5 ms·
How about their relatives and more important the head of their trusts who they can just instruct or pass information to under the table. This is a great first
by trident5000 5y ago
How about their relatives and more important the head of their trusts who they can just instruct or pass information to under the table. This is a great first step but I'd encourage looking behind the headline.
Also the last time there was any rule about congress insider trading they just waited until nobody was looking anymore and revoked it.
- lastofthemojito 5y agoAs I understand it the STOCK Act hasn't been revoked, but members of Congress regularly ignore it and have never been punished for doing so: https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039287987/outside-ethics-group-says-7-house-lawmakers-didnt-disclose-stock-trades https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039287987/outside-ethics-gro...
- trident5000 5y agoIt wasnt technically revoked (my fault) but it was conveniently modified: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/293919-obama-signs-stock-act-step-back https://thehill.com/policy/finance/293919-obama-signs-stock-...
- lastofthemojito 5y agoYou say "conveniently" as if it were modified to make the rules less onerous for members of Congress but that wasn't the case. From your link: "Under the new law, the beefed-up reporting requirements will still apply to the president, vice president, members of Congress and candidates for Congress."
- trident5000 5y agoYeah I just ran with the first paragraph in that article. But further reading shows the rules stuck for congress. Regardless theres still an issue in my opinion when Nancy Pelosis husband is buying Microsoft calls one month before they are awarded a large government contract and several other suspiciously timed trades.
- lastofthemojito 5y agoOh, I 100% agree about that. My pedantic side is just coming out and I wanted to point out the problem isn't that there's no rule, or there was a rule and it went away ... it's that we can't trust Congress to enforce rules on itself.
- parineum 5y agoIt was amended and basically rendered useless. 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...
- lastofthemojito 5y agoIt was amended. I wouldn't say the law was made more useless. The members of Congress who sit on the appropriate committees to investigate and punish violations are what's useless. There doesn't seem to be any problem with getting the reports that members of Congress are filing. Check out senatestockwatcher.com and housestockwatcher.com or https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures https://sec.report/Senate-Stock-Disclosures. The problem is that even though there are known violations, there are no punishments.
- gnopgnip 5y agoIt is true that the small fines for violating the STOCK Act aren't an issue. But the SEC prosecuted Congressman Christopher Collins and a few others for insider trading
- alkonaut 5y agoInsider trading is already a crime and with all the ways to work around that law it’s still seen as a risky enterprise, so it seems to work. But more importantly: lawmakers are judged by voters. If media reports that a lawmaker tried to dodge laws or even ethics frameworks then voters should deliver the punishment even if a court can’t.