7 ms·

Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

69 points by cwwc 5y ago

mmastrac 5y ago
I know the argument against term limits is that it puts power into shodow structures of the government, but man oh man regardless of what side you are on I think that everyone has been in power too long.
- voisin 5y ago
  Time will inevitably put these long serving boomers in the grave. I have a hard time thinking the next generation, growing up in a more multicultural, tougher (economically), progressive time will share the same values.
  - yucky 5y ago
    >I have a hard time thinking the next generation, growing up in a more multicultural, tougher (economically), progressive time will share the same values. I think you're forgetting these were the free love dope smoking hippies. People's values change as they get older.
surge 5y ago
Wonder what loop hole they'll leave. Prob doesn't matter to her, she's already got her millions.
- thisismyaccoun7 5y ago
  There is a point in the article her husband is a heavy trader. When I read that, my first thought was unless they ban spouses from trading as well, it seems like that's what will happen since the majority are married.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    If not the husband, then the kids. If not the kids, then the cousins. If not the family, then the lawyers. etc etc etc. > publish the trades of politicians and Fed officials online every evening Just like banning trading, this will be circumvented by family/business proxies doing the trades. Including potential family proxies, in the public accounting, would probably be the most effective move to motivate ethical behavior. At least put some risk in the form of the relationship to the business partners, given the vast amounts of money flowing.
Gareth321 5y ago
The only reason she would back this is if: a) there are giant loopholes b) it doesn't ban her husband from buying individual stocks c) she knows there is no way this passes
- thisismyaccoun7 5y ago
  It appears she doesn't back/support it. From another article: "I just don't buy into it, but if members want to do that I'm OK with that," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    Source? Because the Axios article says she changed her tune on supporting a ban. If the quote is from a year ago maybe it’s no longer accurate.
    - thisismyaccoun7 5y ago
      January 20th from npr. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074387320/pelosi-opens-the-door-to-stock-trading-ban https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074387320/pelosi-opens-the-d... To be honest I just googled and clicked the first recent result because I was curious if this was a backtrack or she's just putting it up. It seems like the Axios article is conflating her not blocking it with her supporting it. I don't see any quotes from her saying she supports it.
- Phillips126 5y ago
  Recent news articles are stating: "Nancy Pelosi's challenger in California thinks putting the House speaker on blast for supporting congressional stock trading might finally pay dividends for him in his third attempt at unseating the long-term lawmaker."[0] She is possibly flipping on her decision now to keep her seat. If her husband Paul Pelosi[1] (an investment manager) can continue to trade, this ban will do nothing to her. [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-challenger-shahid-buttar-stock-trading-conflicted-congress-2022-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-challenger-shah... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pelosi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pelosi
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
logicalmonster 5y ago
I'm sure we all get the sense that there's probably going to be a big fat loophole somewhere. I think what might have been wiser is better transparency from politicians and their families. Either having a real-time trading dashboard that announces all of their trades in real-time, or set a requirement for them to pre-announce trades at least 1 day before. "If Apple's price is below $X tomorrow, then I intend to buy X calls" and make it so that these pre-announced trades are the only action they're allowed to do. But nothing really tackles the root of the dirty corruption problem so long as the government is involved in essentially picking the winners and losers in the marketplace. That's the real root of the issue that neither side even pretends to address.
- compsciphd 5y ago
  they should also make it like US expats have to deal with their foreign bank accounts. don't declare an FBAR appropriately, the US government fines you half the max value of the account (and make it no cap on penalty, unlike FBAR). Don't declare stock trades appropriately, not just that trade is penalized, the entire account or even one's entire portfolio (to avoid having many many different accounts) is penalized.
- lariati 5y ago
  No doubt, the bigger problem is they shouldn't be able make information trades because they don't have any special information. At this point, none of them should be able to own individual stocks. I would even ban them from owning sector ETFs. Broad index funds/bond funds, etc..a selection that looks like many of the average person's 401k choices. Being in power is not supposed to be your best career option and the best way you can possibly make money. That is practically the opposite meaning of civic virtue. Of course, I know this is all fantasy land stuff. I think systemically we have just hit that time decay before expiration that things start going down faster and faster.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  The main issue with corruption in politics has little directly to do with stock trading. The main issue is access. Companies give donations based on access. Companies give jobs after politicians are finished with their political careers so that they can have process SMEs who have access to the sitting group of politicians and their political parties. Stock trading isn't a bump on a frog's ass comparatively. I'm not saying they shouldn't ban it for people in Congress. I'm saying that if it's corruption you're looking to stamp out, then politicians should be forced to use ONLY public funding for political campaigns AND be banned from holding lobbying or lobbyist-adjacent positions for 6 years after leaving Congress.
alphabettsy 5y ago
It won’t pass. People love to target Pelosi for her and her husband’s trading, but she’s far from the only one. Still good press though right?
NicoJuicy 5y ago
You should be aware that she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Some suggestions of "she would only backoff because of ..." don't take that into account. She's not rich because of stock trading. He/she was already plenty of rich/successful before anything happened that people now accuse her of. Like: they already had plenty of successful investments before Pelozi even went into politics. That's a really important variable to take into consideration.
- lariati 5y ago
- r00fus 5y ago
  > she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Who here is naive enough to think her politics and her husband's work are entirely unrelated? The synergies for the two are way too lucrative to pass up for almost anyone (which is why so many legislators invest in things they are legislating).
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    She was the first woman and definitely one of the few in many posts. She wouldn't have ranked that hard without hard effort/ethic and I'm pretty sure she ( as a woman at that time) would encounter a "snear campaign" pretty early on if you're insinuations are true during her entire political career. I do not know how it is now or have an indication of it. But the fact remains that eg. Her husband was already successful and didn't need Nancy to be successful either. She's without a doubt a very smart and successful woman on her own. It's pretty rude to set aside all those accomplishments during many decades with simple and unsure accusations. Additionally, I'm 100% sure the opposing side in politics would use any knowledge about Pelosi to their benefit if it was true. After all their shit that came out, the fact remains I haven't seen much (any?) facts discrediting Pelosi. There was a time, not long ago, that more proof was needed than just yelling "lock her up" and blind faith. https://www.womenofthehall.org/inductee/nancy-pelosi/ https://www.womenofthehall.org/inductee/nancy-pelosi/ Innocent till proven guilty seems to be appropriate here, not the other way around.
mgas 5y ago
So, we have to hope that those in power will effectively regulate themselves? Like Apple and Microsoft and Google and FaceBook, etc can effectively regulate themselves? The point is there is simply no accountability for those in power because there is no sacrifice needed in order to gain that power. Gaining political power is 100% a financial move these days, and has nothing to do with passing legislation that is "by the People, of the People and for the People". The only solution to any of this is if attaining political office comes with some sort of life-altering consequence. You get a seat in Congress? You have to live as a hermit and abandon all your wealth for good. Political action becomes the ultimate sacrifice, like Italo Calvino positied: http://www.ruanyifeng.com/calvino/2008/12/beheading_the_heads_en.html http://www.ruanyifeng.com/calvino/2008/12/beheading_the_head... (This was really just a comment to post this story)
- Clubber 5y ago
  I could swear I remember this exact thing happening a few years ago. They silently repealed it a few years after the dust settled. I can't find any reference to it though.

69 points by cwwc 5y ago

I know the argument against term limits is that it puts power into shodow structures of the government, but man oh man regardless of what side you are on I think that everyone has been in power too long.

voisin 5y ago
Time will inevitably put these long serving boomers in the grave. I have a hard time thinking the next generation, growing up in a more multicultural, tougher (economically), progressive time will share the same values.
- yucky 5y ago
  >I have a hard time thinking the next generation, growing up in a more multicultural, tougher (economically), progressive time will share the same values. I think you're forgetting these were the free love dope smoking hippies. People's values change as they get older.

surge 5y ago

Wonder what loop hole they'll leave. Prob doesn't matter to her, she's already got her millions.

thisismyaccoun7 5y ago
There is a point in the article her husband is a heavy trader. When I read that, my first thought was unless they ban spouses from trading as well, it seems like that's what will happen since the majority are married.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  If not the husband, then the kids. If not the kids, then the cousins. If not the family, then the lawyers. etc etc etc. > publish the trades of politicians and Fed officials online every evening Just like banning trading, this will be circumvented by family/business proxies doing the trades. Including potential family proxies, in the public accounting, would probably be the most effective move to motivate ethical behavior. At least put some risk in the form of the relationship to the business partners, given the vast amounts of money flowing.

Gareth321 5y ago

The only reason she would back this is if: a) there are giant loopholes b) it doesn't ban her husband from buying individual stocks c) she knows there is no way this passes

thisismyaccoun7 5y ago
It appears she doesn't back/support it. From another article: "I just don't buy into it, but if members want to do that I'm OK with that," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  Source? Because the Axios article says she changed her tune on supporting a ban. If the quote is from a year ago maybe it’s no longer accurate.
  - thisismyaccoun7 5y ago
    January 20th from npr. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074387320/pelosi-opens-the-door-to-stock-trading-ban https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074387320/pelosi-opens-the-d... To be honest I just googled and clicked the first recent result because I was curious if this was a backtrack or she's just putting it up. It seems like the Axios article is conflating her not blocking it with her supporting it. I don't see any quotes from her saying she supports it.
Phillips126 5y ago
Recent news articles are stating: "Nancy Pelosi's challenger in California thinks putting the House speaker on blast for supporting congressional stock trading might finally pay dividends for him in his third attempt at unseating the long-term lawmaker."[0] She is possibly flipping on her decision now to keep her seat. If her husband Paul Pelosi[1] (an investment manager) can continue to trade, this ban will do nothing to her. [0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-challenger-shahid-buttar-stock-trading-conflicted-congress-2022-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-challenger-shah... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pelosi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pelosi

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

logicalmonster 5y ago

I'm sure we all get the sense that there's probably going to be a big fat loophole somewhere. I think what might have been wiser is better transparency from politicians and their families. Either having a real-time trading dashboard that announces all of their trades in real-time, or set a requirement for them to pre-announce trades at least 1 day before. "If Apple's price is below $X tomorrow, then I intend to buy X calls" and make it so that these pre-announced trades are the only action they're allowed to do. But nothing really tackles the root of the dirty corruption problem so long as the government is involved in essentially picking the winners and losers in the marketplace. That's the real root of the issue that neither side even pretends to address.

compsciphd 5y ago
they should also make it like US expats have to deal with their foreign bank accounts. don't declare an FBAR appropriately, the US government fines you half the max value of the account (and make it no cap on penalty, unlike FBAR). Don't declare stock trades appropriately, not just that trade is penalized, the entire account or even one's entire portfolio (to avoid having many many different accounts) is penalized.
lariati 5y ago
No doubt, the bigger problem is they shouldn't be able make information trades because they don't have any special information. At this point, none of them should be able to own individual stocks. I would even ban them from owning sector ETFs. Broad index funds/bond funds, etc..a selection that looks like many of the average person's 401k choices. Being in power is not supposed to be your best career option and the best way you can possibly make money. That is practically the opposite meaning of civic virtue. Of course, I know this is all fantasy land stuff. I think systemically we have just hit that time decay before expiration that things start going down faster and faster.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
The main issue with corruption in politics has little directly to do with stock trading. The main issue is access. Companies give donations based on access. Companies give jobs after politicians are finished with their political careers so that they can have process SMEs who have access to the sitting group of politicians and their political parties. Stock trading isn't a bump on a frog's ass comparatively. I'm not saying they shouldn't ban it for people in Congress. I'm saying that if it's corruption you're looking to stamp out, then politicians should be forced to use ONLY public funding for political campaigns AND be banned from holding lobbying or lobbyist-adjacent positions for 6 years after leaving Congress.

alphabettsy 5y ago

It won’t pass. People love to target Pelosi for her and her husband’s trading, but she’s far from the only one. Still good press though right?

NicoJuicy 5y ago

You should be aware that she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Some suggestions of "she would only backoff because of ..." don't take that into account. She's not rich because of stock trading. He/she was already plenty of rich/successful before anything happened that people now accuse her of. Like: they already had plenty of successful investments before Pelozi even went into politics. That's a really important variable to take into consideration.

lariati 5y ago
r00fus 5y ago
> she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough. Who here is naive enough to think her politics and her husband's work are entirely unrelated? The synergies for the two are way too lucrative to pass up for almost anyone (which is why so many legislators invest in things they are legislating).
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  She was the first woman and definitely one of the few in many posts. She wouldn't have ranked that hard without hard effort/ethic and I'm pretty sure she ( as a woman at that time) would encounter a "snear campaign" pretty early on if you're insinuations are true during her entire political career. I do not know how it is now or have an indication of it. But the fact remains that eg. Her husband was already successful and didn't need Nancy to be successful either. She's without a doubt a very smart and successful woman on her own. It's pretty rude to set aside all those accomplishments during many decades with simple and unsure accusations. Additionally, I'm 100% sure the opposing side in politics would use any knowledge about Pelosi to their benefit if it was true. After all their shit that came out, the fact remains I haven't seen much (any?) facts discrediting Pelosi. There was a time, not long ago, that more proof was needed than just yelling "lock her up" and blind faith. https://www.womenofthehall.org/inductee/nancy-pelosi/ https://www.womenofthehall.org/inductee/nancy-pelosi/ Innocent till proven guilty seems to be appropriate here, not the other way around.

mgas 5y ago

So, we have to hope that those in power will effectively regulate themselves? Like Apple and Microsoft and Google and FaceBook, etc can effectively regulate themselves? The point is there is simply no accountability for those in power because there is no sacrifice needed in order to gain that power. Gaining political power is 100% a financial move these days, and has nothing to do with passing legislation that is "by the People, of the People and for the People". The only solution to any of this is if attaining political office comes with some sort of life-altering consequence. You get a seat in Congress? You have to live as a hermit and abandon all your wealth for good. Political action becomes the ultimate sacrifice, like Italo Calvino positied: http://www.ruanyifeng.com/calvino/2008/12/beheading_the_heads_en.html http://www.ruanyifeng.com/calvino/2008/12/beheading_the_head... (This was really just a comment to post this story)

Clubber 5y ago
I could swear I remember this exact thing happening a few years ago. They silently repealed it a few years after the dust settled. I can't find any reference to it though.