Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government The Almighty Buck

Senators Strike Bipartisan Deal For a Ban On Stock Trading By Members of Congress (cnbc.com) 127

A bipartisan group of senators reached a new agreement on legislation that would ban members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children, as well as the president and vice president, from purchasing and selling stocks while in office. According to CNBC, it would also give lawmakers 90 days to sell their stocks. From the report: The proposal is the latest chapter in a yearslong saga in Congress to pass regulations that limit lawmakers' ability to buy and sell stocks, and the first one to get formal consideration by a Senate committee -- in this case the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee on July 24. Ethics experts say that legislators' access to the kind of information they receive gives them the potential of having an unfair advantage to the investing public.

Sens. Hawley, Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Gary Peters, D-Mich., negotiated and announced the new details. If passed, the bill would also prohibit lawmakers' spouses and dependent children from trading stocks, beginning March 2027. Also starting that year, the U.S. president, vice president and all members of Congress would have to divest from any covered investments. The penalty for violating the divestment mandate, as proposed by the senators, would cost a lawmaker the greater amount of either their monthly salary, or 10% of the value of each covered asset in violation.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senators Strike Bipartisan Deal For a Ban On Stock Trading By Members of Congress

Comments Filter:
  • When will.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rlwinm ( 6158720 )
    When will Congress pass term limits for members of Congress?
    • Re:When will.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GoTeam ( 5042081 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @03:55PM (#64616673)
      Right after they pass a pay cut for members of congress.
      • Oh, now, you know as well as I do that the exorbitant salaries we pay to legislators and presidents are justified because they keep them from accepting bribes.

        [checks]

        Okay, sure, but at least the bribes have to be a little bigger now.

        • Re:When will.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by GrumpySteen ( 1250194 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @04:24PM (#64616771)

          You're not keeping up with the latest news. Those aren't bribes. They're just tips. Totally legal tips.

          • by adrn01 ( 103810 )
            And it's not 'soliciting a bribe' if you just send an itemized bill for 'services rendered' afterward.
        • Most of them are paid more than they are worth, but at $175,000, there are probably people at your company who make more and contribute less (without having to keep two residences). https://www.senate.gov/senator... [senate.gov]
          • Make more? Sure. Contribute less? I'm not sure. Sure, the middle and top brass at my workplace does nothing particularly valuable. But any given Congresscritter is likely to be doing more harm than good. You may not be taking negative numbers into account.
        • by gtall ( 79522 )

          We pay the president $400K, there are other perks. But compared to CEO pay, that's peanuts.

          Senators and Representative get $174K, that's not exorbitant either.

          Regardless, there are always ways the congress critters can bank, maybe through accounts that only get transferred when they leave gov. service. Or like the former grifter in chief who had foreign dignitaries frequent his establishments or using campaign contributions to pay off his legal debts. And the $2 Billion deal Jared Kushner came away with fro

          • But the president gets a better airplane than ANY CEO! And better security too.

          • well, as I recall they also get paid extra for every committee they are on and more if they chair a committee... I may be wrong on that, but that is what I recall.
      • by dbialac ( 320955 )
        Coincidentally, that 10% stake is just a dog and pony show. Members of congress and the senate hold stocks that make significant jumps well beyond the loss of that 10%.
        • yep, imagine you are a congresscritter, and you know that there is going to be a $40 billion dollar contract given to Boeing for a few new aircraft... Before the vote you call your broker and have them buy up a few hundred shares at whatever the hell the stock is trading for now. Then the contract goes through, the stock soars and you sell it all....
    • by dbialac ( 320955 )
      Term limits do nothing but empower lobbyists who can bring in a new crop of congressional and senatorial leaders at an even higher rate than they can now. Putting some balance in place with one-to-one meetings with corporations and one-to-one meetings with employed people making less than a certain amount could help balance things out a bit. Maybe the representative can only meet with firms that employ a certain number of people in their state. I'll call both groundwork for an idea that needs refining.
      • Re:When will.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @11:40PM (#64617591)

        Term limits do nothing but empower lobbyists

        Indeed. Terms limits have problems.

        But we should get rid of the seniority system. My senator shouldn't have more power than your senator just because of tenure.

        The seniority system encourages voters to support long-term incumbents since they are at the front of the line for pork.

        The Republicans have mostly eliminated seniority in committee appointments. The Democrats have not.

        • I agree seniority in the Senate has problems, including corruption, pork, and senility. I remember one of my senators whose primary re-election mantra was that he would be/was committee chair of some important committee. He was a wishy-washy wreck. I never knew what he would support, but he was resoundingly re-elected over and over again. Thankfully he retired, but a year or two later died. He should have retired 30 years earlier. >:^(

          One advantage of seniority is stability. Stability helps busine

    • Mandatory retirement age [youtube.com] is better than term limits.
      • There's talk about introducing a maximum age of 80 in the UK House of Lords. The new PM, Keir Starmer, has had to publicly state that this is no comment on the age of Joe Biden but that we just need to reduce the numbers in the HoL. There are over 800 in a space meant for less than half that amount and even if elbow room were not a concern more are added at a far greater rate than they leave. Having an upper chamber twice the size of the lower does not make a great deal of sense and what's worse is the numb
        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Canada has mandatory retirement at 75 for Senators, who are appointed and Judges, including the Supreme court Justices.

        • by Alci12 ( 698263 )
          If KS is that concerned about the numbers in the HoL (he's not its a pretext) he could simply not nominate more than deminimus new peers and the numbers would fall rapidly enough. Some PMs have created new peers at 8/yr others 40+. For a 5yr parliament thats a range of 40-200+ new peers. Size is largely irrelevant. Bar Questions the house is rarely full.
        • Flush the House of Lords entirely and replace it with a jury duty style system where random appointees(who can decline) under 50 serve for 20 years and gain a lifetime 2x median salary with 100% tax on any earnings additional to that. Dereliction of duty forfeits the salary but maintains the special tax bracket.

      • I'm in my 70s and would not dream of still working much less as a Congress person.
  • by MikeDataLink ( 536925 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @03:56PM (#64616683) Homepage Journal

    There should have been a way for WE THE PEOPLE to control our congress critters. Some method for us to force legislation controlling them or limiting their powers. Currently, congress can vote their own raises, term limit(less), etc. There's no checks or balances on that power.

    • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @04:00PM (#64616695) Journal

      The Founding Fathers had the (misguided) belieft that a) the people would be educated enough to vote in people who would do good for them and b) that elected officials would be responsible and not go crazy with power.

      Obviously, they missed the ball on this subject.

      • by Un-Thesis ( 700342 ) * on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @04:44PM (#64616819) Homepage

        Wrong! The Founding Fathers put in a major check / requirement to only allow the Top 25% to vote:

        They had to own land that people lived in, in order to vote.

        This weeded out all but the possibly stupid who inherited land, which was quite rare.

        The requirement to own land in order to vote in the United States was gradually eliminated over time. By the 1850s, most states had abolished property ownership as a requirement for voting. The last state to do so was North Carolina, which removed the requirement in 1856.

        Many see this as a direct result of the election of bad-faith actors that led directly to the Civil War.

        • This weeded out all but the possibly stupid who inherited land, which was quite rare.

          Erm, what? And I mean what what?

          The USA don't forget had just split from the UK. I think Monty Python summed it up well with the "upper class twit of the year" sketch, or if you're looking for something contemporary absolutely packed wall to wall with memes, slang and pop culture references, give "The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman" a go.

          Mocking landed, rich morons was a national passtime before 1776 in Hi

        • by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Thursday July 11, 2024 @07:32AM (#64618097)

          Wrong! The Founding Fathers put in a major check / requirement to only allow the Top 25% to vote:

          They had to own land that people lived in, in order to vote.

          This weeded out all but the possibly stupid who inherited land, which was quite rare.

          The requirement to own land in order to vote in the United States was gradually eliminated over time. By the 1850s, most states had abolished property ownership as a requirement for voting. The last state to do so was North Carolina, which removed the requirement in 1856.

          Many see this as a direct result of the election of bad-faith actors that led directly to the Civil War.

          Europe tried that for centuries... All it did was ensure the same people ended up in power and all those people did was ensure that it was the rich land owners who benefited.

          If you want a return to feudalism, all you need to do is limit voting to land owners. The first thing that will happen is that some enterprising person will sell off 10 cm square plots of worthless land for people to get votes, laws will then change to exclude these people... eventually the large land owners will get sick of "mom and pop" land owners hogging the vote so they'll put a minimum estate size/value on it. Won't be long before you end up with the wealthy elite holding all the power again.

          One vote per citizen is by far not the most perfect system, but like democracy it is better than all the other systems that have been tried (and will from time to time be tried again).

          • Won't be long before you end up with the wealthy elite holding all the power again.

            Umm... they already do hold all the power? What am I missing here? Every single penny is hoovered up and unable to be saved by the common person.

            Look at our "life" systems. They are all compromised and STUPIDLY expensive. Medical? Fucked. Education? Fucked. Housing? Fucked. Communications? Fucked.

            ... but everything else is just peachy and capitalistic, we swear! Look at all the jobs the economy just picked up! (don't look too closely at the quality and pay of those jobs)

            TL;DR, the USA is primed for Fascism

        • This weeded out all but the possibly stupid who inherited land, which was quite rare.

          How did you come to this conclusion? What makes you think stupidity is rare amongst land owners? Lots and lots of families have lost their land due to stupidity of their children. Isn't there a quote somewhere that says that there are only two things that are infinite in the universe?

      • by test321 ( 8891681 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @04:45PM (#64616821)

        They were not misguided, for the reasons that.
        1) It had already been established by philosophers of the Enlightment that the necessary principle of a Republic is Virtue

        Montesquieu, The Spirit of Law (1758), Book 3, Chap. 3 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... [wikisource.org]

        THERE is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.

        What I have here advanced, is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of historians, and is extremely agreeable to the nature of things. For it is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a popular government, where the person intrusted with the execution of the laws, is sensible of his being subject himself to their direction.

        And it is an established fact that the books of Montesquieu and even in particular the section about Virtue had a deep influence on the US Constitution https://thehistoryace.com/mont... [thehistoryace.com]

        2) The Founding fathers were not misguided, they were HOPEFUL. Because there is not much more you can do about democracy. While a REPUBLIC (where policymakers are ELECTED) is a system that can be stated in a document, a DEMOCRACY (in modern sense) is not a system, it is a continuous rating of successes and failures that assess to what extent the (republican) system effectively REPRESENTS the different components of society. About democracy, there is nothing but hope that the elected representatives will have the necessary VIRTUE.

        3) The dramatic change from between 1787 and today is the change of scale in population, and the change of scale in the power in hands of the elected. A simple observation is that smaller countries (in population) tend to have a) less power promoting more modesty in leaders, and b) more consensual politics. While USA became hugely more populated and hugely more powerful in the face of the world, the necessary virtues faded, as power corrupts; which the Founding fathers could not anticipate, or even if they did, could do nothing about.

      • by dbialac ( 320955 )
        They assumed that by limiting voting to property owners exclusively, they'd have that part worked out.
      • actually, the people were also different back then.

        During the early days of the revolution, and angry mob of over a thousand armed men with torches marched on Governor Gage's house in Massachusetts with the intent to burn it down as Gage was appointed by the King and not supportive of the revolution.

        Their intent was to burn the house with the occupants inside.

        Governor Gage (also General if I recall correctly) met the angry mob on his front porch. He had a request that they let him speak and listen to

    • There should have been a way for WE THE PEOPLE to control our congress critters. Some method for us to force legislation controlling them or limiting their powers. Currently, congress can vote their own raises, term limit(less), etc. There's no checks or balances on that power.

      There IS a way: the Constitutional Amendment process. There are two ways to get an amendment passed:

      An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

      So using the second method, you could bypass Congress completely. It's not easy, but it's not supp

      • The reason why a Constitutional Convention is unlikely to ever happen again: once it's a thing, literally anything in the Constitution is up for grabs. Red states that want to rewrite the 2nd Amendment to explicitly allow permitless concealed carry? Let's have a weeks-long debate that filibusters time away from talking about the Blue states that want to amend Net Neutrality into the Constitution. Or pick any other two highly partisan things that nobody will ever agree on.

        There's a reason why literally ev

        • It's far closer than you think. GOP is already planning it https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]

          18 states have already passed the required legislation. They only need 34.

          • 18 states have already passed the required legislation. They only need 34.

            Those 18 are mostly deep red states. To get to 34 would require support from many purple states and at least a few blue states. That's very unlikely.

            • Imminent? no. Way farther than anybody actually realizes? you bet.

              Most people don't even know who their state reps *are*. And yet they vote on things all the time....and are *cheap* to buy politically.

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        There's also the option of passing an existing amendment, such as Article the 2nd finally getting passed as the 27th amendment in 1992, just over 202 years after it was propsed, as people were pissed at Congress giving themselves raises. Interesting history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
        Article the 1st, the Congressional Apportionment Amendment is still waiting to be passed. Might help by diluting the power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      There should have been a way for WE THE PEOPLE to control our congress critters. Some method for us to force legislation controlling them or limiting their powers. Currently, congress can vote their own raises, term limit(less), etc. There's no checks or balances on that power.

      There is a way: voting.

      By law, when congress votes for an increase in congressional salary, that increase doesn't take effect until the next congress. If you don't like it: elect somebody else.

      Every representitive's term in congress is limited by the fact that it ends when the people vote for somebody else. If you want term limits: elect somebody else. (It is a bitter irony that although there is a loud voice for term limits, that consensus seems to be entirely for term limits on other peoples' representa

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        By law, when congress votes for an increase in congressional salary, that increase doesn't take effect until the next congress. If you don't like it: elect somebody else.

        Took passing a 200+ old proposed Amendment to the US constitution to have that law, and Congress worked around it by having automatic pay raises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Because the People keep voting for idiots. Or in other words, we create politicians in our own image.

    • by necro81 ( 917438 )

      There should have been a way for WE THE PEOPLE to control our congress critters. Some method for us to force legislation controlling them or limiting their powers. Currently, congress can vote their own raises, term limit(less), etc. There's no checks or balances on that power.

      It's called the Constitution, and it can (with great difficulty) be amended. The most recent amendment [wikipedia.org] was actually a limit (but a pretty soft one) to Congress' power to set its own pay. Term limits would be a different amendment

  • The article didn't mention whether failure to divest was a crime, ethics violation, or just a 10% tax on their stock investments. Considering the multimillionaires in Congress the monthly salary may not be the greater of the two amounts.
    • I noticed that too. 10% doesn't seem like much "penalty." But, it would be public information, so the voters could easily take note and that person could lose his/her seat next time around by going afoul.

      • Nancy Pelosi just made millions off of Invidia Stock, while ruling on legislation related to many issues that would affect the stock price. Oh, it's not hers. It's her husband's stock , so that's OK. Sigh.
        Do you really think anyone in her district is going to vote her out?
    • by mysidia ( 191772 )

      The article didn't mention whether failure to divest was a crime, ethics violation, or just a 10% tax

      Most of these would be just asking for lawsuits. The people voted into office may work for the government, But they are still covered by a constitution whose 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and protections under the law as individuals. You cannot have a law that says "It's a crime if you own X, but only if you are a senator or house member; anybody else can own X." That's called Unequal righ

  • by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @04:03PM (#64616705) Journal

    For example, using a blind trust. They need to save for retirement after all, and the stock market historically beats inflation.

    • by ShadowRangerRIT ( 1301549 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @05:58PM (#64617023)
      At least one of the articles talks about a proponent of this bill who divested from stocks and put their money in a blind trust (which presumably invests without their involvement), so presumably that's allowed. I suspect broad-based mutual funds would also be allowed. Among other things, legislators have access to the TSP, the federal equivalent of a 401(k), where the primary investments include an S&P 500 tracking fund, a small-medium cap U.S. stock fund, and an international stock index. They're all so broad that it's pretty rare you could use inside knowledge to help (notable exception: the legislators with privileged early info on the COVID pandemic dumping stock before the news leaked), and even when you can, the TSP has contribution limits that mean it's generally not going to be a source of massive wealth (in similar 401(k)s, it would take close to 20 years of maxed out contributions to reach ~$1M in retirement savings).
      • At least one of the articles talks about a proponent of this bill who divested from stocks and put their money in a blind trust (which presumably invests without their involvement), so presumably that's allowed.

        I looked for that before I posted, but didn't find it. Could you please share where you found it?

        I agree that presumably it's allowed.

  • I suppose Martha Stewart made someone powerful angry to get locked up for insider trading while the house and senate do the same thing repeatedly
    • I suppose Martha Stewart made someone powerful angry to get locked up for insider trading while the house and senate do the same thing repeatedly

      Martha Stewart was not convicted of the insider-trading charge, but went to jail for obstruction of the investigation into the alleged insider-trading.

      • Thank god they locked up that menace.

        • So you're fine with people obstructing justice then? Where do you draw the line on "harmless" obstruction? When it's a charming older lady with a media empire? When it's an ex-president attempting to foil the government from reclaiming it's property?

          Obstruction is obstruction, and justice is supposed to be blind, remember?

  • I'm just wondering, if it's up to the Justice Department to prosecute any violations of this law, will they? We've too often seen Presidents of both parties obstruct any investigations into their families or other members of their political party, or even an outright halt to the Justice Department doing what they are supposed to do. So, do we have any reasonable expectation that this law will be any different in that respect.

    Remember, I said both parties, so no political discussion of this please. Pol
  • I feel like there's got to be some catch in this bill... or it's just one of those situations where they say "see, we are making sure we're not taking advantage of our positions" while they work on 99 other bills that will consolidate their power.
    • At first blush, here's my chin-scratcher: Is the 10% penalty recurring if they still don't sell, or is it a one-time thing that is just a cost of wealth acquisition like capital gains tax?

  • About time.

    Would be nice to kick out the senators are representatives who have blatantly profited from insider trading-- on both sides-- but that's probably too much to ask.

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @05:02PM (#64616869)

    Excuse me, but Nancy Pelosi herself clearly stated that insider trading was merely a perk of the job, and perfectly acceptable. Mind telling me what bipartisan bullshit they’re trying to sell the American People?

    Politicians of every flavor and size should know by now: you can either announce your passed and approved legislation, or you can be called a fucking liar for selling bullshit that will never pass. Stop trying to do both, because you’re nothing but a politician when you do.

    The American people want and deserve elected representatives. Not fucking politicians. The term “politician” should be a badge of shame, not a badge of honor. When “leaders” act like fucking politicians they don’t deserve either title.

    • Excuse me, but Nancy Pelosi herself clearly stated that insider trading was merely a perk of the job, and perfectly acceptable. Mind telling me what bipartisan bullshit they’re trying to sell the American People?

      Politicians of every flavor and size should know by now: you can either announce your passed and approved legislation, or you can be called a fucking liar for selling bullshit that will never pass. Stop trying to do both, because you’re nothing but a politician when you do.

      The American people want and deserve elected representatives. Not fucking politicians. The term “politician” should be a badge of shame, not a badge of honor. When “leaders” act like fucking politicians they don’t deserve either title.

      I don't understand why they even need to do this? Didn't Donald Trump drain the swamp?

    • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @06:14PM (#64617049) Journal

      Pelosi serves in the US House of Representatives.

      This is a bipartisan agreement in the United States Senate. Pelosi gets absolutely no say over it until the Senate delivers it to the House, and even then she gets her vote, and only her vote, as she's not in leadership anymore.

      I anticipate she'll still be a "no" vote for purely personal reasons. But don't confuse that with the overall Democratic Party stance on this, or even the GOP stance because the "yes" votes cut across the aisle. This is an issue where AOC and Matt Gaetz agree - probably the only one they ever will agree on.

      • You are stupidly naive to think this will pass. I kind of knew you were stupid as soon as you insinuated that the Democratic party had an honorable stance on this. Republicans may be selfish and willing to enforce their publicly declared (not private) morals upon you, but the Democrats don't care enough about you to enforce their morals upon you, they just want your money.

        Now you know why "both sides are the same" is a thing even when they are not identical. They both want nothing more than your wealth. Rep

        • I kind of knew you were stupid as soon as you insinuated that the Democratic party had an honorable stance on this

          Please tell me where I did any such thing. I didn't even bother reading any more of what you wrote because I can only presume it's based on your absolute lack of reading comprehension.

          For the record, I actually said that Pelosi is likely a "no" vote for her own political reasons, and then proceeded to say that this isn't a partisan issue, and even gave examples of "extremists" from both parties agreeing that it should be done.

          Thanks for trying to knock the hell out of a straw man, but I'm not interested.

    • The American people want and deserve elected representatives.

      Americans do get elected representatives. It is too bad that you are not considered an actual American. Neither am I. We don't own enough land and exert enough influence to even be considered as anything more than a human(?) living within THEIR borders.

  • I realize that in the hands of the unscrupulous not doing so could theoretically open a somewhat large-sized loophole. But it's pretty damned dodgy to place restrictions not just on the congress critters themselves, but also their family members. Collective guilt and group punishment aren't supposed to be things we do in this country. I wonder how going after family too... especially in the case of the kids, who would have had no input into their parent's career choice or conduct and actions whilst on th

    • by adrn01 ( 103810 )
      Did it not say "dependent" children? That would be needed to prevent parents, who control the funds, from laundering everything through their kids. Once the children grow up, no longer dependents, they can make their own investments.
      • I don't remember the specifics of the rules and never bothered to look them up at irs.gov or wherever because I don't want kids of my own; but my parents were able to claim me as a dependent until I was 22 years old.

        So, in my case, that would have been 4 years when I would otherwise have been a legal adult, making my own money, paying my own bills, eligible for military service; who I would have been verboten from having investment accounts, most mutual funds, 401ks, and IRAs (Most of these are backed by st

  • It's a start. But it automatically then moves on to close family members, parents, adult children, and brothers and sisters acting as their financial agent. Prime example being Hunter Biden.

    The follow up to this needs to be anyone getting information from these elected politicians and profiting from it is guilty of insider trading.

  • This really won't help as they will use a middle man for maintaining their stock while in office.
  • Not only will this not pass; but I bet come Jan 2025 all laws like this become null as the one-party takes absolute rule.

  • There was huge uproar the last time 60 minutes did an expose on this stuff about 11 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Congress passed the STOCK Act to great fanfare while patting themselves on the back... then they quietly rolled back parts of it.
    https://www.npr.org/sections/i... [npr.org]

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Working...