4 ms·
The 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
by kcdev 5y ago
The 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 just like when someone says "bill clinton repealed glass stegal" no he signed it when it was passed through by veto proof margins with only 2 people dissenting in the senate...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.
- eyivghh 5y agoSo whats your point? Just because a large majority of Congress wants to do something immoral the pres gets to wash his hands if he jumps in? “Override the veto and be damed. But my name will not be on the bill.” Thats what they should have said.
- amznthrwaway 5y agoHacker News is an extremely right-wing website. The acceptable views here range from center-right to hard-right (both authoritarian and libertarian variants). It is not allowed to be even moderately fair to the left on this site. Nor is it allowable to be anti-racist or anti-fascist.
- MikeUt 5y agoTry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment