Americans to Congress: Shape Up

Congressional reform is quickly becoming a defining topic in American politics, and it's present in how people think about accountability and, more specifically, their relationship to the institutions meant to represent them. More and more, the conversation isn't just about policies or parties, but about whether the people making decisions are actually fit (in tenure, age, and in financial independence) to represent us. From term limits and mandatory retirement ages to banning members of Congress from trading stocks while in office, Americans are increasingly focused on structural reforms and who stands to benefit from those reforms. The long-held concern is that career politicians and those with personal financial stakes in legislation are often seen as the biggest obstacles, while the average voter struggles to see meaningful change.

As we discussed in our last post, a plurality of Americans (41%) feel that the average American has too little power when it comes to influencing public policy, while nearly two-thirds (64%) feel that corporations have too much influence. Similar numbers feel the same way about donations from wealthy individuals, corporate donations, and lobbyists.

What makes support for institutional reform especially important is what it signals about how people view the whole system itself. When Congress is perceived as insulated from accountability, it raises real questions about whether elected officials are serving their constituents or themselves.

Overall, the data points to a consistent narrative: Americans broadly support structural reforms to Congress, and that support is strongest among older voters and those who lean Republican. Across all three reforms tested, strong support (scores of 8-10 on a 0-10 scale) sits at or above 44% for congressional term limits, a mandatory maximum age for members of Congress, and a ban on stock trading while in office, with moderate support (scores of 5-7) also being no less than 30%.

The stock trading ban draws the broadest overall support. Nearly half of Americans (50%) strongly support prohibiting members of Congress from trading stocks while in office, while 30% somewhat support it, and just 20% oppose it. Term limits and the maximum age cap follow a similar pattern, each drawing 44% strong support nationally. The takeaway is fairly straightforward: Americans want reform, and they want it across the board. That consensus becomes even more interesting once you start breaking the data down by different demographic groups.

Partisan Split

One of the more noticeable gaps in the data shows up along partisan lines. Republicans express the strongest and most decisive support across all three reforms, with strong support numbers reaching 60% or higher in several categories. Independents land in the middle, while Democrats show a lower level of strong support, though still meaningful, often offset by higher rates of soft support rather than outright opposition.

The 2024 vote breakdown mirrors this pattern closely. Trump voters strongly support all three reforms at notably high rates, ranging from 57% to 62% depending on the issue. Harris voters are somewhat less (but still broadly) supportive, with strong support ranging from 47% to 59%. Notably, the stock trading ban is where the two groups converge most; both Trump and Harris voters sit near 60% strong support, making it the clearest area of agreement in the data.

Generation

Breaking the data down by generation adds one of the starkest contrasts in the entire dataset. Boomers are by far the most enthusiastic supporters of all three reforms. On term limits, 69% of Boomers strongly support them, nearly 40 points higher than Millennials (30%) and 25 points higher than Gen X (44%). The pattern holds on the maximum age cap and stock ban as well, with Boomers consistently leading every other cohort by wide margins.

Millennials and Gen Z, on the other hand, show much higher rates of soft support and non-support. This doesn't necessarily mean younger Americans oppose reform, but rather that they might hold less certainty or urgency around it. Their responses cluster more in the middle ranges, suggesting a more ambivalent or wait-and-see posture toward these particular structural changes.

The generational divide on the stock trading ban is somewhat narrower than on the other two reforms, but Boomers are still in the lead. Even among younger cohorts, the ban generates the highest level of strong support of the three issues tested.

Education:

Among both college graduates and non-college graduates, there is a shared base of support for all three reforms. However, the intensity varies in ways worth noting. Non-college-educated respondents are somewhat more likely to land in the strong support category, while college graduates more often shift into slight support rather than outright opposition.

This pattern is consistent across all three reforms. On term limits, non-college-educated respondents report 45% strong support compared to 41% among college graduates. On the stock ban, non-college-educated respondents come in at 52% strong support versus 46% among college graduates. The differences are not dramatic, but they are consistent, suggesting that while both groups want reform, those without a college degree tend to feel more urgency about it.

Women with and without a degree generally reflect similar levels of support as their male counterparts, but with slightly more variation in responses. In some categories, women show marginally higher rates of soft support rather than strong support, which mirrors a broader gender pattern.

Conclusion

Overall, the data tells a story of broad, but not uniform, support for congressional reform. Americans across party lines, generations, and education levels want to see changes to how Congress operates, whether that means limiting how long members can serve, setting an age ceiling for office, or cutting off the financial conflicts that come with stock trading. But the strength of that support varies considerably depending on who you ask.