https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-trading-stock-on-insid...
Due to the traction the story got, it led to the Stock Act.
But once the news cycle was over it was quietly, rapidly, and largely repealed:
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749...
And here we are a decade later “shocked” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
The substance of that article only says that the online public disclosure requirements were narrowed from encompassing all Federal and Congressional employees to only elected officials and key appointees. If you read the Whitehouse signing statement (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/0...) linked by the article, this is more clear. Employees' disclosures were taken offline out of privacy concerns, apparently. The article is somewhat ambiguous on this point, and hints at more significant changes, but I take it as rhetoric, otherwise it would have been relatively easy to be crystal clear on these points. (Shame on the reporter, but at least such unquestioned political cynicism is non-partisan.)
Perhaps there have been subsequent amendments as well. Nonetheless, according to this April 2020 research paper, https://www.nber.org/papers/w26975, Senators have underperformed the market since 2012.
EDIT: And most obvious, if trading disclosures of elected officials weren't still available online, then websites like https://senatestockwatcher.com/ wouldn't exist.
The better bill is the one that passes.
Of course, that's likely not going to happen anytime prior to our Sun going red giant, but we can dream.
I disagree.
"Hawley's bill would have the Government Accountability Office provide oversight, whereas Ossoff would leave that to congressional ethics committees."
Congressional ethics committees are notoriously partisan and unreliable in enforcing. You are trusting Congress members to police themselves, which isn't remotely reliable. In reality, they only police members of the opposing party. The GAO would be far superior.
> in that it prevents children from also trading (see Sen. Manchin's shady dealings).
Were Manchin's adult children "dependents"? How is that defined in the bill? Also, it's been interesting to see negative attention on Manchin suddenly get ratcheted up the minute he wouldn't vote in a manner popular with people who don't live in his state.
> This is a common tactic in the Senate to subvert legislative direction.
The assumption that the purpose of this specific instance is to "subvert" is speculative. I'm no fan of Hawley, but he has been very public about wanting to ban stock trades by members as much as Ossoff.
I tire of the red/blue tribal loyalties on this site. I see two corrupt tribes, filled with people who won't vote for this bill. But both, and their foolishly gullible supporters, just sit and point at the misdeeds of the opposing side, unaware of their information bubbles.
Until then we're just giving completely, utterly pointless kudos to whoever can play chicken most convincingly. I'm sure Hawley's office could have come up with something with even slightly more teeth if Ossoff came to him first with a GAO bill.
Even if Ossoff's bill went anywhere, it's too soft and the people setup to hold them accountable are themselves.
Side note: If you want to sling mud against Manchin as he's open season now for the Dems apparently please be specific so people can refute you.
I'll take one step at a time instead of all at once attempt and nothing in the end.
Keep an eye on the negotiations and who stalls what, what they demand, etc.
Make politicians construct simple concise bills.
edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29915575 JPKab said it better than I could
The way I see it, congressional trading rules are a natural extension of insider trading rules. Children/spouses should be prevented from trading not because they are children/spouses, but if/because they’ve been made aware of inside information.
What part of the constitution would prevent such rules from being implemented?
I mean this sort of makes sense. In order for an adult child to be a dependent they have to be pretty much invalid, and not responsible for their own actions.
When I was subject to public officers law, my kids were unable to play the lottery, engage in any sales or lobbying activity without written permission from agency counsel.
I know of one case where a senior leader was referred for civil penalty (fine up to $20k) because he took a meeting with a prospective contractor that his kid worked for.
There’s other areas like this as well. The actions of a spouse or child can affect a security clearance or be disqualification for employment as a police officer.
If you work in the financial industry, there are already draconian rules on oversight for all trades made by you, your spouse, your dependents, and even roommates. Why shouldn't this oversight extend to members of congress?
Can you explain the reasoning more? And why making laws for Congress would raise a novel issue?
I don't remember any part of the constitution that would apply either way.
> Ossoff's bill would leave oversight to congressional ethics committees
Lol, ok buddy. We've all seen that congress in not able to conduct meaningful self-oversight.
> violations of Hawley's measure would require lawmakers or their spouses to disgorge any investment to the U.S. Treasury
Unlike Ossoff's bill, that's some serious teeth.
https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/how_does_the_shutdow...
>If Senator X "makes a concession" the relevant media will proclaim him a loser and a coward, they don't want representatives, they want cage fighters. There's no reward for compromise and there's no safe place to attempt it, either.
>[...]
>Or, said differently, if there was a government shut down at a time when the news came out only weekly, it would mean we were getting a new flag.
Pelosi represents SF. It's her congressional district. Her investing in the top SF companies (many of which include tech companies which have performed really well) is a rare case of supporting her constituent businesses. Sure it's horrible optics and politics and yada yada but people should consider that the alternative (banning all trading as a member of congress) is potentially worse for open democracy.
"Murder is OK as long as it's committed in the town square" is a terrible policy. Lawmakers taking advantage of insider info, let alone upcoming regulatory changes, to make huge amounts of money while holding public office is straight-up antithetical to the purpose of being in Congress (the people). Want to make tons of money? Great, become a banker or a C-level or a lawyer in private practice, not a congresswoman.
That said: I think your hypothetical is better than our current, objectively ridiculous situation. “Everyone’s doing it in the open” is a pretty lame excuse, and definitely doesn’t preclude the possibility of kids + shell companies anyway.
That perception fuels whataboutism and facilitates graft. Nobody is going to investigate Senator X and trigger a counter-investigation of Representative Y.
Why is it worse?
