling families why his stock portfolio rose 124% percent last year, nearly five times higher than the S&P 500 did at 25%, and his estimated net worth grew to $18 million while he served as a top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee,” Drazan said. Her remarks highlight the political peril for lawmakers perceived as profiting from their positions – especially when those same lawmakers champion policies aimed at economic fairness or routinely criticize wealth inequality.
Wyden has not responded in detail to Drazan’s comments. His office previously told Rolling Stone and other outlets that he does not discuss stock moves with his wife and that her investments are independent . There is no indication Wyden violated the law. Notably, the Nvidia trades by Ms. Wyden occurred before Congress passed the semiconductor funding, and experts say it would be hard to prove any insider trading in such cases . Nonetheless, the pattern of timely trades by congressional spouses feeds a broader debate about whether lawmakers and their families should be trading individual stocks at all.
STOCK Act Limitations and Prior Scandals
Under current regulations, members of Congress are allowed to buy and sell stocks as long as they disclose trades above $1,000 within 45 days, per the 2012 Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act . The STOCK Act was enacted in the wake of earlier controversies to affirm that insider trading laws do apply to Congress and to mandate greater transparency. In practice, however, the law’s enforcement has been widely criticized as toothless. The penalty for a late disclosure is typically a nominal fine of $200, an amount often waived or easily absorbed. As a result, violations have been rampant. A 2021 investigation by Business Insider identified 78 members of Congress who failed to properly report stock trades as required . “The threat of a nominal fine has not prevented repeat violations,” the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center noted, observing that the STOCK Act has “fallen short” of deterring questionable trades . Crucially, the law does not forbid lawmakers or their immediate family from trading stocks in industries the lawmakers oversee – it only requires that those trades be disclosed after the fact. This loophole means that even when members of Congress have significant influence over a company or sector, they can still own and trade those stocks, a situation that watchdog groups say undermines public confidence.
There have been periodic scandals highlighting this gap. In early 2020, several senators faced Department of Justice investigations over whether they used non-public information from closed-door COVID-19 briefings to guide stock sales. Senators from both parties – including Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) – came under intense scrutiny after unloading sizable stock holdings just before the pandemic ravaged the markets . While most of those probes were eventually closed without charges , the episode fueled public outrage and calls to tighten the rules. (Sen. Burr did step down as Intelligence Committee chairman during the inquiry, and ultimately did not seek re-election.) Similarly, over the past decade, various lawmakers have drawn ethics complaints for trading stocks of companies directly affected by legislation they were working on. No senior member has been prosecuted under the STOCK Act to date, but ethics watchdogs say that is cold comfort. The mere appearance of potential insider trading or conflicted dealings, they argue, erodes trust in government even if no laws are technically broken.
Bipartisan Push to Ban Congressional Stock Trading
Momentum has been building on Capitol Hill to impose stricter curbs on lawmakers’ financial activities. In 2023 and 2024, a rare bipartisan coalition of senators and representatives introduced a flurry of bills aiming to ban members of Congress (and often their spouses and dependent children) from trading individual stocks altogether . By one count, at least 11 separate proposals have been floated since 2022 . One high-profile effort in the House came from an unlikely pair: progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and conservative Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) worked on a joint bill that would bar congressional stock trades . “I don’t think that members of Congress should be trading and holding individual stock,” Ocasio-Cortez said, arguing that lawmakers are privy to “very sensitive” information and early warnings about government actions that ordinary investors don’t get . Members of Congress often know in advance when major legislation is likely to pass or when regulatory developments are coming, she noted, which is why even the perception that they might use that knowledge for personal gain is damaging.
In the Senate, Oregon’s other U.S. senator – Democrat Jeff Merkley – has been a leading champion of a stock-trade ban. Merkley has teamed with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), among others, to push the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, which would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses from buying or selling individual stocks while in office . Introduced in 2023, the ETHICS Act gained bipartisan support from Senators across the ideological spectrum, including Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who chairs the committee that oversaw the bill, and Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) . In July 2024, Merkley and Hawley’s coalition achieved a milestone: a Senate committee approved the ETHICS Act, marking the first time a stock-ban bill advanced out of committee . “Members of Congress should serve the people, not their portfolios,” Sen. Merkley said after the committee vote, calling the practice of lawmakers trading stocks “deeply corrupt” in the public’s eyes . Hawley echoed that sentiment, declaring, “Congress should not be here to make a buck… There is no reason why members of Congress ought to be profiting off of information that only they get and the rest of the American people don’t get” . Both senators argued that a ban is needed to restore trust, noting polls show overwhelming public support for such a measure. Indeed, an October 2022 University of Maryland survey found about 85% of Americans – across party lines – favor banning members of Congress from trading stocks while in office .
Despite broad agreement in principle, these reform proposals have stalled amid leadership hesitancy and internal disagreements over details. As of early 2025, no final bill has reached the floor for a vote in either chamber . Congressional leaders in the previous term, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, initially resisted a ban (Pelosi later shifted to support considering one after public pressure). The issue cuts across partisan lines in unusual ways, with populists in both parties pushing for action while some veteran lawmakers quietly oppose limits on their personal finances. Lawmakers have floated various compromises – from requiring assets to be placed in blind trusts, to carving out exceptions for broad mutual funds – but haven’t yet coalesced on a single approach.
Meanwhile, the spotlight on Wyden’s stock success is feeding the sense of urgency among reform advocates. Sen. Merkley and Sen. Hawley plan to reintroduce their bipartisan bill in the new Congress, and say they are optimistic its momentum will continue. “If you want to serve in Congress, don’t come here to serve your portfolio, come here to serve the people,” Merkley told NPR in an interview, summarizing the principle behind the push . The ETHICS Act would not only ban future trades but also require current members to divest stocks or place them in truly blind trusts over a transition period . Lawmakers who violate the trading ban would face penalties significantly tougher than the nominal fines under the STOCK Act, potentially including hefty fines equal to their ill-gotten gains .
As Congress reconvenes, the debate continues over how to balance lawmakers’ financial freedom with the need to protect the public’s trust. Unusual Whales’ report has rekindled public attention by showing that Congress as a whole again beat the market last year. Even some in the financial world have taken notice – a cottage industry of funds has popped up allowing everyday investors to “copytrade” the stock moves of politicians . For now, Wyden’s office maintains that his family’s trades were legal and that no wrongdoing occurred. But as Wyden’s remarkable 2024 returns make headlines, they may also become Exhibit A in the case that simply disclosing stock trades is not enough to dispel concerns. The question lawmakers face is whether voluntary restraint and transparency suffice – or whether an outright ban is necessary to convince Americans that their representatives are, as Christine Drazan put it, “serving the people, not their portfolios.”
