Rep. Kathy Manning’s (D-NC) husband sold thousands worth of Big Tech stock shares before the congresswoman voted in favor of an antitrust bill that aims to rein in the power of these very companies, according to a financial disclosure.
Manning, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, disclosed on Sept. 12 that her husband, Randall Kaplan, sold up to $30,000 worth of Amazon and Microsoft shares. But only about three weeks later, on Sept. 29, Manning voted on three bipartisan bills aiming to enforce antitrust measures against companies such as Amazon and Microsoft, a move experts tell the Washington Examiner gives the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act was sponsored by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) and passed 242 to 184. It would hike fees businesses have to pay to federal agencies during a government review of large merger deals, require companies that merge to inform federal agencies of any subsidies received from entities in China and Russia, and give state attorneys general more control over deciding which courts take on antitrust cases so as to block companies from moving lawsuits to jurisdictions that may be more favorable to them.
BEAR MARKET FOR CONGRESSIONAL STOCK TRADING BAN
The White House released a Sept. 27 statement throwing its support behind the House’s antitrust bill, and another version of the bill cleared the Senate on Sept. 29.
“All of Congresswoman Manning’s investments are in accounts handled by third-party investment managers with no input or direction by her or her husband,” a spokeswoman for Manning told the Washington Examiner. “Congresswoman Manning always bases her votes on what she believes is in the best interest of her constituents.”
But one watchdog said Manning’s Big Tech stock trades prior to the antitrust bill passing “is a case study” in why it’s a “problem” for members of Congress to trade stocks.
“You can’t necessarily claim it’s insider trading per se,” Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, government affairs manager for Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan ethics group, told the Washington Examiner. “But it doesn’t have to be insider trading for it to be a conflict of interest and for it to look really bad and feed into public distrust.”
Manning has disclosed 470 stock trades in the past three years, according to records compiled by Capitol Trades. The sales of Amazon and Microsoft shares, however, come after she disclosed only buying shares between May and August. Those trades were worth up to $150,000, records show.
The last time Manning sold shares in either Amazon or Microsoft was in 2021. The congresswoman and her husband jointly offloaded up to $15,000 worth of Amazon shares in October and up to $15,000 of Microsoft shares in December.
Joshua Lynn, CEO of RepresentUs, another ethics watchdog, said Manning’s latest Amazon and Microsoft sales highlight the “corruption” of members trading stocks. The public has “lost faith in elected officials and government,” he told the Washington Examiner.
“Continuing to allow members of Congress to trade stocks with little oversight and accountability erodes public trust in government,” said Lynn. “Members from both parties have already introduced bipartisan bills to ban congressional stock trading. It’s long past time to ban this kind of corruption.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Kathy Manning is taking official actions that directly affect her own pocket book,” Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for the left-wing think tank Public Citizen, which supports a ban on members trading stocks, told the Washington Examiner upon learning of the congresswoman’s disclosure of Microsoft and Amazon sales.
“The timing of the trades raise serious suspicions,” added Holman. “Whether or not there was any intent of insider trading, the appearance of such is a political liability for Manning.”
House Democrats in September put forth the Combating Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act to ban members from trading stocks. However, a provision in the bill that allows the government to approve blind trusts drew widespread criticism from ethics experts.
