Say, asset allocation (other than their home and a Washington pied a terre) of 50% US stocks index, 20% non-US stocks index, 30% US bonds index.
No stock-picking. No sector-picking. No real estate other than through the indexes. No private company ownership. No trusts. No circumvention.
Alignment with ordinary people's retirement funds seems great.
AFAICT, forcing lawmakers to invest in total market index funds (with only buy/sell and maybe stop-loss; where total market is defined as an index fund tracking every publicly traded stock in proportion to its value) where it is difficult to make short term trades with insider knowledge of major market moving events would align their incentives with both our retirement accounts and improving a major slice of the economy.
One might say law makers would circumvent this regulation by having friends and family make the trades on their behalf, an outcome Id welcome; it’s easier to catch them making illegal trades when they have to coordinate to make it happen.
I think it would also mean a significant portion of your compensation as a lawmaker is a direct result of developing the markets. In some ways, regulation like this looks like performance based compensation.
They're generally incentived to keep all 3 indexes up.