5 ms·
Instead of fixating that Pelosi made more than others I think right question is, why someone who actually can impact stock options and also has information not
by takeda 5y ago
Instead of fixating that Pelosi made more than others I think right question is, why someone who actually can impact stock options and also has information not available to the public is allowed to trade?
- curtis3389 5y agoBecause they are also the person that would write the rule that they aren't allowed to trade.
- kcdev 5y agoThe STOCK Act is supposed to prevent this. But the same politicians who passed the law and had the media cover it as much as possible, then later quietly passed another that the law would not be enforced.
- eganist 5y agoDo you have a reference to the specific legal code which includes the amendment? Thanks for coming through on this ask. I'm having a hard time finding it, and it's a point of contention I plan on raising with Virginia legislators if any of them voted in favor.
- atatatat 5y agoThese same cunts are shareholders in the media, 'course it's not all around.
- at-fates-hands 5y agoHere you go. Happened in 2013 under Obama: But on Monday, when the president signed a bill reversing big pieces of the law, the emailed announcement was one sentence long. There was no fanfare last week either, when the Senate and then the House passed the bill in largely empty chambers using a fast-track procedure known as unanimous consent. 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...
- eganist 5y agoThanks, this is helpful. It's exceptionally unlikely that I'll be able to spur meaningful change, but I'll try to have an update in December. (Posting for accountability)
- weaksauce 5y agowhy make it partisan by mentioning obama like he had anything to do with it as this was passed unanimously by both the senate and the house. just like when someone says "bill clinton repealed glass stegal" no he signed it when it was passed through by veto proof margins with only 2 people dissenting in the senate... he just happened to be the president at the time.
- vxNsr 5y agoBecause he could veto it.
- weaksauce 5y agoyou understand vetos are something congress can override right?
- boomboomsubban 5y agoVetoing the bill would have at least made the passage more notable, and likely required there to have been more than thirty seconds of debate on the topic. Making them override a veto has some value.
- weaksauce 5y agoagain it's not a partisan issue... literally both parties are passing these bills almost unanimously. it's a class issue i'll give you but not a partisan one.
- vxNsr 5y agoVetoing sends a message and as others have said would at least force the media to talk about it.
- MikeUt 5y agoTry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment
- tharne 5y agoI've often wondered about this. It's mind boggling that this is allowed. A congressman can short oil stocks and the very next day propose a large tax on oil producers then promptly cash out, and be completely within the bounds of the law.
- sneak 5y agoI don't think it's mindboggling at all. It makes perfect sense that lawmakers would not make laws that negatively affect lawmakers. I also think that the amount of nonpublic information that congresscritters have access to is substantially overblown. The fact that they can pass laws affecting the industries is a bigger lever, in my view.
- CapitalistCartr 5y agoOne feeds the other. Their position of power is the reason people tell them so much. Given their returns, either members of The Congress are more brilliant than any Wall Street fund manager, or they're cheating.
- tharne 5y agoI guess what surprises me is how nakedly unethical it is. I'm not shocked that people in positions of significant power would use that power to enrich themselves unfairly. I am shocked at how little effort they make to hide it.
- seanp2k2 5y agoBecause we’ve seen so many times that there are no consequences for this. Some people might get a bit mad, but it’s not like there are huge protests demanding change or cohorts voting out politicians who partake. If all politicians across the political spectrum also support it, what choice do people have at the polls?
- klipt 5y agoIsn't "inside knowledge of upcoming new laws" a kind of non public information?
- BurningFrog 5y agoBoth questions are valid. Not all representatives enrich themselves like this.
- lupire 5y agoThat's obviously the point of pointing out how "lucky" her investments are.
- bassman9000 5y agoShe's the Speaker of the House. The House that passes legislation that allows to do it. You have to start somewhere.
- trident5000 5y agoNo idea why you're getting downvoted when this is literally what they did. They had laws and then quickly bypassed it.
- bassman9000 5y agoBias
- nathanvanfleet 5y agoI think that is what they are implying with this information.
- trident5000 5y agoBecause these people are corrupt and want to make money. Its basically as simple as that.
- vmception 5y agoBecause her husband makes the trades lol. Pretty much none of the political/self-dealing/disqualified person financial laws apply to spouses. (This is distinct from private sector insider trading laws) It's super easy, barely an inconvenience!
- gorbachev 5y agoBecause when they pass laws prohibiting certain types of activities, they almost always exclude themselves.
- woah 5y agoAnyone with enough power and influence can impact stock options, and everyone has some information not available to the public. For example, Kanye West could buy calls on Uggs, then go out to lunch wearing some Uggs, then sell the calls after it hits the tabloids. Laws applying only to politicians would not stop anyone else from influencing stocks, and would only restrict the types of people choosing to become politicians, reducing the quality of politicians by causing people with better options not to bother. My sense is that this is one of those feel-good things, like setting politician salaries to a low level, which doesn't actually do anything to improve the quality of government.
- t0mbstone 5y agoA single celebrity attempting to manipulate the stocks they own via public perception is a fundamentally different thing than a bunch of politicians using their legal power to manipulate the stocks they own for their own personal gain.
- joebob42 5y agoI guess this can sort of flow two ways, though. A politician might know a law is coming up, and so buy a stock that is going to benefit from it: your argument is convincing there. But they might also hold a stock, and because of that they might feel more strongly one way or the other about a particular law: that feels like a problem to me. Unfortunately there is bleed through between these, and no good way to distinguish the two except ok a case by case basis, which seems to me like a credible argument for forbidding all trading.