49 ms·
House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cwkoss 4y agoOur political parties are failing us so badly, I wouldn't be surprised if the guillotine came back into fashion over the next decade. I hope congress can get its act together and serve its constituents better before it comes to that, but it feels naive.
- smrtinsert 4y agoThis is an example of one political party actually trying
- cwkoss 4y agoI hope it succeeds, but fear Pelosi (the 'leader' of that party) will tank the bill.
- tediousdemise 4y agoYeah, hubby's strats are too lucrative for that. It's a non-starter. We need to establish age limits and get all the old greedies out of politics.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- TameAntelope 4y agoAhaha I always love the calls for political violence in the US, because we've experienced so little (relative to other parts of the world). Honestly it shows how well off we've been these last decades to have the luxury to call for someone else to kill a politician for us because we're upset. You have no concept of the injustice that would arise if "the people" begin murdering politicians in the street again. So many books cover the hideous nature of mob justice, so-called "revolutions", and their gruesome knock-on effects, there's really no excuse to be this undereducated about what you're saying.
- fuckboii 4y ago
- matt3210 4y agoLol this win never happen. Politicians will never vote to bankrupt themselves
- thesecretceo 4y agothey gotta do something to save face... i agree with you tho, this is just posturing
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> this is just posturing Eh, I don't think it is. Most members of Congress aren't minting money trading stock. The revolving door is far more insidious. Pointing at this lets pass make minor reforms, chuck a surprise at the eternally cynical and keep the goose that lays the golden eggs. The partisanship of the accusations also helps galvanize support. Republicans can claim to be sticking it to Pelosi. Democrats can better cover their flank. The base will eat it up. Nobody in finance cares. And like two members of Congress will be slightly diminished millionaires. Broadly, a win-win. (Even if more marginally than presented.)
- chabes 4y agoHow would that lead to bankruptcy?
- tootallgavin 4y agoSo should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere? Where does a politicians money come from? If they exclusively received their money from stock trading as opposed to lobbyists/donors, how do you think the policy decisions would change?
- danaris 4y ago....They get a salary? It's not huge, by rich-people standards (which is a legitimate concern, as it does lead to very rich people being more able to take politician jobs than regular people), but, what, you thought they relied on graft to buy their dinners??
- sschueller 4y agoIs this headline missing a comma or is it me? It sounds like they would ban lawmakers from trading stock only in August?!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- d23 4y agoLooks fine to me. If the modifier were placed at the end of the title it would be misplaced and would imply what you've said.
- billfruit 4y agoYes, it does look odd. Perhaps it should have been: In August, House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading.
- corrral 4y agoYep. Currently reads like they're going to propose... something (marriage?) "in August ban on lawmaker stock trading". Problem is that phrases like "August ban" are common in headlines, but that's not what's intended here—it's not saying "the ban that happened/will-happen in August", as in "alleged mob boss nabbed in August sting operation", but describing when they'll propose a ban. A fix could indeed involve commas: House Democrats to propose, in August, ban on lawmaker stock trading
- heavymark 4y agoConfused as well. I read it as ban only applies to August and was wondering what was special about August. Think it’s missing at least an “a” before ban but ideally a comma before that too.
- yieldcrv 4y agoMake sure it includes their spouses or the marital unit.
- booleanbetrayal 4y agoIt's all for naught if this is overlooked.
- andrewjf 4y ago"overlooked" Unfortunately I'm too cynical to think that something that obvious would be merely overlooked (rather than intentionally left out). If it's an incremental step forward, I'll take it anyway.
- frankbreetz 4y agoFirst line of the article >>Democrats in the House of Representatives will propose a ban on lawmakers, their spouses and senior staff from trading stocks,
- cronix 4y agoIt's literally the first text and bullet point in the article: > Democrats in the House of Representatives will propose a ban on lawmakers, their spouses and senior staff from trading stocks, Punchbowl News reported Thursday.
- yieldcrv 4y agothe point is that I didn't read it, good thing I follow cronix who reads the articles so I don't have to
- ckardat123 4y agoI've been collecting and sharing (@QuiverCongress on Twitter) data on stock trading by U.S. congressmen for the past couple years. While there is currently legislation that requires congressmen to disclose their financial dealings, enforcement around it is incredibly weak. Congressmen are supposed to disclose stock transactions within 45 days of when they are made, but in practice there are dozens of violations of this rule which result in hardly a slap on the wrist. I've seen a couple cases of politicians conveniently waiting till after election cycles to disclose controversial trades. While I'm generally pessimistic about the odds of congress voting to regulate itself, I'm still hopeful that something comes from this push. There's certainly a lot of room for improvement.
- munk-a 4y agoIf it becomes a big enough liability that prominent representatives are concerned about their reelection due to it then it will happen. Yes, Congress is reluctant to specifically legislate against itself, so to make it happens a stink must be raised.
- ckardat123 4y agoYeah, I definitely don't want to write it off entirely. The STOCK act passed 96-3, so while congress might not tend to be keen on regulating themselves, it's not completely allergic. Interestingly, one of the 3 'no' votes on the STOCK act was later engaged in some of the fishiest trading I've seen around the start of COVID. Here's a visual I made on it: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/gwocvt/sen_richard_burr_stock_transactions_alongside_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/gwocvt/sen...
- yndoendo 4y agoBinding resolution allows for We the People to force the legislative body to enact legislation that they oppose. This is now cannibals become legal in Colorado. Unfortunately not all states have binding resolution nor are legislative body willing to empower the people. Binding resolution also needs to be bound at a Federal level, which it is not, to bring in true balance of power and laws that have true accountability. Such as all money gained through insider trading is forfeited along with possible jail time and possible loss ability to be a constitute representative. If binding resolution was an available tool for We the People, legislative body would work move together than separately.
- morninglight 4y agoLet's get real... *** TERM LIMITS *** .
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Let's get real...term limits This is a proven strategy for tanking legislation. Ten lawmakers on a linear political spectrum. Compromise is at 5. 1, 2, 9 and 10 said no; 3 and 8 grudgingly accepted. The measure looks poised to pass with six votes. What can you do to tank it? Propose a sizzling 3½. 3 can't help but demand it at all costs. It's so juicy! And so close to the real intent behind 5! 8, meanwhile, horrified and betrayed, tells everyone to kindly fuck off. The centre holds. But the fringes have frayed enough to compromise passage. We're in a rare state of inching bipartisanship. That mitigates the last decades' go-to strategy of lobbing landmines from the extremes, aiming to tear apart that delicate ground of negotiating space from the poles; to make moderation tantamount to treason. I suspect we'll now see more baiting of edges to chew away at the most-extreme moderates instead, an escalating game of No True Scotsman at the fringes.
- TameAntelope 4y agoGood, then we tank legislation. Fewer laws seems fine by me, and the laws that do pass will be based on a groundswell of support that comes in waves.
- arcticbull 4y agoI don't really get the appeal. We don't term limit anyone in any other job, generally we believe tenure and experience corresponds with competency. Would you accept a term limit for a software engineer? Of course not. Your value to an organization, your ability to be effective, to do good work, increases the longer you stay. You're good, you stay. Term limits feel tantamount to demanding a lawmaking body comprised entirely of amateurs - instead of professional public servants. The problem is incentives. It should be illegal for lawmakers to receive any money or other in-kind support for their re-election campaign from anyone other than the Federal Election Commission. Everyone who gets more than a few thousand signatures gets the exact same budget. This way, everyone has the same war-chest, and has to run on their own merits - not on raising capital - and they're measured on their ability to succeed. It also instantly nerfs the allure of lobbying.
- livinglist 4y agoI don’t know why this hasn’t been proposed sooner? Or was there any attempt before this?
- rodneyhayes 4y agoSTOCK act 2012. I believe it was quietly repealed.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> STOCK act 2012. I believe it was quietly repealed. No, it wasn't. It was scoped back, uncontroversially, to not apply to e.g. Congressional staffers. It still applies to "the President, Vice President, Congress, or anyone running for Congress" [1]. It also, more controversially, "eliminated the requirement for the creation of searchable, sortable database of information in reports, and the requirement that reports be done in electronic format, rather than on paper." The law and its penalties still apply to members of Congress. It just permitted them to file on paper. That leads to crap like this [2]. Still, a long shot from repeal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/stocks-congress-trading-disclosures-house-senate-ro-khanna-2022-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/stocks-congress-trading-disc...
- rodneyhayes 4y agoGreat information, thank you.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
- ckardat123 4y agoPelosi's Nvidia sale was timed poorly. $NVDA is up about 8% in the two days since they sold.
- goodpoint 4y agoIsn't this seriously illegal in most countries?
- arcticbull 4y agoIt's illegal in these here United States too unless you're a lawmaker.
- kyleblarson 4y agoI would hope that lawmakers' spouses would also be disallowed. Paging Nancy and Paul Pelosi.
- ckardat123 4y agoThe proposed legislation extends to spouses and senior staff
- nostromo 4y agoHear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a rounding error. Those families then use the power from being in office to enrich their families even more. One solution could be to double or triple pay for US representatives along with banning stock trading and things like "speaking fees."
- Sevii 4y agoLet's do a trade. Congress people get paid 1mil/year adjusted for inflation plus pension, but in return they don't get to own stocks or real estate while they are in office.
- AlgorithmicTime 4y agoWe should let them own a house in their constituency, at least. I'm open to disallowing real estate speculation.
- mfer 4y ago> they don't get to own stocks or real estate So, they can't own a home in a location they represent? I don't see that going over well. Your primary home is real estate. So is that little family cottage. Also, congressional reps need to have a home is Washington. So, they have to rent there?
- dhritzkiv 4y agoMany reps do rent in DC, sometimes in frat-house-like conditions with other reps.[1] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/ind...
- 4y ago
- jandrese 4y agoThis is dead on arrival. They aren't even going to get a solid majority of Democrats on board and there's going to be absolutely zero Republican support. I would honestly be amazed if it even made it to the house floor.
- tomohawk 4y agoThe bill has Republican co sponsors. The title of this thread is pretty misleading as members of both parties have been taking pot shots at each other over this issue for some time now. Nancy Pelosi in particular has taken quite a bit of heat for years as her husband has made some amazingly well timed trades.
- rychco 4y agoThis is absolutely essential and desperately needs to pass. Additionally, spouses of lawmakers should be banned from stock trading too. That would be a tremendous starting line.
- HWR_14 4y agoSpouses are also restricted in the current proposal.
- hayst4ck 4y agoLawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor famous for fighting for sane copyright law) does a great presentation on the root cause of Americas problems. He also ran for president in 2016. It can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE The short version is that to win primaries you need money. Money mainly comes from corporations and rich people. Taking money from corporations and rich people creates a relationship where you have some loyalty to them or they can punish you if you don't act how they want. Thus the primary corrupting force in America is pro-corruption campaign finance laws. The test for democracy is whether elected politicians pass legislation that the public at large wishes to be passed. Our very own Princeton did a study to answer this question. The key finding: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”[1] In a very real, non hyperbolic sense we are in a plutocracy where money rules. We are not a democracy due chiefly to our campaign finance laws. Here is a campaign that aims to work on this: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/ [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- seibelj 4y agoI prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.
- axlee 4y ago> On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. They know what is best for them. It has nothing to do with what is best for the country. As you are advocating for an oligarchy, I suggest you take a look at all the oligarchies around the world: don't you notice that they are all, without exception, terrible places to live, and not even good places for striving economies? Surely, there must be some fault in your reasoning. On the contrary, most great countries in the world have something in common: they tend to be democratic, they tend to be quite equal in the distribution of income, and they also tend to be run as social democracies.
- pleb_nz 4y agoGood step.. does anyone agree the US lobbying system needs to go sorted as well. What could be done here?
- alexfromapex 4y agoThis is the one time I want the Slippery Slope Fallacy to be true because then the next step would be banning money in politics which would be fantastic!
- thepangolino 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- theknocker 4y ago
- lexber 4y agoThey will never pass this
- jmyeet 4y agoIf you are in possession or are likely to be in possession of inside information, there are severe restrictions on how you can trade. Many companies will have trading windows on normal employees and more extreme limits on leadership. We have a vehicle for how such insiders can divest themselves of stock. It's called a 10b5-1 trading plan [1]. With advance planning the security holder can divest themselves of their holdings without discretion that could be misconstrued as trading on inside information. Every member of the House, the Senate and the White House as well as all of their direct family members should be subject to those same restrictions. It is utterly outrageous that the likes of Joe Manchin can be chair of the Senate Energy Committee while directly benefitting from his brother's coal company or Nancy Pelosi's husband is just the most amazing stock trader in recent history. We haven't even scratched the surface of the level of corruption by government officials here. High on that list should be the $2 billion Saudi Arabia gave to Jared Kushner's "fund" with a 1.25% management fee. Kushner can quite literally just keept in in the bank and collect $25 million per year. [1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rule-10b5-1.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rule-10b5-1.asp
- thelock85 4y agoLots of great ideas here around how to augment the Congressional voting system to counter influence of dark, corporate money, but as a few have pointed out, not voting at all seems to be preferred on most potential legislation. I think that's because super PACs and corporate lobbyists are fighting for overall influence, not legislative outcomes --that is, how existing law is regulated/interpreted, how Congresspersons posture on various issues that are far away from a vote (esp. when affecting economic outcomes), and most importantly how Congresspersons wield the threat of their powers (e.g. initiating an inquiry or whatever the formality is into their corporate patron's rival).
- aejnsn 4y agoWhy bother? They’ll just have their spouse as a rathole for trading.
- egberts1 4y agoChronic hypocerists implementing more “rules for thee and not for me”,
- Blackstrat 4y agoIf you believe this will seriously curtail illegal trading by Congress, you're dreaming. This is nothing more than a show bill leading up to the election. The dinosaurs in Congress like Pelosi, McConnell, et. al. are corrupt to the core. They've worked to manipulate the election system in their favor, giving incumbency a massive advantage. One need only look at what Trump's administration was subjected to, to understand how extreme the measures that the ruling class will take to insure their power. Agree with his policies or not, Trump naively believed he role was to solve problems. That can't be allowed. It costs the ruling class too much money and too much power. As I've noted previously, why haven't the democrats, who control everything, passed an abortion bill - because resolving problems cuts into their money and power.
- oigursh 4y agoAll it will do is drive it underground. Public trading is better than hidden trading.