4 ms·

It doesn’t even matter because Congresspeople can “insider” trade like this —- it’s not illegal. I think Sen Gillibrand has a bill to address this called the S

It doesn’t even matter because Congresspeople can “insider” trade like this —- it’s not illegal. I think Sen Gillibrand has a bill to address this called the STOCKS Act which she introduces every Congress but it never goes anywhere.

nr2x 5y ago
Exactly, insider trading for congresspeople is totally legal and utterly unethical.
irjustin 5y ago
Right, I'm all for public disclosure as well as insider trading laws against congress. This specific article isn't a good example and should not be used an argument towards that end.
pmorici 5y ago
The STOCK act was passed and signed into law in 2012. It prohibits members of Congress from trading on inside information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  I'm so damn confused right now. Why hasn't this been used to fucking nail so many politicians!? We keep hearing so many stories, I honestly believe that Gillibrand could be working on a new bill with an appended 'S'; hoping it somehow changes something. Our political system here in the U.S.A. is kinda fubar isn't it...
  - nixpulvis 5y ago
    OK, it looks like it's called "Stock Act 2.0" [0] and it's targeting reporting "benefits" gained from government ties. I'll be curious if they ever work out a definition for "benefit" here. [0]: https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/icymi-gillibrand-in-buffalo-news-stock-act-20-will-require-new-transparency-in-congress https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/icymi-g...
  - busymom0 5y ago
    2013: How Congress Quietly Overhauled Its Insider-Trading Law https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749... Putting in laws are only as useful as them getting actually enforced.
    - nixpulvis 5y ago
      > "The database itself is almost meaningless," says Holman. He says the only option for those who want to get a comprehensive look at what some 2,900 staffers have filed is to review the cases one by one. "And that's just too big a job for anybody to do." Oh God. I'm learning a lot about this I didn't know tonight, thanks. Ironically, as someone who would like government to employ smarter and more successful people, I'm left wondering how much of their finances we can and should expose. But given how corrupt things seem it feels like we still need to push on this. Now before I start trying to imagine a way two high power congress members could game the public information requirements between each other, I should go to sleep.
      - busymom0 5y ago
        "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems -- of which getting elected and re-elected are No. 1 and No. 2. Whatever is No. 3 is far behind". - Thomas Sowell
    - lordlimecat 5y ago
      Ironically given the anti-GOP slant of the story, that amendment was introduced by.... Harry Reid. Which, of course, NPR conveniently neglected to mention, instead crediting a GOP house member for "shepherding it" (its approval was unanimous, and needed less than 30 seconds debate). Any time you get stories like these implying that one side and only one side has corruption on it, you need to look real close because it's almost certainly a load of biased baloney.
blowski 5y ago
It’s how democracy _should_ work. People caught with their fingers in the till are booted out of office. Instead, they have enough partisan support that it doesn’t seem to matter.
- voidfunc 5y ago
  Nothing about democracy implies morality, ethics, or lack of corruption. Its only a system of electing people and as you noted if the politicians constituents dont care it doesn’t really matter what he or she does as it’s effectively a sanctioned activity.
  - blowski 5y ago
    If you want to be pedantic, then it doesn’t even imply elections. Democracy is merely the idea that the right to rule is distributed across all those who are ruled, not just some arbitrary group. Elections are a way of distributing power in this way. But what I was getting at is that is that we shouldn’t have or even try to have rules for every single thing an elected official can or can’t do. It’s not a good way of running a system of government. Elected officials should be accountable to their whole electorate. But instead, they are accountable only to their core constituency, everybody else be damned. And their constituency doesn’t care about effective government, only about absurd ideological issues they’ve been whipped into caring about by a collaborative media.

nr2x 5y ago

Exactly, insider trading for congresspeople is totally legal and utterly unethical.

irjustin 5y ago

Right, I'm all for public disclosure as well as insider trading laws against congress. This specific article isn't a good example and should not be used an argument towards that end.

pmorici 5y ago

The STOCK act was passed and signed into law in 2012. It prohibits members of Congress from trading on inside information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

nixpulvis 5y ago
I'm so damn confused right now. Why hasn't this been used to fucking nail so many politicians!? We keep hearing so many stories, I honestly believe that Gillibrand could be working on a new bill with an appended 'S'; hoping it somehow changes something. Our political system here in the U.S.A. is kinda fubar isn't it...
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  OK, it looks like it's called "Stock Act 2.0" [0] and it's targeting reporting "benefits" gained from government ties. I'll be curious if they ever work out a definition for "benefit" here. [0]: https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/icymi-gillibrand-in-buffalo-news-stock-act-20-will-require-new-transparency-in-congress https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/news/press/release/icymi-g...
- busymom0 5y ago
  2013: How Congress Quietly Overhauled Its Insider-Trading Law https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177496734/how-congress-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749... Putting in laws are only as useful as them getting actually enforced.
  - nixpulvis 5y ago
    > "The database itself is almost meaningless," says Holman. He says the only option for those who want to get a comprehensive look at what some 2,900 staffers have filed is to review the cases one by one. "And that's just too big a job for anybody to do." Oh God. I'm learning a lot about this I didn't know tonight, thanks. Ironically, as someone who would like government to employ smarter and more successful people, I'm left wondering how much of their finances we can and should expose. But given how corrupt things seem it feels like we still need to push on this. Now before I start trying to imagine a way two high power congress members could game the public information requirements between each other, I should go to sleep.
    - busymom0 5y ago
      "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems -- of which getting elected and re-elected are No. 1 and No. 2. Whatever is No. 3 is far behind". - Thomas Sowell
  - lordlimecat 5y ago
    Ironically given the anti-GOP slant of the story, that amendment was introduced by.... Harry Reid. Which, of course, NPR conveniently neglected to mention, instead crediting a GOP house member for "shepherding it" (its approval was unanimous, and needed less than 30 seconds debate). Any time you get stories like these implying that one side and only one side has corruption on it, you need to look real close because it's almost certainly a load of biased baloney.

blowski 5y ago

It’s how democracy _should_ work. People caught with their fingers in the till are booted out of office. Instead, they have enough partisan support that it doesn’t seem to matter.

voidfunc 5y ago
Nothing about democracy implies morality, ethics, or lack of corruption. Its only a system of electing people and as you noted if the politicians constituents dont care it doesn’t really matter what he or she does as it’s effectively a sanctioned activity.
- blowski 5y ago
  If you want to be pedantic, then it doesn’t even imply elections. Democracy is merely the idea that the right to rule is distributed across all those who are ruled, not just some arbitrary group. Elections are a way of distributing power in this way. But what I was getting at is that is that we shouldn’t have or even try to have rules for every single thing an elected official can or can’t do. It’s not a good way of running a system of government. Elected officials should be accountable to their whole electorate. But instead, they are accountable only to their core constituency, everybody else be damned. And their constituency doesn’t care about effective government, only about absurd ideological issues they’ve been whipped into caring about by a collaborative media.