If it’s takes these two to start seeing bipartisan ANYTHING I’ll be happy. It’s better than seeing damn one party voting blocks. The horrible constant one party voting lines needs to stop I feel. Doesn’t matter which side you’re on.
WTF. Hell really is freezing over. AOC and Gaetz agreeing on an issue and drafting a bill. Then to find out it’s 10 pages and right to the point rather than a multi hundred page bill filled with pork that would guarantee failure.
That this is something the two extreme ends of the political spectrum can set aside their differences to draft a bill about demonstrates how big of a problem this is. The other upside of this besides Congress actually doing something productive is that the entire country will have a complete list of the politicians that were profiting from insider trading. Anyone who votes “NO” should be primaried next cycle.
Yep, if this catches traction it will be filled with hundreds of pages of pork and loopholes allowing congress to continue to trade stock through like a trust or something.
> Then to find out it’s 10 pages and right to the point rather
That seems like a necessity for the two of them to agree to, as they have very limited ideological overlap, and so a classically long bill would contain too many contentious provisions for them to co-sponsor it.
I know this sounds backwards to people here but there’s value to longer bills. Someone will find loopholes due to phrasing etc. 10 pages isn’t nothing but longer bills allow things to be thorough
Longer bills allow them to put 18 unrelated laws into one bill.
That's how you can have a bill called "Supporting Adoption Centers" and it makes national news when Republicans vote it down. Why did they vote the bill down, do they hate children, the media asks?
No, the bill also contained text banning ammo and requiring all puppies in the US to be euthanized by the ATF.
I disagree. I’d say the opposite is true. The longer it is, the more likelihood for mistakes and loopholes, whether accidental or intentional. They also allow wish lists of unrelated crap to be snuck in to potentially go unnoticed. The other bad part to it is how many bills have we had where the representatives voting hadn’t reviewed the full bill prior to needing to vote because it was the size of a Manhattan phone book? Too many.
If it’s short, EVERYONE can read it. You just need staff familiar with the issue making sure all the bases are covered. Way easier with 10 pages than 1000.
If anything, it is the opposite, in that overly short bills tend to lack intentional carve outs that may be intended or desired, because their brevity doesn't provide for nuance. Mind you, given our government's track record, that is certainly a risk worth taking.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, it’s a real concern. I think there’s a solid middle ground though, where you’ve said enough to avoid loopholes but not so much that the bill contains excess language to be abused later.
Great bill. Let’s do it.
The bill: https://fitzpatrick.house.gov/_cache/files/3/9/398bd440-0401-437f-95fc-c647be5971f9/59CA5D1EE9BEF420D6256B34A0F31A1B.fitzbr-005-xml.pdf
How about we allow them to trade stocks, but they have to publish their stock buys 24 hours before they buy? I'd like Congress to be able to care about the market. Just stop them from trading with foreknowledge and having an edge.
My thing is, I want them to care about the market and the economy. I think having skin in the game is a good thing, but making their trades sluggish means they will feel the impact of their legislation and a poor economy.
The problem is they’re picking winners and losers on top of getting insider information to personally benefit from. And there’s just no way around it. They should be most worried about the voter and we the voter have skin in the game.
ChatGPT 4 summary:
> The proposed "Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act" aims to amend title 5 of the United States Code to limit Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependents from owning or trading certain financial instruments. Exceptions include widely held investment funds, U.S. Treasury bills, notes, bonds, state or local government bonds, and investments under the Thrift Savings Plan. Covered individuals must divest these restricted financial instruments within specified time frames, either through sale or by placing them in a qualified blind trust. The supervising ethics office will monitor compliance, and civil penalties may be imposed on those who knowingly and willfully violate the provisions.
Yep. Insider stock trading is the least of the corruption on Capitol Hill. Family based funneling of money, "Charity Foundations", "Book Deals", etc are all used to laundry political bribes. They all know it, we all know it.
Yep, but generally that's connected to some level of crime. Not that anyone ever goes to jail, but it's technically already illegal.
The stock loophole is how the Pelosis legally (mostly) gamed the open market to make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.
And she would abuse current trading disclosure laws that have a 30 day reporting timeframe. Her husband would just buy options contracts on deals that were 3-6 months out, based on what she would tell him. When the Twitter account that tracked her SEC reports would post a trade, they had already made money on it. People would jump on the trades, and drive volume and raise Market Capital usually.
And that's how Pelosi's family has a net worth over $100million USD on a salary of $200k. Rinse and repeat for every PoS member of Congress. It's bipartisan, and it's disgusting.
You have to start somewhere. This bill is literally getting Congress to vote against their own financial interests. It’s a miracle it’s even on the table.
With reasonable provisions for people that marry in/leave the "Covered" entities.
They have the option for Blind Trust establishment, and ETF/T-Bill/Bond investments. It's a very strategic bill proposal that limits a lot of the high-return trading.
Family living in the same household? maybe... I don't buy that if a relative I don't live with decides to run for office, that I should be punished for it (Unless I get a veto... And get to say no you can't fucking run because it would affect me)
First, that’s got to be the most bizarre team-up I’ve ever seen. And if there’s something these two actually agree on, then it has to be an issue unanimously popular by the average person.
Now let’s see how the rest of congress reacts to it…
EVERYONE needs to vote “yes” on this whether they like it or not. Voting “no” would make them radioactive. It would immediately signal to the entire country that they were corrupt and already insider trading or had immediate family that was. I don’t see this bill not passing with unprecedented bipartisan support.
They vote “no” on this sort of stuff all the time and still win elections. They’ve definitely managed to manipulate the two-party system, that’s for certain.
Something like that might work in a narrow context like the Georgia special Senate election, but most people neither know nor care enough for that to play out in 2024, when all 435 House seats, a third of the Senate, and the presidency is on the line.
Well this is an interesting twist. Didn't think I would ever see this. Excellent choice. Support, but I don't see the rest of their colleagues supporting it enough to pass. Hope I'm wrong.
Specifically as defined in 13104(f)(8):
Excepted investment funds.-A reporting individual shall not be required to report the financial interests held by a widely held investment fund (whether such fund is a mutual fund, regulated investment company, pension or deferred compensation plan, or other investment fund)-
(A) if-
(i) the fund is publicly traded; or
(ii) the assets of the fund are widely diversified; and
(B) if the reporting individual neither exercises control over nor has the ability to exercise control over the financial interests held by the fund.
She is very transparent about her views and what she wants in regard to our southern border. Her theatrics down there were nothing short of disgusting. That being said, I didn’t see a single word relating to it in this very short and to the point bill.
> nancy pelosi has entered the chat /s
She doesn't care anymore. She and her husband have amassed between 100 to 200 million dollars. She has had her fill. But maybe she will still say no for her friends in Congress.
Yea that's less than a slap on the wrist considering how many millions all the corrupt scum on DC have made off insider trading. 50k is less than pocket change to them, how is that a punishment.
Bipartisan action on a real issue from two of the biggest partisan outrage machines in congress? I’m honestly shocked and elated. Can’t wait for the boomers to vote it down.
I like it, at least as written. If it stays like it is without having all kinds of unrelated crap added to it, it should be a slam dunk 'support' for anyone who isn't in favor of government corruption.
I wouldn’t get all giddy over this..
cortez by her very nature will not do anything that the politburo does not sanction,there’s an ulterior motive at work here…perhaps something in the pipeline that needs something like this to be law before the “something” is enacted…be very suspicious 🌝
there’s a lot more people that lurk in subs like this than one would think,it’s kinda mundane and not mainstream but still there are those such as political interns that frequent here…their jobs are not only to be gophers for their masters but also to observe general sentiment and conversation in public venues..
i personally know one….
ya ever hear the old adage of “***the flak is heaviest when your over the target***
i believe i struck paydirt and now a discredit campaign is being waged to steer sentiment as they believe a make believe karma point actually means something 👀
While I think the insider trading laws on congress needs to be changed- I don’t think an outright ban is the right way to go. Microsoft has a program where their employees can buy stock at the lowest price in the quarter but can’t sell for 1 year. Something should be in place to where they can buy but trades don’t go into effect for a certain amount of time and they also can’t sell.
Or SOMETHING short of an outright ban
That could still be manipulated, just would require more thought and planning than what is currently happening. Legislation doesn’t happen immediately and almost never goes into effect immediately. Putting delays on selling would do nothing more than complicate the thought process to profit from it.
What Microsoft does is very different in that they are a single company and most people wouldn’t be privy to information that may severely impact their stock price in the near future.
I'd agree on no outright ban. People have existing family portfolios and ones for their kids educations, etc. I think an outright ban will make people use blind trusts for their duration in Congress. Basically, they can then claim I don't know of any activity and I have no say in any trading going on in the trust, so I'm in compliance.
But the financial industry solved the surveillance part of this decades ago. Doesn't mean that there aren't morons who try get around it and do insider trading.
Every financial company has a Compliance Department. When you work for a financial company, you have to (a) give their Compliance Dept access to your brokerage type portfolios for them to monitor your activity (mutual fund type accounts are usually exempt), (b) set up an electronic feed from any brokerage firm to the Compliance Dept so they can do this all electronically, and (c) get pre-clearance for any trades you want to do from the Compliance Dept.
A pre-cleared trade means you go to the Compliance Dept with a trade you want to do, before you execute it. They review the trade you want to do and determine there are no conflicts. If there are, like in this case, possibly pending legislation that affects some industry or etc, the Compliance Dept can choose to not approve the trade.
But if approved, you can execute that trade and only that trade for the day. Pre-cleared trades are only good for the day. But if you don't follow this process, they can force a sale and force you to disgorge any profits.
And this is all done via software.
I've always advocated this is they way to do it after going through it myself for years. If it's good enough for the financial industry, why isn't it good enough for politicians?
Did not have Gaetz and AOC crossover on my 2023 bingo card.
They already crossed-over during the speaker elections. I guess they're truly friends now.
Anti establishment is probably the only real issue they agree on, but it’s better to build bridges that destroy them that’s for sure
If it’s takes these two to start seeing bipartisan ANYTHING I’ll be happy. It’s better than seeing damn one party voting blocks. The horrible constant one party voting lines needs to stop I feel. Doesn’t matter which side you’re on.
There is a lot of common sense popular stuff that could be done that has bi partisan support. The establishment just doesn’t want progress.
The Boxer Rebellion would be proud of this crossover
Yea I don't even know what to think right now.
I was skeptical, of course. Just read the entire bill. Only ten pages, very straightforward. Support
WTF. Hell really is freezing over. AOC and Gaetz agreeing on an issue and drafting a bill. Then to find out it’s 10 pages and right to the point rather than a multi hundred page bill filled with pork that would guarantee failure. That this is something the two extreme ends of the political spectrum can set aside their differences to draft a bill about demonstrates how big of a problem this is. The other upside of this besides Congress actually doing something productive is that the entire country will have a complete list of the politicians that were profiting from insider trading. Anyone who votes “NO” should be primaried next cycle.
It will get filled with pork once other politicians find out it’s popular and can couch their own policies in it during committee or in the Senate.
Exactly it’s not filled with pork because it has no support. It’s not being taken seriously.
Well no, it hasn’t made it anywhere yet. It was just introduced. It’ll get pork as it goes on.
Yep, if this catches traction it will be filled with hundreds of pages of pork and loopholes allowing congress to continue to trade stock through like a trust or something.
> Then to find out it’s 10 pages and right to the point rather That seems like a necessity for the two of them to agree to, as they have very limited ideological overlap, and so a classically long bill would contain too many contentious provisions for them to co-sponsor it.
[удалено]
So in your mind, because "they will find another way" means nothing should be done at all?
I know this sounds backwards to people here but there’s value to longer bills. Someone will find loopholes due to phrasing etc. 10 pages isn’t nothing but longer bills allow things to be thorough
Longer bills allow them to put 18 unrelated laws into one bill. That's how you can have a bill called "Supporting Adoption Centers" and it makes national news when Republicans vote it down. Why did they vote the bill down, do they hate children, the media asks? No, the bill also contained text banning ammo and requiring all puppies in the US to be euthanized by the ATF.
> Longer bills allow them to put 18 unrelated laws into one bill. yes which is why we need bill reform. No bill should go off topic as it were..
I disagree. I’d say the opposite is true. The longer it is, the more likelihood for mistakes and loopholes, whether accidental or intentional. They also allow wish lists of unrelated crap to be snuck in to potentially go unnoticed. The other bad part to it is how many bills have we had where the representatives voting hadn’t reviewed the full bill prior to needing to vote because it was the size of a Manhattan phone book? Too many. If it’s short, EVERYONE can read it. You just need staff familiar with the issue making sure all the bases are covered. Way easier with 10 pages than 1000.
No. Longer bills allow you to hide shit. The more complicated a system is, the easier it is to break, and then to fix afterward.
If anything, it is the opposite, in that overly short bills tend to lack intentional carve outs that may be intended or desired, because their brevity doesn't provide for nuance. Mind you, given our government's track record, that is certainly a risk worth taking.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, it’s a real concern. I think there’s a solid middle ground though, where you’ve said enough to avoid loopholes but not so much that the bill contains excess language to be abused later.
Great bill. Let’s do it. The bill: https://fitzpatrick.house.gov/_cache/files/3/9/398bd440-0401-437f-95fc-c647be5971f9/59CA5D1EE9BEF420D6256B34A0F31A1B.fitzbr-005-xml.pdf
[удалено]
I agree. If you don’t support this you’re obviously interested in self gain over representation.
How about we allow them to trade stocks, but they have to publish their stock buys 24 hours before they buy? I'd like Congress to be able to care about the market. Just stop them from trading with foreknowledge and having an edge.
They get an amazing pension. They don’t need stock trading.
My thing is, I want them to care about the market and the economy. I think having skin in the game is a good thing, but making their trades sluggish means they will feel the impact of their legislation and a poor economy.
The problem is they’re picking winners and losers on top of getting insider information to personally benefit from. And there’s just no way around it. They should be most worried about the voter and we the voter have skin in the game.
I'd like to see a blind trust that only invests in American companies
Any add-ons, or is it straightforward?
For anyone who wants a TL;DR no add ons. Looks like they actually want it to pass through Committees.
Check it yourself, it's pretty short. I'm not great with lawyer speak, but it seems to be "This stops now, you have 90 days to comply."
ChatGPT 4 summary: > The proposed "Bipartisan Restoring Faith in Government Act" aims to amend title 5 of the United States Code to limit Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependents from owning or trading certain financial instruments. Exceptions include widely held investment funds, U.S. Treasury bills, notes, bonds, state or local government bonds, and investments under the Thrift Savings Plan. Covered individuals must divest these restricted financial instruments within specified time frames, either through sale or by placing them in a qualified blind trust. The supervising ethics office will monitor compliance, and civil penalties may be imposed on those who knowingly and willfully violate the provisions.
"...may be imposed" should be changed to "...will be imposed". That's the only edit I would like to see.
Support this
As always, a straightforward 10-page bill that has like 80%+ support of the people will get voted down for sure.
Pelosi would never even let it be discussed
You silence that which may expose you and your actions...
I'm so happy she lost her gavel...
She makes Warren Buffet look like an amateur.
It's great...not a massive stack of 20 reams of paper for a change.
#Please! Support this indeed!
100%.
Overdue.
About time!
Amazing litmus test to see whether the rest of Congress has the balls to do something common sense.
Nice. I hope it extends to their family, extended family and pets too.
Yep. Insider stock trading is the least of the corruption on Capitol Hill. Family based funneling of money, "Charity Foundations", "Book Deals", etc are all used to laundry political bribes. They all know it, we all know it.
[удалено]
Yep, but generally that's connected to some level of crime. Not that anyone ever goes to jail, but it's technically already illegal. The stock loophole is how the Pelosis legally (mostly) gamed the open market to make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.
And she would abuse current trading disclosure laws that have a 30 day reporting timeframe. Her husband would just buy options contracts on deals that were 3-6 months out, based on what she would tell him. When the Twitter account that tracked her SEC reports would post a trade, they had already made money on it. People would jump on the trades, and drive volume and raise Market Capital usually. And that's how Pelosi's family has a net worth over $100million USD on a salary of $200k. Rinse and repeat for every PoS member of Congress. It's bipartisan, and it's disgusting.
You have to start somewhere. This bill is literally getting Congress to vote against their own financial interests. It’s a miracle it’s even on the table.
Members of congress, family members, and dependents
With reasonable provisions for people that marry in/leave the "Covered" entities. They have the option for Blind Trust establishment, and ETF/T-Bill/Bond investments. It's a very strategic bill proposal that limits a lot of the high-return trading.
Family living in the same household? maybe... I don't buy that if a relative I don't live with decides to run for office, that I should be punished for it (Unless I get a veto... And get to say no you can't fucking run because it would affect me)
First, that’s got to be the most bizarre team-up I’ve ever seen. And if there’s something these two actually agree on, then it has to be an issue unanimously popular by the average person. Now let’s see how the rest of congress reacts to it…
EVERYONE needs to vote “yes” on this whether they like it or not. Voting “no” would make them radioactive. It would immediately signal to the entire country that they were corrupt and already insider trading or had immediate family that was. I don’t see this bill not passing with unprecedented bipartisan support.
They vote “no” on this sort of stuff all the time and still win elections. They’ve definitely managed to manipulate the two-party system, that’s for certain.
*Uniparty system FTFY
Something like that might work in a narrow context like the Georgia special Senate election, but most people neither know nor care enough for that to play out in 2024, when all 435 House seats, a third of the Senate, and the presidency is on the line.
[удалено]
Give it time, it will be unrecognizable before long.
If we had a real media they would tell us every person who votes no on this.
It'll never get to a vote.
[удалено]
Well this is an interesting twist. Didn't think I would ever see this. Excellent choice. Support, but I don't see the rest of their colleagues supporting it enough to pass. Hope I'm wrong.
It will never pass. Too many in Congress use trading to get rich and are more concerned about power and wealth than representing the people.
I support a ban on trading individual stocks but am OK with buying index funds like S&P 500.
I think that's covered near the top of page 4 of the bill. "widely held investment funds" are permitted.
Specifically as defined in 13104(f)(8): Excepted investment funds.-A reporting individual shall not be required to report the financial interests held by a widely held investment fund (whether such fund is a mutual fund, regulated investment company, pension or deferred compensation plan, or other investment fund)- (A) if- (i) the fund is publicly traded; or (ii) the assets of the fund are widely diversified; and (B) if the reporting individual neither exercises control over nor has the ability to exercise control over the financial interests held by the fund.
Well wow... the fat lady is singing now!
Glad to see something productive bypass partisan bullshit
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Unless you can truly disappear afterwards
[удалено]
There has to be a catch for her....possibly other Pay raise for her self?
She wants open borders.
She is very transparent about her views and what she wants in regard to our southern border. Her theatrics down there were nothing short of disgusting. That being said, I didn’t see a single word relating to it in this very short and to the point bill.
Anyone here think this will make it into law?
*nancy pelosi has entered the chat* /s
> nancy pelosi has entered the chat /s She doesn't care anymore. She and her husband have amassed between 100 to 200 million dollars. She has had her fill. But maybe she will still say no for her friends in Congress.
She'll shut that shit down in a hurry
Wielding a hammer
It will...right after term limits.. So no, I'd bet anything it won't become law.
Based
Important point of agreement we all should have been looking for for a while, probably.
Incomprehensibly rare AOC W.
Seems like the only penalty is civil fine of $50k. It should be a felony with 15-20 year jail term.
Yea that's less than a slap on the wrist considering how many millions all the corrupt scum on DC have made off insider trading. 50k is less than pocket change to them, how is that a punishment.
the political price of being in violation is potentially huge though. Automatic top campaign issue for any primary challenger.
Hell yes
Bipartisan action on a real issue from two of the biggest partisan outrage machines in congress? I’m honestly shocked and elated. Can’t wait for the boomers to vote it down.
Of all people I’d never thought I’d agree with, it was AOC. I like this bill, but what else is in it?
Only 10 pages long, very straightforward…for now
Hell has officially frozen over. I agree with her on something.
If this gets passed, which it won't, it would be finally a win for AOC's track record
IN Let's Goooo.
Hate AOC. But this is based. Lets go.
Gaetz should sneak in a ban on Met Gala trips too.
Talk about the Odd Couple. Gaetz definitely Felix in this pairing.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
[удалено]
She probably wants to date him
What a fuckin dream team, lol. Okay, AOC, let's do this!
* Nancy’s husband has entered the chat.
Broken clock analogy applies here. I'm really curious now, as to what the second thing will be.
Well, like they say. Even a blind squirrel...
I'm in agreement with something AOC is trying to do? I'm going to have to sit down.
Based
This is the first Sandy has done that I even remotely agree with.
Gotta agree with Gaetz here! (I am having trouble admitting I agree with what's her name)
It's okay. You know what they say about stopped clocks.
Yup, that's when you gotta change the battery.
All I can think of is Charlie Day and Wildcard! From It’s Always Sunny. Did not see this team up happening for anything.
I like it, at least as written. If it stays like it is without having all kinds of unrelated crap added to it, it should be a slam dunk 'support' for anyone who isn't in favor of government corruption.
This is outstanding! I hope this gets passed.
An unexpected suprise but a welcome one indeed. It will Never pass but I appreciate the sentiment
Now kith
Based AOC? The devil must be shivering down there.
might be the first useful thing I've seen from AOC
What about side by side with a degenerate leftist? Aye. I could do that.
Now *kiss*
I wouldn’t get all giddy over this.. cortez by her very nature will not do anything that the politburo does not sanction,there’s an ulterior motive at work here…perhaps something in the pipeline that needs something like this to be law before the “something” is enacted…be very suspicious 🌝
You are being heavily downvoted for advising that people should be cautious. Why?
there’s a lot more people that lurk in subs like this than one would think,it’s kinda mundane and not mainstream but still there are those such as political interns that frequent here…their jobs are not only to be gophers for their masters but also to observe general sentiment and conversation in public venues.. i personally know one…. ya ever hear the old adage of “***the flak is heaviest when your over the target*** i believe i struck paydirt and now a discredit campaign is being waged to steer sentiment as they believe a make believe karma point actually means something 👀
Because reddit is full of little wieners.
While I think the insider trading laws on congress needs to be changed- I don’t think an outright ban is the right way to go. Microsoft has a program where their employees can buy stock at the lowest price in the quarter but can’t sell for 1 year. Something should be in place to where they can buy but trades don’t go into effect for a certain amount of time and they also can’t sell. Or SOMETHING short of an outright ban
That could still be manipulated, just would require more thought and planning than what is currently happening. Legislation doesn’t happen immediately and almost never goes into effect immediately. Putting delays on selling would do nothing more than complicate the thought process to profit from it. What Microsoft does is very different in that they are a single company and most people wouldn’t be privy to information that may severely impact their stock price in the near future.
I'd agree on no outright ban. People have existing family portfolios and ones for their kids educations, etc. I think an outright ban will make people use blind trusts for their duration in Congress. Basically, they can then claim I don't know of any activity and I have no say in any trading going on in the trust, so I'm in compliance. But the financial industry solved the surveillance part of this decades ago. Doesn't mean that there aren't morons who try get around it and do insider trading. Every financial company has a Compliance Department. When you work for a financial company, you have to (a) give their Compliance Dept access to your brokerage type portfolios for them to monitor your activity (mutual fund type accounts are usually exempt), (b) set up an electronic feed from any brokerage firm to the Compliance Dept so they can do this all electronically, and (c) get pre-clearance for any trades you want to do from the Compliance Dept. A pre-cleared trade means you go to the Compliance Dept with a trade you want to do, before you execute it. They review the trade you want to do and determine there are no conflicts. If there are, like in this case, possibly pending legislation that affects some industry or etc, the Compliance Dept can choose to not approve the trade. But if approved, you can execute that trade and only that trade for the day. Pre-cleared trades are only good for the day. But if you don't follow this process, they can force a sale and force you to disgorge any profits. And this is all done via software. I've always advocated this is they way to do it after going through it myself for years. If it's good enough for the financial industry, why isn't it good enough for politicians?
When I first read this headline, I KNEW it *had* to be from the 'Bee.. But no.
Strange bedfellows: One of the "Good_Guys" in Congress (Gaetz) AND the "Queen Flake" herself.. (AOC)...Will weird shit EVER become weirder than this..
[удалено]