4 ms·
How is preventing children (I suppose you mean adult offspring) or even spouses constitutional?
by xqcgrek2 5y ago
How 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.
- notreallyserio 5y agoI think that's different. This isn't about appointing someone to a job, it's about preventing one person from trade with another strictly because of their marriage.
- 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.