House Republican leaders formulated the bill Trump supports to preempt a Democratic version. The GOP alternative would let lawmakers hold stock they already own and reinvest dividends. It would also let spouses and other family members trade on behalf of lawmakers. The Democratic plan prohibits members and their immediate families from owning individual stocks unless the spouse trades in connection with their primary employment. It would also apply to the president.

Polls show more than 80 percent of voters support banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks, and political consultants tell clients in both parties it’s a no-brainer message. Privately, however, many members are skeptical. Dozens of House Republicans oppose the bill Trump namechecked on Tuesday, and it’s hard to imagine the GOP version getting the needed votes in the Senate.

There is room for meaningful reform, however, around transparency. The House GOP bill requires lawmakers to give seven days of notice before selling any stock. That would be a major improvement from the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, which passed in 2012 and requires lawmakers to report trades within 45 days, but it’s still not enough.

Members of Congress should be able to trade freely — so long as they disclose those trades in advance. The chairman of a key committee revealing plans to dump large quantities of a stock could signal a coming policy change and erode whatever advantage he had from selling early.

Lawmakers frequently fail to comply with the current rules. Fines for a first-time violator of the Stock Act begin at just $200, according to the Campaign Legal Center. Stiffer penalties would improve compliance. Technology has improved so that all planned lawmaker trades could be easily compiled on an easy-to-navigate website.

Whatever rules around stock trading apply to the legislative branch should probably also apply to the elected leaders of the executive branch, but this is one of the biggest blockers. Democrats say they won’t vote for a stock trading ban if it doesn’t cover the president, but the White House has made clear Trump will veto anything that restricts his own ability to buy stocks.

Another good idea would be to apply any new disclosure rules around stocks to prediction markets. If Congress somehow bans individual equities trading but not betting on these burgeoning platforms, members will start putting money there. If a lawmaker places a wager, it should be instantly known to the public for maximum transparency. That would deter improper activity.

If tougher transparency rules deter someone from running for office, the country is probably better off without them in public service. But no one should have to liquidate their assets, and take their skin out of the economic game, just to serve the country.