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.
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.
When will.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:When will.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
You're not keeping up with the latest news. Those aren't bribes. They're just tips. Totally legal tips.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
But the president gets a better airplane than ANY CEO! And better security too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:When will.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada has mandatory retirement at 75 for Senators, who are appointed and Judges, including the Supreme court Justices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There will always be exceptions, but, on average, mandatory retirement age is better. I'm guessing you didn't watch the (entire) video. There were reasons given other than mental acuity.
Again, I'm guessing you didn't watch the (
Found fathers really missed on this... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Found fathers really missed on this... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Found fathers really missed on this... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Many see this as a direct result of the election of bad-faith actors that led directly to the Civil War.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Found fathers really missed on this... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
TL;DR, the USA is primed for Fascism
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:Found fathers really missed on this... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Found fathers really missed on this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be nice to have lots of choices so that voting them out didn't mean voting for the hated other party.
Re: (Score:2)
Be nice to have lots of choices so that voting them out didn't mean voting for the hated other party.
So, vote 'em out in the primary.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the People keep voting for idiots. Or in other words, we create politicians in our own image.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so violent insurrection then.
Pretty sure there's laws against that kind of thing, and there's quite a few people that are in the "find out" phase of "fuck around and find out" on that one.
Re:Found fathers really missed on this... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd run for office but I'm not wealthy enough to do so. I also have ideas that would upset both sides so I'd have both major parties going after me. There just aren't enough people willing to take a chance and ditch the mainstream for regular folks like me.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorist or Patriot - not much difference, just a matter of which side "wins".
Perhaps. And history certainly has recorded many violent revolutions that had their justifications.
I took issue with AC saying "you start hanging [congressmembers] in the town square" without exploring non-violent options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't take that long for the French Revolution to become the Reign of Terror with a lot of people losing their heads.
Re: (Score:2)
What non-violent options haven't we explored over the past 200 years in America?
I dunno. I say, let's keep exploring, hm'kay?
The soapbox doesn't work.
Tell that to Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and so on.
The ballot box doesn't work.
Not always, but I'm not ready to give up on it just yet.
Qualified immunity makes sure the jury box doesn't work.
A recent and troubling development that warrants close scrutiny, but let's not be premature.
The only thing that works is bribing politicians through campaign "contributions", taking them on expensive hunting trips, or buying them boats. And the majority of us don't have the means to do that. And even if we did, that doesn't mean the system isn't completely and fundamentally broken.
I, for one, hope you're wrong. Because if you're right, then revolution may be around the corner. I'm not saying that to be a provocateur, but just as an amateur historian.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even know you and I trust you more than I trust anyone in our current system. I would vote for you over Trump, Biden, or most (all?) of the other "candidates".
Re: (Score:2)
..when you are left with no peaceful way to affect change, are you still terrorists?
Depends if you win or not. In reality, the people who fought against the crown could be considered terrorists. They were using violence to effect a political or societal change. Yes, they were British subjects rebelling so some might consider a civil war, but looking at the totality of the situation, and what some of them did, yes, they were terrorists. We just don't call them that because they won.
Re: (Score:2)
An LA city supervisor recently suggested, when unsure how to vote: "Go find someone you trust, like an uncle, and ask him how he voted, and then do that". not "research the issues and determine your stance", just " see how your tribe does it, and copy that".
A coworker of mine recently sat down with a bunch of people in LA with one o
Re: (Score:2)
It was a Carter administration creation.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so administrations that have been around for almost 50 years just don't count anymore? And the tens of thousands of schools that depend on federal funding to exist and educate children - especially special needs children under the Americans with Disabilities Act - that doesn't matter either?
This is a direct shot at public education: the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to fall for the lies and bullshit.
At 10% tax? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think anyone in her district is going to vote her out?
Re: (Score:2)
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
But can they still invest? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, using a blind trust. They need to save for retirement after all, and the stock market historically beats inflation.
Re:But can they still invest? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Matha Stewart (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank god they locked up that menace.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
The one possible catch. (Score:2)
Remember, I said both parties, so no political discussion of this please. Pol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that you cannot make a bribery case on that. I think that public officials, and I believe probably some of your brethren, grant access to their campaign contributors more quickly and more often than to their noncampaign contributors.
I was making the point that we could not predicate a campaign contribution--a bribery case, where the only quid pro quo was access in return for campaign contributions, and I was pretty clear that I was limiting my remarks only to that.
Now, Special Agent Wehr testified that I said ``thing of value'' or ``money,'' and I am sure I never said any such thing because I think you can predicate a bribery case on access in return for money, just not campaign contributions, because that is an accepted way of politics, and we could never prove criminal intent.
https://www.govinfo.gov/conten... [govinfo.gov]
I'm sure a bunch of Dittoheads gave her endless whatfor during the years this story was in the news, Ingersoll wasn't the President, and I'm not convinced it actually happened as Wehr alleged. But I appreciate your long memory for attempted scandals.
Re: (Score:3)
Like I said, both sides.
Re:The one possible catch. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
are you serious? Joe Biden impeded investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop.
So what? That is par for the course. George Bush impeded the investigation into Neil Bush.
In case you don't remember, there used to be a money industry called "Savings and Loans". They were like banks, but different. The Bush family was deeply involved with the three trillion (yes trillion, in 1990 dollars) dollar theft which caused the collapse of the entire Savings and Loan industry and resulted in the Governor of Arizona going to prison. I checked recently and you can't find "Neil Bush" and "Savings and
Just a distraction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Hurray! (Score:2)
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.
Representatives, not Politicians. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re:Representatives, not Politicians. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Spouses and children? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Progress but... (Score:2)
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.
Won't help (Score:2)
Ain't Going To Happen (Score:2)
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.
Will they roll back parts of it AGAIN? (Score:2)
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]
Re:I'm sorry but Republicans are corrupt as fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a typical election-year game.
The Senate comes up with a bipartisan bill that they can message on, and hold a vote on, and act like they're doing things. At least half of the people voting for it knows it's DOA in the House, so the vote doesn't matter.
They'll pass it, send it over to the House, where it will die as the GOP rallies support to kill it, and the Democrats that don't want it will put it over the top. Everyone goes back to their districts to give a message to their base about how they're doing what that base wants, whether that base actually wants it or not.
Nothing changes, but at-risk Senate seats are just a little more protected by feigning action and then shaking their head in a town hall somewhere saying "if it wasn't for the House [opposite_party]..."
Re: (Score:2)
you're hilarious thinking it's only Republicans utterly corrupt and illegal insiders, though. You forget about the Queen, Feinstein?
rsilvergun didn't say it was only Republicans. Read his post again.
Since you bring up Feinstein, let's review the facts. She was part of the discussion in 2020 regarding suspicious coronavirus-related stock trades, but so were at least four of her Republican colleagues. [wikipedia.org]
And while we're on the subject, let's remember there already is an act that restricts congressmembers from trading on insider information. [wikipedia.org] This new act would ban any trading whatsoever. Not sure why it's necessary, but okay, maybe it's a good
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you think that's all Feinstein did?
hahahahaha, are you young?
Her husband, Blum, chairman and prez of Blum Capitol traded and held defense stocks, she was on arms committee. Blum invested in biotech firm in 2009, right before it got government grant from Congress
More fun if you research it.
Re:I'm sorry but Republicans are corrupt as fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
>"rsilvergun didn't say it was only Republicans. Read his post again."
Most of us don't need to read his postings anymore to know exactly what he will say on any political topic. It is always clearly hyper partisan, somehow the Democrats are always "good" or "better" and the Republicans "bad" or "worse."
The post to which you (and parent) are referring is downmodded to oblivion for good reason, and that is despite the fact that Slashdot leans heavily IN HIS FAVOR.
He starts by titling the post "I'm sorry but Republicans are corrupt as fuck". Then tries to handwave away the numerous, repeated examples of Dems-on-the-take (which he lists only a two) with "But I am extremely skeptical seeing Republicans here unless they expect it to just not pass." So yeah, it can't be that many Republicans genuinely want this reform, just like many Democrats, it could ONLY be that it is just optics for the Republicans.
Re:I'm sorry but Republicans are corrupt as fuck (Score:4, Interesting)
>"rsilvergun didn't say it was only Republicans. Read his post again."
Most of us don't need to read his postings anymore to know exactly what he will say on any political topic.
I see. You prefer to just make up what he said? See below.
It is always clearly hyper partisan, somehow the Democrats are always "good" or "better" and the Republicans "bad" or "worse."
Well, not in this case. You won't read his post, so let me show you the first sentence in it:
Not saying the Democrats don't have plenty of problems on their end but the Republicans are all in on corruption.
Emphasis is mine.
The post to which you (and parent) are referring is downmodded to oblivion for good reason, and that is despite the fact that Slashdot leans heavily IN HIS FAVOR.
Not today apparently. The black-and-white thinkers are out in force, and they have mod points.
He starts by titling the post "I'm sorry but Republicans are corrupt as fuck". Then tries to handwave away the numerous, repeated examples of Dems-on-the-take (which he lists only a two) with "But I am extremely skeptical seeing Republicans here unless they expect it to just not pass." So yeah, it can't be that many Republicans genuinely want this reform, just like many Democrats, it could ONLY be that it is just optics for the Republicans.
And maybe it's optics for the Dems too. But at least it's constitutional, unlike New Orleans insisting that the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom.
Re: (Score:3)
But at least it's constitutional, unlike New Orleans insisting that the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom.
Whoops, make that Louisiana, not just New Orleans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might still be worth it if the needle moves enough.
I was gonna say, a 10% fine for doing business? Seems our congress critters have learned by watching their owners, the corporations, figure out how to do all the illegal stuff they want so long as the fine is minimal enough.