Earlier this year, Florida state lawmakers did something uncommon: They passed a law requiring all candidates for federal office to publicly declare whether they’d personally trade stocks if elected to Congress.
The Florida law addressed a growing concern, among liberal and conservative voters alike, that some elected federal officials are financially conflicted or, even worse, making public decisions that benefit their private stock portfolios. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the measure into law this April and personally championed it.
But the murky language in the new Florida statute appears to have spurred confusion among 2026 congressional candidates — with some even filling out their disclosure form incorrectly in a seemingly earnest effort to be fully transparent, a Washington Sun analysis of state records indicates.
Republican Ryan Elijah and Democrat Eliott Rodriguez both checked the box indicating they do plan to trade stocks if elected to Congress. But they told The Washington Sun they actually have no intention of trading individual stocks.
Trending
Elijah said he filled out the form in the interest of “full transparency” because he didn’t know how his retirement account, which holds stocks, would be managed. The Orlando-area Republican amended his federal personal financial disclosure in September after facing an ethics complaint for failing to itemize assets in his retirement accounts, according to Florida Politics.
“Full disclosure, I probably wish I would’ve just checked ‘no,’ but I still think it’s the most honest answer to check ‘yes,’” Elijah told The Sun.
Elijah said his campaign had “zero guidance” on how to comply with Florida’s new stock trade disclosure law. And neither the law nor the questions on the declaration form address how candidates should respond if a family member will be the one making trades.
Elijah earned the support of Republican Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Mike Haridopolos — vocal supporters of a measure to ban stock trading by members of Congress — in his successful primary bid to unseat embattled Republican Rep. Cory Mills. Elijah said they know he “was checking that box for transparency, and I’m fully with them on banning insider trading.”
Rodriguez, a Miami-area Democrat, also has no plans to trade individual stocks and is “fully committed to stopping the incessant and unpatriotic insider trading,” said his campaign spokesperson, Fernand Amandi. But like Elijah, Rodriguez checked the Florida disclosure box indicating he does plan to trade if elected.
Rodriguez has a financial adviser who makes financial trades on his behalf, and his advisers do not trade individual stocks as a “matter of practice,” Amandi told The Sun.
“Mr. Rodriguez has almost exclusively owned ETFs and mutual funds in his personal accounts but has traded very small amounts of individual stocks in the past,” Amandi said.
Florida’s push for transparency comes as restrictions on congressional stock trading remain wildly popular for Americans on both sides of the political aisle. But Congress has continued to reject bills banning or restricting the practice, including a measure the Senate killed in September — it had passed the House — when Democrats balked at a voter identification provision.
The confusing language in the new Florida law allows two congressional candidates who may have materially different stock trading plans to make the same declaration. Here’s how it’s supposed to work: A candidate can check the box indicating they don’t plan to trade as long as their investment activity is conducted through “a trust or similar mechanism which strictly limits his or her ability to influence or exercise control over decisions regarding the management of assets.”
That means they can check the “no” box even if they plan to trade or keep trading through specific arrangements. These could include pooled investments, such as mutual or private equity funds, in which they have no control over individual investment decisions. They could also include discretionary investment accounts that, in theory, give an adviser the authority to make trades without the client’s prior approval.
Of Florida’s 55 congressional nominees across both parties, three Republicans — Elijah and Reps. Randy Fine and Scott Franklin — and three Democrats — Rodrigez, L.J. Holloway and Rep. Lois Frankel — checked the box indicating they intend to trade stocks if elected to Congress.
Florida’s new stock disclosure law includes another requirement for congressional candidates: Anyone who has previously held federal office is also required to affirm whether they’ve traded stocks in the past.
Of the three sitting lawmakers who checked the box indicating they do plan to trade if elected, Fine reported that he had not previously made any trades while in federal office, while Franklin and Frankel reported that they had. Financial transparency is an area where Florida’s congressional delegation has historically struggled.
This decade, many have violated the disclosure provisions of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act — a 2012 federal law that requires members of Congress to disclose certain transactions and cracks down on insider trading. Under the STOCK Act — unlike Florida’s law — even if an investment adviser or account manager made the trade on behalf of the member of Congress, it’s the lawmaker who’s responsible for filing a disclosure covering transactions over $1,000.
Both Franklin and Frankel have run afoul of the STOCK Act by filing late disclosures after the 45-day required reporting window.
Franklin “has used a professional investment adviser to manage his investments since before he was elected to Congress,” Melissa Kelly, a spokesperson for the Republican congressman told The Sun. She said he “only learns of transactions after they have occurred, when they are reported to him for purposes of complying with House financial disclosure requirements.”
Similarly, Frankel “does not personally trade individual stocks,” said a spokesperson for the Democratic congresswoman who declined to be identified by name in this story. “The bulk of her investments are held in mutual funds and ETFs where decisions regarding the purchase and sale of individual securities are made by professional fund managers, not by Rep. Frankel.”
Fine is the only sitting member of Congress who appears to have opened the door to trading stocks despite not having any previously reported activity while in Congress — though his financial disclosures show he holds a retirement portfolio containing individual stocks.
Both Fine and Holloway did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Other sitting members of Florida’s congressional delegation indicated they do not plan to trade stocks if elected this cycle but reported on their Florida form that they had previously done so, including Republican Reps. Brian Mast, Jimmy Patronis and Gus Bilirakis and Democratic Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jared Moskowitz and Kathy Castor.
Wasserman Schultz told The Sun she does not personally trade stocks. A broker handles a “small retirement account” for her, she said.
“I’m not involved in the market decisions that the broker makes independently. It started at about $11,000 and isn’t much larger now,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. “In prior years, I had to disclose any stocks or assets my kids held, which were also made independently.”
Castor did not share details about how she traded stocks in the past when asked by The Sun, but she noted that she “broke with my party to ban Congressional stock trading.”
“That legislation was the first step and we must go much further to root out corruption,” Castor said. “To me, public service is a public trust, and I would never violate the trust my neighbors place in me.”
Mast, Wasserman Schultz, Moskowitz, Castor and Bilirakis have each violated the STOCK Act by failing to disclose personal financial trades on time. Patronis does not appear to have ever filed a transaction report on any trades, so it’s unclear why he indicated that he had traded in federal office in the past.
“We have followed all previous rules and voted to support the Stop Insider Trading Act,” Patronis’ office told The Sun in a statement.
Some lawmakers reported on their Florida form that they had not previously traded stocks, but they have reported investment activity under the STOCK Act.
Republican Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar, John Rutherford, Greg Steube and Laurel Lee all indicated they do not plan to trade stocks and have not directly traded or controlled trades they reported in the past. Salazar, Rutherford, Steube and Lee have also filed late disclosures under the federal law.
Other candidates who currently serve in Congress — including Haridopolos, Luna, Republican Reps. Kat Cammack, Aaron Bean, Mario Diaz-Balart and Carlos Gimenez, and Democratic Reps. Darren Soto and Maxwell Frost — indicated on their Florida forms that they do not plan to trade stocks if elected and that they had not in the past. Luna and Diaz-Balart have filed reports under the STOCK ACT while in Congress.
Among other Florida congressional candidates who aren’t currently serving in Congress and haven’t been previously mentioned, 11 Republicans and 20 Democrats indicated that they do not plan to trade stocks if elected.
On the Senate side, Republican Sen. Ashley Moody indicated she does not plan to trade stocks in the future, but she disclosed that she had previously made trades. Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon also reported that she does not plan to trade stocks if elected.
As a member of the Senate, Moody has voted in favor of Republican-backed federal legislation — the Stop Insider Trading Act — that could have restricted stock trading for lawmakers. Nixon has called for an all-out ban with “no loopholes.”
Most federal and state laws governing stock trades for candidates have retroactive requirements for politicians to report their activity — not their plans to trade — but Florida’s law sought to get ahead of the curve. But not every candidate, especially first-time office seekers, has the means to get advice from an expert on how to fill out their form.
“Delegating discretion to a financial adviser is a common excuse, but does not strictly limit a candidate’s ability to influence decisions over stock trades as the form asks” — as clients can technically still fire or change their management relationship with the person working for them, said Tavan Pechet, an adviser with experience working with ultra-high-net-worth families and advises congressional offices from both parties on legislation to restrict members’ stock trading.
“The form appropriately seeks to differentiate between a candidate having no legal ability to influence investment decisions, and a candidate merely promising not to call an adviser and profit when they can,” Pechet said.
“The new Florida form may be well intentioned — and it’s hard for a short question to be precise — but for any candidate who might invest in the equity markets, it’s not always clear which box to check” Pechet said. “What you subjectively ‘intend’ to do may be hard to answer even if you want to be honest, and impossible to police if you just want to get elected.”
Pechet said that “adding two short words to the form could remove some uncertainty: ask about intent to trade ‘individual’ stocks in a manner other than through a ‘blind’ trust,” as the latter is specifically set up to limit one’s influence over their own assets.
“I might advise any candidates who intend to participate at all in the equity markets to err on the side of caution by answering yes regardless of their intended investments,” Pechet said. “And if candidates want to deny an intent to trade stocks, they could probably find a loophole to support that answer too. Either way, the new rule may not provide much useful information to voters.”
Author
