The Washington Post has the story Senate passes scaled-down version of bill to ban insider trading by officials.

In a sweeping bipartisan vote, the Senate approved legislation Thursday that formally bans lawmakers and all senior federal workers from making financial trades based on inside information gleaned from their oversight work.
.
.
.
On a 96-3 vote, the Senate approved legislation that was pared down from the version it approved in early February, voting for the House draft of the STOCK Act without any amendments so that the bill could get to the White House as soon as possible.

Of course, we will have to wait for some disinterested lawyer to pore over the wording of the actual bill to see if it actually matches the headline and story.

I just cannot resist taking this cheap shot by quoting the following part of the article:

On largely bipartisan votes, the Senate included a provision … to strengthen anti-corruption laws that the Supreme Court had ruled against as insufficiently vague.

Presumably the unfortunate wording of this is an editing error.  Or perhaps the the Congress actually made the bill sufficiently vague to satisfy the Supreme Court.  Doesn’t one always strengthen rules by making them more vague?