Stock Trade Ban For Congress Is Being Readied For Release In US House (bloomberg.com) 107
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Senior House Democrats are poised to introduce long-promised legislation to restrict stock ownership and trading by members of Congress, senior government officials and Supreme Court justices. The bill would apply to the spouses and dependent children of those officials, according to an outline sent to lawmaker offices last week by House Administration Chair Zoe Lofgren. The restrictions also cover "commodities, futures, cryptocurrency, and other similar investments," according to the outline. The legislation would require public officials to either divest current holdings or put them in a blind trust. Investments in mutual funds or other widely held investment funds and government bonds would be allowed.
The bill may be released as soon as Monday, according to a person familiar with the matter. It hasn't been scheduled for a vote, though House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has said it's possible it could come to the floor this week in the middle of an already jam-packed schedule before lawmakers go on break ahead of the November midterm election. While conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats alike have been clamoring for restrictions on stock trades by members of Congress to avoid conflicts of interest, legislation has been hung up by questions about how broad to make the ban and whether to include family members. A group of senators is working on their own version of the legislation and there's little chance of Congress taking any final action before the midterms. [...]
Another potential point of contention is applying the requirements to the Supreme Court. The Congressional Research Service in an April report said that Congress imposing a code of conduct on the judiciary would "raise an array of legal questions," including whether it would violate the constitutional separation of powers. Justices and lower court judges already file annual financial disclosures and are barred from participating in cases where there's a direct conflict of interest. Despite that, the CRS report says that the Supreme Court has never directly addressed "whether Congress may subject Supreme Court Justices to financial reporting requirements or limitations upon the receipt of gifts." "The current law doesn't prohibit lawmakers from owning or trading individual securities, but it bans members of Congress from using nonpublic information available to them for personal benefit," notes the report. "It requires any transaction be disclosed within 45 days."
Further reading: TikTokers Are Trading Stocks By Copying What Members of Congress Do
The bill may be released as soon as Monday, according to a person familiar with the matter. It hasn't been scheduled for a vote, though House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has said it's possible it could come to the floor this week in the middle of an already jam-packed schedule before lawmakers go on break ahead of the November midterm election. While conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats alike have been clamoring for restrictions on stock trades by members of Congress to avoid conflicts of interest, legislation has been hung up by questions about how broad to make the ban and whether to include family members. A group of senators is working on their own version of the legislation and there's little chance of Congress taking any final action before the midterms. [...]
Another potential point of contention is applying the requirements to the Supreme Court. The Congressional Research Service in an April report said that Congress imposing a code of conduct on the judiciary would "raise an array of legal questions," including whether it would violate the constitutional separation of powers. Justices and lower court judges already file annual financial disclosures and are barred from participating in cases where there's a direct conflict of interest. Despite that, the CRS report says that the Supreme Court has never directly addressed "whether Congress may subject Supreme Court Justices to financial reporting requirements or limitations upon the receipt of gifts." "The current law doesn't prohibit lawmakers from owning or trading individual securities, but it bans members of Congress from using nonpublic information available to them for personal benefit," notes the report. "It requires any transaction be disclosed within 45 days."
Further reading: TikTokers Are Trading Stocks By Copying What Members of Congress Do
Nancy Pelosi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Better late than never. If Republicans were in charge, this bill would never see a vote.
Re:Nancy Pelosi (Score:4, Interesting)
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith 1908
Correct (Score:5, Informative)
Not one single republican voted for the "Dark Money" bill https://www.aljazeera.com/news... [aljazeera.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not one single republican voted for the "Dark Money" bill
No surprises there.
The previous republican president did his best to keep the swamp filled up.
Re: (Score:1)
You know the disclose act was about "outing" people that supported Republicans, as we've seen the left is prone to attacking anyone personally when they disagree with their politics, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't blame them when rights are being rolled back by the religious right supreme court. Up next, contraception and same sex marriage. https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
I'm all for disclosing large donations to ANY political party.
Re: (Score:2)
>Can't blame them
We can't blame those who attack others because they disagree with their politics? Wanna bet? Just watch me:
If you attack others because you disagree with their politics, you're a horrible person and I blame you for extremifying our country.
Re: (Score:2)
"Can't blame them" well, I guess we've identified who the problem is.
Yes, I *absolutely* can blame people attacking people PERSONALLY for political differences.
Yes, I *absolutely* can blame people protesting outside Supreme Court Justice's house.
The 'new paradigm' of political protest is to personalize it immediately (Alinsky sincerely appreciates that you read his book). Because once you dehumanize your opponent, you can justify whatever you do, right?
Here's some questions:
- Do you think you have a monopo
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans- you mean the party that for a decade had banned earmarks (aka, legalized quid pro quo) until Democrats came back in charge and made them legal again in 2021?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, both parties have their blind spots and shortcomings.
Re: (Score:2)
Both parties do terrible things to get power and money. They pander the base they think will get them elected.
The majority would switch parties if it meant continued political success.
Regardless of your political inclinations, this system needs reform or destruction.
Re:Nancy Pelosi (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry but here is the co-sponsor list for the Senate bill, find the R in that or do they have their own version of a similar bill?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/... [congress.gov]
Re:Nancy Pelosi (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean this one [congress.gov]? I've conveniently linked to the cosponsors tab, where you will see a whole three Republicans, in comparison to the 61 Democrats.
So while technically "bipartisan", only technically. The most surprising thing is that you'll find Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and AOC (D-NY) agreeing on something to the point of being original cosponsors on this legislation together.
Re: (Score:3)
The most surprising thing is that you'll find Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and AOC (D-NY) agreeing on something
It is not so surprising. The Republican Party is shifting from conservatism to populism. As the GOP voter base shifts from the chamber of commerce to people who live in trailer parks, they care less and less about capitalists and more about transgender toilet policy.
Republicans are falling out of love with America Inc. [economist.com]
Re: Nancy Pelosi (Score:1)
Re: Nancy Pelosi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds reasonable, I just think we haven't found one yet. What system do you propose?
Re: (Score:2)
As for not having found a better system, you could look at what your friends are doing, because every country that America should compare itself to has a much better way of governing themselves than you do.
Re: (Score:2)
I see! Thanks for your input. May I ask what country you're from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! That definitely tells me what I needed to know. ;) Bye now.
Re:Nancy Pelosi (Score:5, Informative)
She's pretty successful, but far away from the top. Take a wild guess what letter is in front of their names? https://i.redd.it/i8ftxxl2y6s8... [i.redd.it]
Re: (Score:1)
They're all liars and thieves, but something ain't right. Let's look at the top names on the list you linked to. Quite a few of them have degrees in Economics or Business Management related fields. A few of them were involved in business to some capacity before going into government, so while I don't believe they're this lucky, at least they could make the case they're making informed decisions based on their knowledge and experience when managing their portfolio.
R) Austin Scott - BBA Risk Management, Un
Re: Nancy Pelosi (Score:2)
You'd have to look at their spouses and family too if you're serious about that kind of analysis.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A lot of work for a lazy post...
Pelosi doesn't invest, fool. Her husband was a wealthy businessman BEFORE she got into office!
Re: (Score:2)
$35million is not wealthy... back 15 years ago?
Re: (Score:2)
A good investor should get a return around 10%. So about 15 years ago, invest $35 million (still a lot of money today) and today you'd well over $100 million! (closer to 150.) and today her wealth is around that range. Given that her husband gambles on the market with tech stocks and her reported wealth has gone up and down quite a lot over the years it all seems normal if you dig a little. You didn't mention in 2012 she was around $26 million....
She'd have MORE money just stopping her husband and doing a
Re: (Score:2)
I'd add that disclosing isn't really enough. I'd impose a 24 hour hold on all transactions and force immediate disclosure of the pending transaction. If I want to make a change to my retirement funds allocations it comes with a 24 hour hold, specifically to discourage people from trying to time the market.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a republican, I'm all for smashing this advantage no matter whom it benefits.
Let's also note the same for USSC judges?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, there's no way Tommy Tuberville is picking his own stocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring D vs R flamewars, that's less than 10% of congresspeople doing better than an index fund. If they are trying to get an edge through insider trading, it doesn't seem to be working.
Though it would be interesting to see if it's the same 10% of congresspeople who beat the market year after year, or a different random 10%.
Re: (Score:2)
Number one? Austin Scott (GA) [Re:Nancy Pelosi} (Score:2, Informative)
Ban it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now shutting the door behind herself is probably a wise move.
Doesn't matter who does it, only that it gets done. You know who ensured that insider trading was outlawed? Someone who got crazy rich from insider trading!
Re: (Score:2)
Rumors are that "someone" was named Joseph P. Kennedy. And after he got unbelievably rich shorting the hell out of everything before the crash of '29, he was appointed to be the first SEC Chairman, where he could then make the rules that govern publicly traded corporations and markets. And how did he know what rules to make? Because he broke all of them before they were rules.
And you know what? The markets have been fairly healthy ever since, so I guess we all kind of win on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Kennedy helped to pull America out of the depression.
He was also a supporter of the guy who pulled Europe out of the depression: Adolf Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
No big deal. everybody was ok with Hitler's results until his real goals became visible... some people were just slow and others didn't want to see the truth and a few liked and admired it despite some almost universally opposed policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Nailed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, did you just come up with a reason to vote for old people?!
Because they got theirs so they'll close the door to future abuses? Hmm.. it might work. Or it might fuck us all over even worse than before.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always been for death of ex-politicians. I suppose enforced poverty in a retirement-home like prison would be a compromise... Rare to be selfish and still working that hard at the end of life.
Makes more sense than term limits. Corruption and incompetence is frequent but finding good or great people is rare. It reflects badly upon you if you need a mindless policy to make decisions for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, What a stinging rebuke against... yourself.
The article is about how stock trading is legal for all Congressmen and Senators. So you decide to single out the side you dislike and talk about how effective they are at it. Ignore all the conservatives doing the same thing.
Your outrage is fake. If you hated this activity, you would call out your own party members, rather than talking about how your opponent does it so well.
The only thing going on here is you convincing people that the Democrats are smart
Re: (Score:2)
Which do you get paid in Rubles, or Yuan?
He'd better fucking hope it's not Rubles.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, in Russia, where the supply problems make Brexit look like Christmas.
Need, yes, but Fair? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nancy Pelosi (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll take "closing the door on corruption eventually" over "wedging the door open on corruption permanently."
Incremental progress is still progress.
Re:Nancy Pelosi (Score:5, Insightful)
Grow up. This has been going on forever, with pretty much the first major law shining SOME light into Congressional stock trading back in 2012 [usnews.com], after a 2011 60 Minutes expose [syracuse.com].
Nancy Pelosi isn't the first, isn't the last, nor is she the most prolific. That includes her husband lumped in as well. She's just a right-wing bogeyman. And "latter years of life" describes most of Congress [fiscalnote.com]. Yes, she's a crook. Most of them are. This type of law needs passed without childish gas lighting and point scoring.
As a former employee of the SEC [sec.gov], I can tell you that they damn well know how to regulate and restrict employee stock trades. Anything other than the gov't TSP [tsp.gov], which was exempt, or broad-based mutual fund trades was heavily restricted and needed advance approval to make a trade. Just apply that system to Congress and it'll be fixed -- assuming they actually ENFORCE IT. (Something the SEC was very uneven about.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, all musical instruments were excluded from holding public office, and trading stocks, so I am pretty sure that Trumpets will not be making money the way she did. They tend to make money from becoming rarer over time.
Re: (Score:3)
They are honestly trying to FIX a serious problem. Doesn't matter as to their motivations; what matters is now they are patching exploits. If they did heavily exploit the system that makes them experts in how to prevent those kind of exploits.
FYI
Pelocy''s older than death and couldn't spend all her pre-politics fortune.
Pelocy's husband was wealthy and making tons of money... in CA real estate and owning football teams. His wealth along with her social networking is how she became one of the top fundraisers
Re: (Score:2)
What will be super interesting is watching who votes what here. I have my doubts it'll pass, based on the simple fact that nobody wants to cut their own purse strings. But this will be a nice tentpole moment for us to point to when asking if our congress critters are working for us, or for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Then why is Moscow Mitch the richest member of the Senate?
Re: (Score:1)
Truth be told, her husband sold Nvidia stock at a LOSS just before Senate vote to subsidize industry, which would have increased the stock value
This was done to avoid conflict of interest, and was actually ethical although you will never see that reported in the GOP media
This from Forbes:
TOPLINE House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) revealed in regulatory filings Tuesday her husband Paul Pelosi sold millions worth of stock in chipmaker Nvidia at a loss a day before the Senate passed a multibillion-dollar bi
Re: (Score:2)
Pelosi's husband has money to burn; he's always been rich. What's a retired 80 year old with money to do with his time? Tax write offs don't matter either; he's not running a business anymore - when your wealth is tied up in a business... but after you cash out and retire, cash investment is all you've got to play with.
I have many retired relatives who gamble with their money on the market... and their friends go to the casinos.
Meanwhile, you can trade like members of congress (Score:4, Interesting)
Two new exchange-traded funds, NANC and KRUZ, track the stock trades made by members of Congress.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
I'm not sure it matters whether you invest in the Democrat or Republican fund, they are ALL motivated by making money.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not already a millionaire when you become a senator, you will certainly be afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty hard to separate facts from lazy cynicism about politicians on this topic.
Re: (Score:3)
"The current law doesn't prohibit lawmakers from owning or trading individual securities, but it bans members of Congress from using nonpublic information available to them for personal benefit," notes the report. "It requires any transaction be disclosed within 45 days."
Not sure about the ability to call it "tracking" when there's up to a 45 day delay in mirroring the politicians trades...
Re: (Score:2)
Good, but they'll find ways around it (Score:3)
If the law passes, and it's a big IF, it would be a good thing. These guys have been engaged in what is essentially insider trading, for generations.
But...if it does pass, they'll find ways to invest in mutual funds that just so happen to include the types of businesses that their policies and horse-trading will benefit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see new mutual funds invented just for this purpose. Then, along with your S&P 500 or "Growth and Income" mutual funds, you'll be able to invest in the "Donald Trump Properties" or "Bernie Sanders Favorites" mutual funds, and so will they.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The only reason they're for this is that they already have a work around.
That "blind trust" seems ripe for exploitation.
Re:Good, but they'll find ways around it (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't even take a whole lot of imagination to see how.
1. Establish blind trust, put close friend or business associate as the trustee.
2. In the course of your "public service" by being on certain committees, you vote to refer some legislation for a floor vote, which you know is going to pass.
3. You have a dinner party, where you invite your close friend or business associate, because they are a close friend or business associate. You also invite others as window dressing / plausible deniability.
4. During the course of the dinner, when someone randomly asks if anything interesting is happening, you bring up this pending legislation and how much good it will do.
5. Close friend / associate gets the indirect hint and makes a few well-timed market orders
Re: (Score:1)
Bingo.
This is performative legislation and nothing more.
Re: (Score:1)
Frankly, I would rather that politicians best interests be aligned with the interests of the country, as opposed to politicians who seem to have the interests of our enemies close to their hearts [vanityfair.com]
Loopholes (Score:4, Interesting)
Guaranteed this thing will have all kinds of loopholes. That said, something is better than nothing, and we can slowly close the loopholes one by one over time.
Re: (Score:1)
the mutual bonds, etc, that are listed are in fact the loop holes.. it really doesnt change much at all.
Re: (Score:2)
the mutual bonds, etc, that are listed are in fact the loop holes.. it really doesnt change much at all.
I'm not a financial type but I suspect it's pretty hard to use insider information when you're investing with a mutual fund.
I suppose in theory you could direct the actions of the fund... but then the fund manager is now the recipient of insider information and is in heaps of trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed: The USA is still waiting for the "I swear I represent the alleged victim" requirement of the DMCA to be replaced with the requirement of legal standing used in other laws.
US congress has a history of not closing legal loopholes, it is more common that loopholes are inserted so that everyone will vote for a weak-as-water law that politicians use as proof they 'did something'.
Re: (Score:2)
Better to have something with bugs than nothing at all. Then you must patch the bugs... but irresponsible ignorance is a defining characteristic of Americans so they won't fire for incompetence or corruption... functionally. Just look at the morons who think Biden stole the election; their anti-corruption is good but it's so delusionally incompetent people rightly compare them to a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
Guaranteed this thing will either not happen, or the holes will be truck-sized. Too many congresscreeps are insider trading, or worse, actively manipulating the market. They're not giving that up, it's most of how they get paid. The campaign contributions are relatively difficult to pocket gracefully, but they can do the stock stuff openly and get away with it all day because so many of them are crooks.
Re: (Score:2)
The "dependent children" rule makes this rule toothless from the get-go. Just have your adult children make all the trades.
Were Joe still in the Senate I'm sure Hunter Biden would be more than satisfied with the new rules.
It's like Deja Vu all over again... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If I understand correctly the STOCK Act prohibited the use of insider information when trading stocks.
I'm guessing it doesn't work well since enforcement is very difficult.
So this new bill simply stops them from trading individual stocks altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. This new patch is broad stroke solution to the bug; akin to disabling speculative execution.
Foolish cynics will dismiss the effort as the crooks will inject/amend the law with bugs they can exploit later. This may often be the case, but one simply needs more patches and yes, WE should fire the people who keep introducing new bugs. It's our collective incompetence that allows bad employees to remain (and the firing of good employees; especially forced "retirement" policies of term limits. Good one
It's a thing of the past (Score:1)
The president too (Score:1)
While we’re at it, let’s prevent a president from giving family members free run of the government.
Basically, let’s ban every single thing Trump tried while in office. Maybe he did this country a favor by demonstrating what NOT to do. A little bit of insider trading by congresspeople pales in comparison.
Prohibiting middle-class Members of Congress (Score:3)
The side effect of this ban will be that someone from the middle-class cannot afford to take office.
If you're already rich you can afford to restructure your investments. You probably have a lot of offsetting losses you can take.
If you're poor you have no investments so the whole thing is a no-op.
But if you're middle-class, you'll be swallowed alive when you have to realize your capital gains.
Re:Prohibiting middle-class Members of Congress (Score:4, Interesting)
The side effect of this ban will be that someone from the middle-class cannot afford to take office.
No, that's dumb. That's the argument against cutting congressional salaries. What you're saying right now is that senators cannot live on $174,000/year. I hope you have some idea of what epic level of bullshit that represents. You do I hope realize that their expenses do not come out of their salary, they have $1.25M-5M in total budget per senator [congressfoundation.org] for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Running for office in itself is quite difficult for poor or middle class people that is true; however, you are completely wrong about the elected, I've heard interviews where they had a difficult transition into the job but after the paycheck began their problems ended. They are paid quite well despite their salary being embarrassingly low relative to their responsibility and power. They can live comfortably; if greed takes hold of them they can become wealthy by abusing their power.
With their salary and
Re: (Score:2)
We're middle class.
I've yet to see a capital gains tax.
Considering that a congressperson's salary is $174,000, and the media household income in the US is $67,521, I don't think any member of the middle class is worse off if they are elected to congress. $174,000 is well within the top quintile of US salaries.
Congressional Stock Trading (Score:1)
Need to ban mutual funds, too (Score:1)
Mutual funds publish their composition, and many are sector-focused... so that easily allows a member of Congress to invest in a stock that they are about to pass a bill that benefits.
Re (Score:1)