5 ms·
There are so many loop holes. I mean then they just make a company that does stock trades for them and tell that company what to trade. Or their spouse does the
by ravedave5 5y ago
There are so many loop holes. I mean then they just make a company that does stock trades for them and tell that company what to trade. Or their spouse does the trades instead of them.
- pwillia7 5y ago*purposeful loopholes
- throwaway894345 5y agoI don’t think it’s “purposeful” as much as the fact that the fundamental fungibility of money makes it very hard to write legislation that covers a reasonable amount of loopholes. Or rather, while purposeful loopholes could exist, it’s very hard to prevent legislators trading stocks even if there were no deliberate loopholes.
- pwillia7 5y agoAlmost every other facet of the law rests somewhat on 'common sense' and what 'reasonable people would do' I don't see why the laws couldn't be like that, but I take your point.
- throwaway894345 5y agoWithout getting into abstract legal philosophy, I think we can agree that this is effectively about insider trading (literally we're talking about trading on inside information) and insider trading is notoriously difficult to prosecute. Personally I think it's worth creating a law like our insider trading laws, with big punitive sentences to dissuade congresspeople from taking the risk. But I don't expect it to significantly outperform extant insider trading legislation.
- alkonaut 5y ago"Make a company"? You mean they would own it? That's obviously the same thing. That would be as illegal as owning any other stock. Spouses trading is as simple to monitor as it is for all other insider trading. But more importantly: if there was a ban, or even a recommendation against it, and the media did its job, then being caught making peronal financial gain from your political office would make you unelectable. The strange thing about US politics is that it's not just accepted but expected. This is the cultural change that's needed. Whether or not there are legal loopholes shouldn't matter so much. Politicians are scrutinized by media and judged by the public. Courts aren't even required.
- Pxtl 5y agoYeah, the spousal loophole is a hard one. Having an elected position restricting a spouse isn't right, but the fact that money can flow freely within a marriage basically annihilates any restrictions. Other non-marital transactions can be controlled - that's the basis of half the tax system in every country. The moment money leaves a household or arrives in a household, there are laws about the transaction. But within a household? All bets are off.