When Public Service Starts Looking Like An ATM

Please follow us on X and Telegram

There ought to be one simple rule for anyone entrusted with enormous governmental power: you shouldn’t be able to personally profit from the laws you write, enforce, administer, or adjudicate. It shouldn’t require a congressional investigation or a team of forensic accountants to figure that out.

A blind trust is simple. A public official places his or her investments under the control of an independent trustee, who manages the assets without telling the official what is being bought or sold. The purpose is to separate political decisions from personal financial interests.

So why shouldn’t blind trusts be mandatory for members of Congress, Cabinet officials, the President, and other senior federal officials—and, with appropriate constitutional safeguards, federal judges and justices?

Consider the absurdity of the alternative. A politician owns stock in an industry. Congress considers legislation that could make that industry millions. The politician votes on it, perhaps explaining that the vote is based entirely on “the needs of the American people.” Meanwhile, the brokerage account quietly whispers, “Keep talking, Congressman.”

That’s where inurement matters. Public office exists for the public—not as a sophisticated wealth-enhancement program for politicians, their families, or their business interests. Even the appearance that government power can be converted into personal economic benefit damages public trust. And expecting politicians to remain perfectly impartial when millions of dollars are involved is, frankly, adorable.

The same principle deserves far more attention in Montana. Legislators should recuse themselves when they have significant financial interests in industries affected by legislation—or when their spouses have those interests. Health care, Medicare expansion, insurance, energy, banking, construction and other industries can all be dramatically affected by legislative decisions.

Disclosure isn’t always enough. Sometimes the ethical answer shouldn’t be, “I disclosed it, so now I get to vote. “Sometimes it should be: “I have a financial interest in this matter, so I’m stepping aside.”

And recusal shouldn’t be considered an admission of guilt. It should be evidence of integrity. Blind trusts won’t make politicians saints. Nothing is that powerful.
But they can help ensure that government office remains a public trust—not a personal trust fund.