9 ms·
Josh Hawley introducing his own stock ban bill
- tamaharbor 5y agoThis (or similar) bill is about as likely to get passed as Term Limits legislation.
- r00fus 5y agoThis is a common tactic in the Senate to subvert legislative direction. Ossoff's bill is superior in that it prevents children from also trading (see Sen. Manchin's shady dealings).
- xqcgrek2 5y agoHow is preventing children (I suppose you mean adult offspring) or even spouses constitutional?
- ianai 5y agoProbably made constitutional with a claus saying the trade has to be communicated by the congressmember.
- xxpor 5y agoHow would it be? Senators' families aren't a protected class.
- Something1234 5y ago> Ossoff's bill also would apply the ban to any *dependent children* in addition to the spouses of lawmakers, whereas Hawley's bill would not. I mean this sort of makes sense. In order for an adult child to be a dependent they have to be pretty much invalid, and not responsible for their own actions.
- xqcgrek2 5y agoIf its dependent children, the difference between Hawley and Ossoff's bills are inconsequential and Manchin's example is irrelevant in the OP's post.
- Aliabid94 5y agoThe children aren’t prevented from anything, people are prevented from being senators if their children trade
- paxys 5y agoNot adults but dependent children. It is a pretty standard clause if you work in finance or any context where you could have insider info.
- notreallyserio 5y agoI can see that working as a part of a private contract, I'm just not sure it's constitutional for the government to prevent one person from doing something based on their relationship to another person. Especially spouses, but perhaps even children.
- paxys 5y agoThere are a million laws which take marital status into account, so not sure where you are getting that assumption from
- bpodgursky 5y agoBut someone chooses to be married to an individual. You don't choose who your parent is.
- notreallyserio 5y agoWhat laws prevent a spouse from doing something based on their spouse's job? I can't think of one but I am not super imaginative.
- ummonk 5y agoYou can get a divorce or stop being a dependent.
- Spooky23 5y agoSo as a government official with appointment authority, should I be allowed to hire my wife to work for my agency in a role they may or may not be qualified for? It’s pretty easy to see how this stuff goes off the rails.
- BurningFrog 5y agoIt says "dependent children", which I assume would exclude adults. I don't remember any part of the constitution that would apply either way.
- ummonk 5y agoCollege students who are paid for by their parents can also be claimed as dependents on tax returns. I have no idea whether that is the criteria in Hawley’s bill, but it would be reasonable. If you want to trade stocks, don’t take senator dad’s money.
- haswell 5y agoInsider trading is illegal. Children (adult or otherwise) of individuals in possession of material non-public information about a company are not allowed to trade stocks based on that information. The way I see it, congressional trading rules are a natural extension of insider trading rules. Children/spouses should be prevented from trading not because they are children/spouses, but if/because they’ve been made aware of inside information. What part of the constitution would prevent such rules from being implemented?
- xqcgrek2 5y agoIf that's the case why is a new law needed in the first place? The adult children are independent of their parents and can be prosecuted under current law.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- haswell 5y agoFor the same reason a new law is required for elected officials. If an elected official is currently exempt from insider trading rules, and if the rationale is that the official doesn't actually hold "inside" information, and if it's necessary to change that, then it follows that the "tipping" clause must also be updated. This could also depend on how a new law is written. If the law is explicit that information gained as an elected official is material/non-public, then existing tipping clauses may already account for this. However, if this is not explicitly accounted for, it becomes an easily exploited loophole. I'm still curious though - why is this potentially a constitutional issue?
- giantg2 5y agoPretty sure that is not the case. It's members of a household. Grown children living elsewhere are not restricted.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nyc640 5y agoIf you read the link, it specifically says dependent children, which seems fair. I don't see how how the constitution protects your stock trading rights if you are likely to be privy to insider information. If you work in the financial industry, there are already draconian rules on oversight for all trades made by you, your spouse, your dependents, and even roommates. Why shouldn't this oversight extend to members of congress?
- sabujp 5y agoroommates too?! I guess you weren't kidding : https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/9seqfv/the_sec_is_investigating_my_roommate_its_only_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/9seqfv/the_sec...
- vba616 5y agoI'm not qualified to say if it's constitutional, but it would seem that it's widely accepted as constitutional if existing insider trading law applies to similar situations. Can you explain the reasoning more? And why making laws for Congress would raise a novel issue?
- Spooky23 5y agoIt’s been tested in court. Employment isn’t a right. When I was subject to public officers law, my kids were unable to play the lottery, engage in any sales or lobbying activity without written permission from agency counsel. I know of one case where a senior leader was referred for civil penalty (fine up to $20k) because he took a meeting with a prospective contractor that his kid worked for. There’s other areas like this as well. The actions of a spouse or child can affect a security clearance or be disqualification for employment as a police officer.
- hunterb123 5y agoA poison pill is a common tactic too. That was possibly included in Ossoff's bill to stall the whole thing so it goes nowhere. Even if Ossoff's bill went anywhere, it's too soft and the people setup to hold them accountable are themselves. Side note: If you want to sling mud against Manchin as he's open season now for the Dems apparently please be specific so people can refute you. I'll take one step at a time instead of all at once attempt and nothing in the end. Keep an eye on the negotiations and who stalls what, what they demand, etc. Make politicians construct simple concise bills. edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29915575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29915575 JPKab said it better than I could
- ummonk 5y agoOn the other hand, the penalties in Hawley’s bill have teeth, and having the GAO investigate is probably better.
- bilbo0s 5y agoI'm a uniter! Why not ban all family members, and instead of GAO oversight make any violation a criminal offense. Congress can do that if they want. Of course, that's likely not going to happen anytime prior to our Sun going red giant, but we can dream.
- changoplatanero 5y agoIt feels like there ought to be some constitutional right to not restrict your liberties based on who your parents are. I guess there isn’t tho.
- halpert 5y agoWhat part of the constitution protects the right to trade stocks?
- WalterBright 5y agoTaking property without compensation.
- klyrs 5y agoWhat property is being taken, in this case?
- WalterBright 5y agoOwning property means one has property rights. The right to sell it is one of those rights.
- 5y ago
- JPKab 5y ago> Ossoff's bill is superior I disagree. "Hawley's bill would have the Government Accountability Office provide oversight, whereas Ossoff would leave that to congressional ethics committees." Congressional ethics committees are notoriously partisan and unreliable in enforcing. You are trusting Congress members to police themselves, which isn't remotely reliable. In reality, they only police members of the opposing party. The GAO would be far superior. > in that it prevents children from also trading (see Sen. Manchin's shady dealings). Were Manchin's adult children "dependents"? How is that defined in the bill? Also, it's been interesting to see negative attention on Manchin suddenly get ratcheted up the minute he wouldn't vote in a manner popular with people who don't live in his state. > This is a common tactic in the Senate to subvert legislative direction. The assumption that the purpose of this specific instance is to "subvert" is speculative. I'm no fan of Hawley, but he has been very public about wanting to ban stock trades by members as much as Ossoff. I tire of the red/blue tribal loyalties on this site. I see two corrupt tribes, filled with people who won't vote for this bill. But both, and their foolishly gullible supporters, just sit and point at the misdeeds of the opposing side, unaware of their information bubbles.
- allemagne 5y agoThe superior bill is the one that gets passed. This is something democrats badly need to learn wrt Manchin. Until then we're just giving completely, utterly pointless kudos to whoever can play chicken most convincingly. I'm sure Hawley's office could have come up with something with even slightly more teeth if Ossoff came to him first with a GAO bill.
- nostromo 5y agoHawley's bill is much better though. I'm glad he didn't water it down to make Ossoff happy. > Ossoff's bill would leave oversight to congressional ethics committees Lol, ok buddy. We've all seen that congress in not able to conduct meaningful self-oversight. > violations of Hawley's measure would require lawmakers or their spouses to disgorge any investment to the U.S. Treasury Unlike Ossoff's bill, that's some serious teeth.
- allemagne 5y agoEven better, there's zero accountability for himself or any of the 50 republican senators who passed on cosigning Ossoff's bill when this also goes nowhere. It's nice not being in power!
- nostromo 5y agoEven better, there's zero accountability for himself or any of the 50 democratic senators who passed on cosigning Hawley's bill when this also goes nowhere. The senate is 50/50, this logic works both ways. Either party could vote for the other’s bill tomorrow and be done with it. I’d prefer the Dems work with Hawley to pass the better bill.
- scythe 5y agoIt's hard to think about anything but this: https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/how_does_the_shutdown_relate_t.html https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/how_does_the_shutdow... >If Senator X "makes a concession" the relevant media will proclaim him a loser and a coward, they don't want representatives, they want cage fighters. There's no reward for compromise and there's no safe place to attempt it, either. >[...] >Or, said differently, if there was a government shut down at a time when the news came out only weekly, it would mean we were getting a new flag.
- spaetzleesser 5y agoI think this would stop if the media would report about issues and not mostly political gossip.
- boc 5y agoHot take but I'd much rather politicians make their money via open, fully-disclosed investments in public companies vs shady backroom deals where their kids or shell companies get untracked kickbacks. Pelosi represents SF. It's her congressional district. Her investing in the top SF companies (many of which include tech companies which have performed really well) is a rare case of supporting her constituent businesses. Sure it's horrible optics and politics and yada yada but people should consider that the alternative (banning all trading as a member of congress) is potentially worse for open democracy.
- stickyricky 5y agoWhat do you mean "horrible optics"? It's outright corrupt. The issue here isn't "Nancy Pelosi supporting local businesses". The issue is her husband acting on private information to reap enormous profits.
- randomopining 5y agoWhat private information?
- stickyricky 5y agoWhat bills will be brought to the floor. What bills have the votes to pass. What bills do not. Access to confidential information which has not been released to the public. Etc. etc. I'm honestly not sure what you want me to say. You're welcome to Google the issue for yourself and make a determination.
- randomopining 5y agoI'm just saying if you levy a huge accusation like "she gets private insider information" then you need to back it up with factual evidence. Passing bills, sure. But most of these impactful bills are like months in the making and everybody knows which way they are heading. Her husband is an investor, so no doubt he writes all these options and such.
- chriselles 5y ago60 Minutes broke this story a decade ago. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-trading-stock-on-insid... Due to the traction the story got, it led to the Stock Act. But once the news cycle was over it was quietly, rapidly, and largely repealed: 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... And here we are a decade later “shocked” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
- wahern 5y ago> But once the news cycle was over it was quietly, rapidly, and largely repealed: The substance of that article only says that the online public disclosure requirements were narrowed from encompassing all Federal and Congressional employees to only elected officials and key appointees. If you read the Whitehouse signing statement (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/15/statement-press-secretary-s-716 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/0...) linked by the article, this is more clear. Employees' disclosures were taken offline out of privacy concerns, apparently. The article is somewhat ambiguous on this point, and hints at more significant changes, but I take it as rhetoric, otherwise it would have been relatively easy to be crystal clear on these points. (Shame on the reporter, but at least such unquestioned political cynicism is non-partisan.) Perhaps there have been subsequent amendments as well. Nonetheless, according to this April 2020 research paper, https://www.nber.org/papers/w26975 https://www.nber.org/papers/w26975, Senators have underperformed the market since 2012. EDIT: And most obvious, if trading disclosures of elected officials weren't still available online, then websites like https://senatestockwatcher.com/ https://senatestockwatcher.com/ wouldn't exist.
- gordon_freeman 5y agoI don’t understand why such a political news story is on front page of HN. It doesn’t belong here.
- allemagne 5y agoDid the Ossoff/Kelly bill get to the front page?
- rlibtardzz 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rlibtardzz 5y ago
- rlibtardzz 5y ago[flagged]
- rlibtardzz 5y ago[flagged]