Opinion argues Congress lacks legal fiduciary duty to constituents

An opinion article contends that the United States Congress operates without a broad legal fiduciary duty, a standard that binds boards of directors in publicly traded companies and trustees in financial advisory relationships. The author, Carol Roth, asserts that while Congress manages the largest budget in the world and oversees the largest number of employees in the U.S., its members are not legally obligated to act in the best interests of their constituents in the same way private sector leaders are.

In most large businesses, a board of directors is established to represent stakeholders through a fiduciary duty, which is a legal obligation to act honestly, with care, and without conflicts of interest. This relationship carries consequences, as fiduciaries can be sued for negligence, bad judgment, or prioritizing their own interests over those they represent. Roth argues that Congress has avoided this legal framework, relying instead on a moral oath and what she describes as weak disclosure and ethics rules.

The author cites specific financial and legislative failures to support this claim. She states that the national debt exceeds $40 trillion, with Congress spending approximately $7 trillion annually, which is $2 trillion more than its revenue. She notes that the country now pays more for interest on its debt than for its defense. Roth also points to laws that favor certain groups at the expense of others and claims that members of Congress have enriched themselves through stock trading, despite the STOCK Act of 2012.

Roth addresses the solvency of the national debt crisis by stating that while the tools to resolve it exist, the political structure does not. She argues that because Congress has no obligation to prioritize the public interest over its own, and because accountability is limited to voting members out of office, meaningful change is unlikely. The piece highlights that calls for term limits, an issue favored by the majority of Americans according to Roth, have been ignored, sometimes leaving members with diminished capacity in their roles.

Roth concludes that it is unjust for government representatives to hold significant power and access to public funds without a legal requirement to act in the best interests of the people they represent. She advocates for a legal obligation of care, trust, and duty for congressional representatives, rather than a theoretical one. She suggests that without these legal constraints, the result is massive debt and a dysfunctional country.