Senators Unveil Measure To Ban Stock Ownership By Lawmakers, Administration Officials (thehill.com) 100
A bipartisan pair of senators unveiled a bill Wednesday to ban stock ownership by lawmakers and administration officials. The Hill reports: The bill, introduced by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), would establish firmer stock trading bans and disclosure requirements for lawmakers, senior executive branch officials and their spouses and dependents. The bill would ban congressional members, the president, vice president, senior executive branch members, and their spouses and dependents from holding or trading stocks, with no exception to blind trusts. Congressional members who violate this ban would be required to pay at least 10 percent of the banned investments.
The legislation also establishes harsh penalties for executive branch stock trading, requiring executive branch officials to give up profits from covered finance interests to the Department of Treasury, while also facing a fine from the Automatic Special Counsel. Congressional members, senior congressional staff and senior executive branch employees would also be required to report if they, a spouse or a dependent applies for or receives a "benefit of value" from the federal government, including loans, contracts, grants, agreements and payments. If they fail to file, they will face a $500 penalty.
The bill aims to increase transparency, requiring public databases of personal financial disclosures and financial transaction filings required by the STOCK Act, which prohibits members of Congress from using insider information when buying and selling stocks. The penalty for the failing to file STOCK Act transaction reports would also increase from $200 to $500.
The legislation also establishes harsh penalties for executive branch stock trading, requiring executive branch officials to give up profits from covered finance interests to the Department of Treasury, while also facing a fine from the Automatic Special Counsel. Congressional members, senior congressional staff and senior executive branch employees would also be required to report if they, a spouse or a dependent applies for or receives a "benefit of value" from the federal government, including loans, contracts, grants, agreements and payments. If they fail to file, they will face a $500 penalty.
The bill aims to increase transparency, requiring public databases of personal financial disclosures and financial transaction filings required by the STOCK Act, which prohibits members of Congress from using insider information when buying and selling stocks. The penalty for the failing to file STOCK Act transaction reports would also increase from $200 to $500.
New year, same pandering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New year, same pandering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New year, same pandering (Score:4, Insightful)
It won't, because it's a big club, and you aren't in it.
Most of the same people shouting at each other across the aisle in the afternoon are having drinks together at the same country club in the evening.
P.S. Did you know country clubs are tax exempt?
Re: (Score:1)
It has never passed before. It will not pass now.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has a 9% approval rating yet each election a majority of incumbents are elected and the same parties are voted in so people do not supposedly throw their votes away. You know, in these critical times, which they have been calling them for the last hundred years, we cannot risk letting an OTHER get elected.
You can make the case that people get exactly the government they deserve, although it would be more correct to say that the majority does.
Let us say that you realize the folly of the whole thing
Re: (Score:2)
Let us say that you realize the folly of the whole thing and want it to stop, so you cast a protest vote that likely is not even counted since it is statistically irrelevant. Do you get the government that you deserve? .
Yep. Doing something that you know is stupid means you should not be surprised at getting a result that you don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress as a whole might have a low approval rating, but people usually have a much higher approval of their own representative that they vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has a 9% approval rating yet each election a majority of incumbents are elected and the same parties are voted in so people do not supposedly throw their votes away. You know, in these critical times, which they have been calling them for the last hundred years, we cannot risk letting an OTHER get elected.
MY CongressCritter is OK. It's that evil liberal/conservative guy over there that sucks.
Re: (Score:3)
This one could actually pass. The Washington folks will just adapt the "cost of doing business" mentality they "force" big business to adapt. Read these lines in the summary:
Congressional members who violate this ban would be required to pay at least 10 percent of the banned investments.
And
If they fail to file, they will face a $500 penalty.
Considering the millions some of these scumsuckers rake in through insider trading moves with foresight not available to the average investor on crackdowns, fines, goalposts being moved, etc? That'll barely hit as a blip to most of them.
Penalties (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Penalties (Score:5, Insightful)
You're using the wrong measuring stick. You don't fine a fixed amount like $200 or $500, that crap is for kids. You fine a suitable percentage of the recognized gain, like 110% (ie, 10% more than they made on the entire deal). That is how you put painful barbs on the otherwise playful sex toy.
Re: (Score:2)
You're using the wrong measuring stick. You don't fine a fixed amount like $200 or $500, that crap is for kids. You fine a suitable percentage of the recognized gain, like 110% (ie, 10% more than they made on the entire deal). That is how you put painful barbs on the otherwise playful sex toy.
Excellent point.
Re:Penalties (Score:5, Insightful)
Any other way of fining people turns into a penalty for poor people only.
Re: (Score:1)
It's might still be somewhat of an improvement: perhaps a lot of middle-class people will end up paying somewhat larger fines than poor people could afford. And there are a lot more middle-class p
Re: (Score:1)
Make it hurt, directly, by making it a forfeiture of a high percentage of the stock itself, in addition to a large percentage, cash, fine. Make it a serious enough crime to also warrant potential removal from office and a lifetime ban from politics.
Assuming it could ever get passed, that would force them to comply. I would allow for a "sell off" period of 6 months from election date, and 1 year from the date of becoming law. Give people time to divest themselves. Do remember that selling stock is taxed,
Re: (Score:2)
If it turned out to be in the best interests of your politicians they'd pass a law tomorrow.
Re: Penalties (Score:2)
The 10% they propose is well within the profit margin of legislating towards personal profit. I agree with your 110% but that'll never happen. Hell the 10% won't either.
Re: (Score:2)
It might happen, only because its got so much public attention.
What it won't be is enforced in any useful way. Sure you first time House Rep might get wrist slap here and there for honestly forgetting they are barred from playing with Robbinhood on their phone, but the bigtime wilful violators will never be held accountable.
Oh my spouse/kid can't trade either, but surely that does not apply the Delaware corp, holding company they setup last week and are strategically avoiding filing any federal paper work
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're using the wrong measuring stick. You don't fine a fixed amount like $200 or $500, that crap is for kids. You fine a suitable percentage of the recognized gain, like 110% (ie, 10% more than they made on the entire deal). That is how you put painful barbs on the otherwise playful sex toy.
The UK now does a lot of fines based on your income, a £200 speeding fine or other misdemeanour can be written off by a wealthier person where as it's quite punitive for a minimum wage serf. So now it's £200 + income loading.
Re:Penalties (Score:4, Informative)
>Congressional members who violate this ban would be required to pay at least 10 percent of the banned investments.
It's in the SUMMARY!
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between violating the ban and failing to file transaction reports. Even if one overpays their taxes to the federal government based on the standard deduction, they are still required to file with the IRS and can be fined.
The effect of filing makes it such that 'making a false statement' on a federal form becomes an additional crime on its own, should they fail to disclose any and all necessary transactions.
Re: (Score:3)
>Congressional members who violate this ban would be required to pay at least 10 percent of the banned investments.
It's in the SUMMARY!
The investment should become the property of The People. 100% of the banned investment is the only reasonable minimum amount to take.
Re:Penalties (Score:5, Insightful)
Or how about jail time or expulsion from office! Self-dealing by lawmakers is a form of fraud, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not much in to fines. I prefer prison time. But I'll meet you half way. How about 5 to 10 years AND a fine of $25,000 to $500,000?
Re: (Score:1)
It depends on the infraction, honestly. In this case, I think I'd prefer permanent ineligibility for elected office.
I do think elected officials need to be allowed to have investments, but there needs to be some kind of layer of indirection, where they aren't personally hand-picking individual stocks and then potentially making deals under the table with the companies in question. It's tempting to suggest opening up a branch office (of the Federal Reserv
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Penalties (Score:4)
Public disclosure would be a good addition in my option. Elected officials, and some non-elected, should have their financial records opened to public scrutiny 5 years before office, during office, and 5 years after leaving office. Any one can look at bank statements, investment profiles, and retirement accounts.
Of course this is a massive invasion of privacy for them but on the other hand they are in positions where they make the rules. If they make the rules then us peasants should be able to see how they are profiting off them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Penalty should be "repay 125% of all ill-gotten earnings".
how could this pass? (Score:3)
banning dependents from stock trading seems a bit extreme. no way this bill makes it to the president’s desk.
Re:how could this pass? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you've noticed but the stock market has done nothing but make the wealthy even wealthier, often with marked disconnection from the rest of the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Where I think they went too far is in excluding blind trusts.
Blind trusts shouldn't even exist. They have two purposes, evading taxation, and evading being held responsible for other misdeeds. There's no third purpose which isn't equally well-served by a completely transparent trust.
As legal fictions created by government, all trusts are permitted by The People, and as such they should all be transparent to The People.
A Valid Third Purpose (Score:2)
They have two purposes
There is a valid third purpose - allowing those in power to invest their money in the stock market without knowing exactly which companies it is invested in so that they cannot inappropriately use their power to benefit the companies that they hold shares of. Having a completely transparent trust would mean that those in power would know where their money was invested and could act to benefit the companies for which they hold large numbers of shares. Indeed, even if they were acting in the best interests o
Re:how could this pass? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given they are "dependents" that suggests these would be portfolios held for or on behalf of young children, held by students living at home, or children that are 'permanently and totally disabled'.
I don't really see an insurmountable issue here.
If you are a 21 year old student living at home and you're upset that you can't trade stocks, and you've got enough cash that this limitation actually matters to you... tell your dad to stop claiming you as a dependent.
For all other types of dependent, they aren't really trading stocks themselves anyway -- it is obviously their parent is managing it directly, and that shouldn't be loophole.
Honestly, insider trading by telling children and relatives who live outside the household is also still illegal, and should be enforced... but its usually pretty hard to prove unless someone says something really stupid out loud.
Re: (Score:3)
Note: Even a parent/grandparent that is "permanently and totally disabled" where the child/grandchild is taking care of them, to include financial interests, can count as a dependent. I am NOT a dependent of my parents, because I make too much money, and there's no court case ordering it like happened with Britney Spears for a while.
Re:how could this pass? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:how could this pass? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can use 401K like everyone else (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they would, if that actually worked these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mostly in the stock market?
To a large degree, yes.
Some are managed funds. Some are self directed. Which puts the investor right back in charge of selecting stocks based on "insider info".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Kevin McCarthy. They're all the same, when it comes to money.
Re:Nancy Pelosi won’t let this pass (Score:5, Informative)
How so? Kevin McCarthy’s net worth is 300k and Pelosi’s is 120 million. Her husband is famous for making well timed trades that coincide with upcoming legislation.
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose it depends on which source you trust. According to CAKnowledge.com, his net worth is more like $30 million.
https://caknowledge.com/kevin-... [caknowledge.com]
Do you REALLY believe that a man with that much power, only owns $300K? That doesn't pass the smell test.
Re: Nancy Pelosi won’t let this pass (Score:1)
Net worth is not the same as cash in your bank account.
Re:Nancy Pelosi won’t let this pass (Score:4, Informative)
Pelosi does well but she’s not the biggest stock trader. The numbers are pretty evenly split. https://markets.businessinside... [businessinsider.com]
corporations (Score:2)
What about their corporations in the Bahamas and Switzerland?
Re: (Score:1)
Not needed since it's already illegal (criminal) to have secret offshore holdings of any kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Term limits would be better (Score:3)
Term limits for the elected and unelected. Prohibit former federal government workers from working for the entities they regulated, took funding from or took campaign contributions from.
Re: (Score:1)
Term limits for the elected and unelected. Prohibit former federal government workers from working for the entities they regulated, took funding from or took campaign contributions from.
I agree with term limits, but in this case it would just make them cash in more quickly and overtly.
Re:Term limits would be better (Score:5, Insightful)
Term limits for the elected and unelected. Prohibit former federal government workers from working for the entities they regulated, took funding from or took campaign contributions from.
I agree with term limits, but in this case it would just make them cash in more quickly and overtly.
The biggest issue with the US legislative branch is that it's become hyper-partisan. Activist groups and media pundits set the agenda while lobbyists write the actual laws.
Introducing term limits makes the individual legislators less experienced and therefore more reliant on outsiders for help, more likely to reflect the current trend of the party, less able to advocate for their own views, more dependent on their post-legislative career, etc, etc.
Basically every problem the US system currently has would get worse.
For perspective, just look at the GOP politicians who showed independence from Trump. Were they they 1 or 2 term folks who got nominated at peak MAGA, or were they the most established legislators who'd been through a few political iterations and had time to build their own brand?
Re: (Score:3)
I gotta agree with this. I used to be onboard the term limits train, it's appealing because fuck those forever politicians but looking into it more it would kindof cut against what it's trying to solve and also if people genuinely really like the representative why shouldnt they be allowed to keep them there?
I think the underlying issues that we are trying to fix are more systemic. Gerrymandering for the house is always a big problem and ideally, in the 21st century we would algorthmically build those are
Re:Term limits would be better (Score:4, Interesting)
I gotta agree with this. I used to be onboard the term limits train, it's appealing because fuck those forever politicians but looking into it more it would kindof cut against what it's trying to solve and also if people genuinely really like the representative why shouldnt they be allowed to keep them there?
I think the underlying issues that we are trying to fix are more systemic. Gerrymandering for the house is always a big problem and ideally, in the 21st century we would algorthmically build those areas out every 10 years with the census. Neat little site by 538 shows some of the ways it could work and not favor any party if we wanted
"Gerrymandering" is one of those words that gets thrown around so much it really doesn't have any useful meaning.
Its applied, practical usage has essentially become "any arrangement, whether derived randomly or systematically, that might benefit my opponent". You can't actually stop gerrymandering of this kind. When you try all you do is relocate the Red/Blue binary warfare pressure to our current territory-control board game where the ruleset boils down to the natural-selection pressures of "will these lines pass SCOTUS review", which just further relocates the binary warfare pressure to judicial nominations as a major electioneering talking point where the Other side can be described as an existential threat in The Most Important Election Of Our Lifetime.... and every 4 years is always The Most Important.
The way to fix the modern problem of "gerrymandering" isn't to outlaw gerrymandering.
It's to recognize that gerrymandering is supposed to be how American democracy works. Not the modern binary-warfare notion of gerrymandering, but the concept that yes, we actually should be able to look at a district and know what kind of person will probably be elected from there. That's literally what representation means. What's the point of representative democracy if you're not represented by someone from your community who shares at least some of your beliefs, local culture, and even life experiences?
Therefore, instead of trying to outlaw gerrymandering (which just throws it into protracted, inefficient, ineffective court battles -- and I think we all agree that in a well-designed democracy the judiciary should not be where elections are determined) we should lean into gerrymandering. How do we do that, you may ask?
Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and all preceding fixed apportionments.
Representative democracy cannot fulfill its ONE purpose of being representative of the people, if the legislative body is statutorily prohibited from changing and growing as the population changes and grows. The reason your representative can be bought by a corporation and doesn't give a crap about you is because we are quickly approaching 800,000 people per Congressional district. To your designated representative, your existence is 0.00000125 important. You are as important as the spider mite they inhaled while sleeping last night. Your only option to move the decimal point to the right is through being wealthy, being powerful/connected, or somehow grabbing media attention (which is a selective-pressure process where outrage and divisiveness always wins, which is why we are hard-burning toward a 100 trillion dollar debt while people are bitterly screaming at each other over which room they're supposed to pee in).
Therefore, we need to increase instances of gerrymandering by increasing the representation of special-interest groups so we the people become more statistically valuable: your state is a special interest group, your region, your side of the mountains, your swampland or your desert community, your city, your dominant fishing industry coast or dominant manufacturing industry belt or dominant agricultural interior... a larger number of smaller-size groups inherently promote the diversity needed for democracy to deliver what it claims.
None of the current anti-gerrymandering methods
Re: (Score:2)
If your idea is blow open the 435 member limit on the house, all for it, wishing i had mentioned that because it is important.
However I think we have the tech (i mean a political blog website did it with public data) to punch in parameters into a formula and it spits out the districts arragned in a geographically sane manner and really, red/blue, race, class, etc none of that should really matter but promitity, everyone in a local area is what should bind them together under a representative.
I don't think a
Re: (Score:2)
Just ratify Article the 1st, from wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Canada, we have the non-partision Elections Canada, and the various Elections (name of Province) that mostly decides riding (district) boundaries. The boundaries do follow natural and sometimes unnatural boundaries. Federally my districts boundaries is basically 3 rivers and a mountain range, and Provincially, it is split by the main road roughly in the middle. Likewise in the big cities, ridings do mostly follow neighbourhoods, though sometimes to balance the size of the ridings, it doesn't always
Re: (Score:2)
Introducing term limits makes the individual legislators less experienced and therefore more reliant on outsiders for help
I don't necessarily agree with this, respectfully
- Legislators can start their political career at local levels and be there for decades before electing for Congress. Making it an entire life political career
- And because experience is rectified, reliance on outside help argument is no longer relevant
- Some politicians spend their entire political career in Congress like Pelosi while knowing their own constituents in a one party district will always elect them back next term. They tend to do whatever t
Re: (Score:2)
Introducing term limits makes the individual legislators less experienced and therefore more reliant on outsiders for help
I don't necessarily agree with this, respectfully
- Legislators can start their political career at local levels and be there for decades before electing for Congress. Making it an entire life political career
So you expect them to just wait contentedly a few decades until it's their turn to run for congress and then what? Retire? Step back to lower branches?
Why do you think they'll follow your template?
- And because experience is rectified, reliance on outside help argument is no longer relevant
Assuming they follow your template they're still stepping into Congress with zero experience in Congress.
I'm not sure that potential experience at lower levels will be as helpful as you think.
Besides, experience was only part of the argument. The other is brand and political capital. How many of those newcomers up
Re: (Score:3)
You do know that voters have the power to limit the number of terms, and that's to stop voting for someone after a set number of terms. Why do you want to wrest control from the voter?
Re: (Score:2)
Having a more senior congress person is good for those in his/her district, but bad for the national as a whole. That's the rub. That is why the same congress people keep getting voted in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A total ban seems a bit much, no? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, public service should require sacrifices to discourage those who are self-interested from serving, but I don't see how something like an index fund that's tracking the market as a whole would be problematic. You'd be betting on the entire economy at that point. Why not let them do so if they want?
Obviously, narrowly targeted index funds, such as just those for large caps stocks, could still lead to misaligned incentives, but if the market as a whole wins, why shouldn't they get to win with it?
Re: (Score:3)
An appropriate list of whole market index funds might not be a bad thing. Maybe the list available with the TSP*? Force them to invest in their age group's targeted retirement fund?
*Thrift Savings Program. Basically, the federal employees' equivalent of a 401k.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe the list available with the TSP*? Force them to invest in their age group's targeted retirement fund?"
That seems fair.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're over 65, isn't there a stable income category for them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So legal for a price? (Score:1)
Congressional members who violate this ban would be required to pay at least 10 percent of the banned investments.
If they fail to file, they will face a $500 penalty.
Punishable by a fine just means it's legal for a price.
And considering Sen Hawley raised fist for the J6 insurrections then ran like a bitch when they were in the building, his take is just empty virtue signalling. Like everything GQP.
What about family? (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the stock trades are made in the accounts of a family member?
Re: (Score:3)
What if the stock trades are made in the accounts of a family member?
My wife works for the Securities and Exchange commission as a line employee. I have to submit financial, banking, and investment records. So, I see no reason for judges and Congressional employees to be any less subject to these requirements. They are open to corruption and influence as well.
Re: (Score:2)
What a stupid provision (Score:2)
Congressional members who violate this ban would be required to pay at least 10 percent of the banned investments
And what if they did a play for pay that earns 50%? They'd be happy to pay the 10% penalty and pocket 40%. They don't even have to buy it themselves, they have their grown children do it.
Never gonna happen (Score:2)
Even ignoring their own personal portfolios, the Republicans would never support this because it would force their poster boy trump to sell off his portfolio.
Not far enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Our biggest problem isn't insider trading by officials. It's in attracting quality people to run for office -- a problem we very much have. Put up too many obstacles and sacrifices, and we're left with an even smaller pool of those that only desire power and boosting their egos. People who mold their lives around looking perfect for campaigning. People who are more than happy to suck up to the DNC/RNC rather than show independence. We need more people with real world experiences (not career politicians)
Re: (Score:2)
Though Congress absolutely does not have the authority to say the President or VP can't own stock and might not have it when it comes to Presid
Okay, good, but part of it won't stand. (Score:2)
Size of penalty is sufficient. (Score:2)
Mainly because their opponents will talk about them violating the law and use it against them.
Also, they should outlaw the trading of stock options as well. But allow the purchase of mutual funds that are available to the general public. If they have no control at all and everyone else gains the same benefit, that is fair.
First Amendment Issue (Score:1)
A great idea (Score:2)
In general, I really like this idea.
The only problem I see is if someone is married to a stockbroker or money manager and then gets elected to office. Does this mean the stocktrading spouse has to quit their job or close their business?
Yeah, whatever (Score:1)