4 ms·
I think it's easy to rephrase this as follows: People should not be able to make bets on matters over which they secretly control the outcome. That means any
by smt88 6y ago
I think it's easy to rephrase this as follows:
People should not be able to make bets on matters over which they secretly control the outcome.
That means any federal official should have their investments behind a blind trust of some sort, no exceptions.
- Jommi 6y agoEdit it to "secret bets" or even "non publicly announced".
- smt88 6y agoI'd have to think it through more, but my gut says that I don't care if the bet is secret. Although I would separately support a law that all elected officials must have extreme transparency into their finances. I think people should give up all of their right to privacy (when it comes to business, finances, travel, and even conversations) when they acquire a large amount of power. In my head, a US senator would have that much power and that little privacy, whereas a US representative in the House would not.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoIsn't this already an illegal conflict of interest? Are federal representatives immune?
- infinite8s 6y agoCongress excluded itself from insider-trading laws. Convenient, eh?
- _underfl0w_ 6y agoCan anyone cite a source for this? I don't doubt the legitimacy, but would like to know more about it.
- vageli 6y agoIt doesn't seem to be true any longer with the STOCK act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
- busymom0 6y agoIt was repealed silently and unimanously in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZINKG-gPT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZINKG-gPT0