Congress, like many of us, is better at talking the talk than walking the walk. The latest example of this involves allegations of insider trading by a congressional staffer that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating, and the House of Representatives is blocking.

The issue of insider trading and Congress came to public attention in 2011 with a CBS “60 Minutes” report showing that Congress appeared to exempt itself from insider trading laws that other people must obey. The public firestorm following the television program prompted Congress to pass the STOCK Act (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowlege), which specifically prohibits members of Congress as well as congressional staffers and others in the government from profiting through access to nonpublic information.

The law was a clear effort at damage control or public relations after the “60 Minutes” show suggested Congress was sidestepping laws that apply to others. The story played into the widespread belief that Congress and many high-ranking government officials are essentially insiders and often profit from their access to information.

This week, it appears the passage of the STOCK law was mostly public relations.

Back in February of 2012, the House of Representatives passed the STOCK Act with a 417-to-2 vote. Though the vote showed overwhelming support for the action, there was some grumbling about the law being overly broad or vague in some areas. The House vote came after removal of a Senate-passed version that regulated “political intelligence,” such as information revealed in committee meetings or special congressional reports that can be used to make profits.

This week, the New York Times reports that the House is stonewalling SEC requests for information regarding congressional staffer, Brian Sutter, a staff director of the House Ways and Means Committee.

The SEC wants to see Sutter’s cell phone records because it believes Sutter leaked information about changing Medicare reimbursement rates to a lobbyist who emailed the information to a brokerage firm, which then told clients how to profit from the change.

That’s an example of insider trading; profiting from nonpublic information. It’s not just company officials buying or selling their own company’s stock based on insider knowledge.

The House won’t give the SEC Sutter’s records for his government-supplied cell phone.

According to the New York Times, Sutter first told an F.B.I. agent and another investigator that he did not recall talking to the lobbyist. But a few days later, a lawyer for the House of Representatives wrote a letter saying “with the benefit of some time for reflection,” Sutter might now remember talking to the lobbyist.

That certainly sounds like a classic backtracking to avoid further legal trouble. And the House looks hypocritical in trying to stop the SEC from going further with the probe after proudly passing the STOCK Act as a way to say Congress and its staffers are not above the law.

The potential for insider trading violations and profiting from nonpublic information is huge in Congress and across much of the federal government in Washington. Consider the sort of information revealed in committee hearings. It could be a Pentagon report on a new weapons system or a plan to end production of a fighter or a tank. Or maybe it’s testimony about likely approval for a new drug by the Federal Drug Administration. Or it could be a hearing about penalties to be imposed on a bank for its role in the financial crisis.

Much of this information can lead to profits after the news goes public and the company’s stock price rises or falls.

Members of Congress, their staffers and many others across the federal bureacuracy in Washington are privy to much information that has not yet been made public. It’s called political intelligence, and when leaked to Wall Street offers the potential for much abuse.

It’s good to see the SEC go after profiting from political intelligence. The House should end its stonewalling of the SEC’s requests. This case should be a signal that the SEC and other agencies are watching for any other links between Congress, staffers or others passing on nonpublic information that’s turned into quick and easy profits.

— J.L.W.III