Anthony Scaramucci, founder of Bridge Capital, said in an interview with CNBC that the moral provisions of the CLARITY Act prohibiting federal officials from sponsoring cryptocurrency don’t have enough force; he believes the same ethical logic should extend to all forms of trading on material nonpublic information, not just digital assets. Scaramucci’s core argument centers on lawmakers’ stock trading.
Scaramucci’s stance on the CLARITY Act
In the CNBC interview, Scaramucci said the CLARITY Act’s newly added ethics provisions for cryptocurrency (prohibiting the president and federal officials from issuing or sponsoring digital assets) are morally correct in their logic, but the scope is too narrow; he argues that if a moral ban on cryptocurrency becomes a precedent, the same logic should apply to all forms of using nonpublic information to trade.
He said the institutional root of the problem lies in lawmakers’ compensation structure: lawmakers earn $180k per year, and he believes that gives some members incentives to profit from advantages tied to their positions. His proposed solution draws from the Singapore model: officials earn millions of dollars in pay, but at the same time face stricter ethical rules and oversight.
Performance record of Pelosi’s stock portfolio
Public trading records show that the investment portfolio managed by Paul Pelosi, husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has the following performance record:
Return rate in 2024: 70.9% (S&P 500 in the same period: 24.9%)
Cumulative since 2014: total return rate is higher than the benchmark by thousands of percentage points
Comparison in the same period: for many years, it has consistently outperformed Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway
Representative Anna Paulina Luna previously accused Pelosi of trading using material nonpublic information; Pelosi has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Scaramucci cites these figures to support his claim—that lawmakers should be held to the same level of moral standards in stock trading as cryptocurrency.
Legislative history of the STOCK Act
Scaramucci cited a real legislative precedent: the STOCK Act was passed in April 2012, prohibiting members of Congress from using material nonpublic information to trade stocks; however, a year later, Congress quietly passed amendments by “unanimous consent” to remove the requirement to create a searchable online database of employee trades, and the amendment recorded no recorded vote.
Scaramucci said this approach of avoiding public scrutiny through procedural voting is just like today’s CLARITY Act compromise on moral regulations. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is currently pushing for restoring stricter limits on lawmakers’ stock trading.
FAQ
What specific ethical criticisms does Scaramucci have of the CLARITY Act’s provisions?
In the CNBC interview, Scaramucci said the CLARITY Act’s moral provisions prohibiting federal officials from issuing or sponsoring digital assets are too narrow in scope; he believes the ethical logic behind the cryptocurrency ban—preventing profit from advantages derived from inside information—should apply equally to all forms of insider stock trading, especially lawmakers’ stock buying and selling.
How did Pelosi’s portfolio perform specifically, and what controversies did that raise?
Based on public disclosure records, the return rate of Pelosi’s portfolio in 2024 was 70.9%, far higher than the 24.9% of the S&P 500 in the same period; since 2014, its cumulative performance has been higher than the benchmark by thousands of percentage points. Representative Anna Paulina Luna has accused Pelosi of trading using material nonpublic information, but Pelosi has not been charged with any wrongdoing.
What is the STOCK Act, and why is it called “quiet repeal”?
The STOCK Act was passed in April 2012, explicitly prohibiting members of Congress from using material nonpublic information to trade stocks and requiring the creation of a searchable online database of employee trades; but a year later, Congress passed an amendment by “unanimous consent” that removed the database requirement, and there was no recorded vote throughout. Scaramucci cited this case as a historical example of Congress resisting external oversight.
