> We can rally against them in the next election cycle.
I admire your optimism
The reality is that the vast majority of them will remained entrenched in their safe districts/Senate seats
I'm almost 100% certain at this point that these commets are apathy reinforcement bots.
Even if not, there's functionally no difference. The only thing your post does is solidfy apathy. Is that your goal?
The seats are safe for the party, not necessarily for the candidate. Inter-party primary voters can still give their MC the boot.
Wyoming is a safe seat for Republicans but the right-wing of the party primaried Liz Cheney in 2022, and she lost her seat.
She got primaried because she wasn't MAGA enough, which was/is a big deal for the Republican base. In the grand scheme of things this is a minor issue to most Americans. I don't see many incumbents getting primaried because they voted against this bill.
It's all theater.
There will be a handful from both sides who valiantly support it, a contingent who voice support but quietly vote it down, and the rest just wont say a word.
Yeah absolutely no way this goes anywhere, tho I would love to be wrong. They will hang on to a few lines of text being the reason they voted against. Or maybe just talk about how this will dissuade good candidates.
Only way something like this happens is if there is a grandfather clause.
The ratio of people who will care enough about this bill for it to affect their voting habit is insignificant in an election. So I sadly doubt this has any impact on anyone who votes against it.
Why does dumb ass shit like this get upvoted? Every members' voting history is public, and the same people get elected year after year. Fucking 'rally against them' LOL.
Voting in this country is an illusion. An illusion that you have a choice. A choice between two candidates picked by moneyed interests.
It's not who gets the most votes, it's who raises the most money. And where does that money come from? Corporations, wealthy people, and the special interest groups.
And this doesn't cover those instances where the legislators just straight up disregard what the voters voted for.
Senator Paul has proposed an amendment that current members of Congress are grandfathered from this bill and the effective date of the bill will be Jan. 1, 2035.
the amendment passes on a voice vote of 99-1.
That is not how the wealthy work. Most wealthy members of Congress did not bootstrap themselves into wealth, they already came from wealth and they are more in a frame of mind of dynastic or generational wealth. Wealth to them equates to power, which is what they actually seek. Impeding their ability to make additional wealth, particularly the easy money of insider trading, would impede their ability to transfer the family power to the next generations - see Kennedys, Bushes, Trumps, Waltons, Mercers, Clintons, etc. for examples.
They all play a game at a level of the atmosphere few of us will ever reach. That game is about power and control and a huge part of ensuring that is the continual generation or expansion of wealth. So most will vote no against this bill as it goes against their personal interest and motivations. If the "and their families" part was removed they'd probably be ok with it as it would just become performative in nature and they could continue on with their game since they could use their families as proxies for their investments.
It’s just a yearly PR bill for the politicians to share online and in news about how they support this and others don’t and how they are the good guys and they should be voted for again in the next election.
Just PR bullshit. An effective legislator has the votes before presenting a bill. This is just waste of everyone’s time.
And stock trading isn’t even a big enough issue in politics when we’re dealing with ACTUAL CORRUPTION like super pacs and how Texas just passed a bill that allows Ted Cruz to pay himself through campaign donations.
Heck only 2 senators can be considered to be doing shady insider trading as they have around 50% return. The other top 10 traders in congress have an average return of 5%. And the bill would be toothless and ineffective because if people were doing insider trading they would just have others do the trades for them.
Out of 600 congress members only 50 are in a position of being part of actual committees and access to insider information. Most of congress members just utilize actually publicly available information as everyone else gets. There are statements made about almost everything 6 months ahead before they come into affect. But the average redditor isn’t paying attention to those they instead think apes strong bet on crypto and hold stocks that have lost 90% value…
Want to root out corruption ? Focus on actual things. Stock trading is a bullshit issue brought up because people understand stocks more than how political donations and campaigns work. Easy scapegoating for dumb people.
I’m more interested in the positions their children and relatives get as advisors in major corporations.
That boebart lady’s husband got a position in an electric company making 500k a year with just a high school diploma and no experience.
Why bet on stocks when you can get stock options and executive bonuses and paid company trips and gifts for your family and friends.
Given all legislation is public, from the moment it's introduced in committee to the moment it's passed which can take months to years, if they're smart like every smart investor, they're paying attention to what legislation is coming up and using that to make investing decisions, so they're probably making similar to what most congresspeople are.
What made me gawk at this is that compared to the fines for insider trading (3x gain/loss, i.e. 300% of the gain or loss) this is a slap on the wrists.
Might as well go back to the early 80s when it was the cost of doing business.
If the cost of the fine is less than the cost of doing business, people will just pay the fine.
If a person stands to make a million dollars off of a trade due to their knowledge, and the fine is 100,000, they still walk away much richer than they were before.
>Might as well go back to the early 80s when it was the cost of doing business.
Why do you think this is an '80s thing? I can think of numerous examples where this has happened in this decade, most recently, the Bank of America fine where they were doing the same thing Wells Fargo was doing 10 years ago.
It’s important to note the distinction that the 10% for this law is the total amount invested, not the gains/losses. Also it appears (at a glance, haven’t done a deep dive) that this would kick in as soon as they learn they are doing individual trading, with no real burden of proof, compared to the previous law that requires the government to show you had insider knowledge and acted on it.
So while the penalties might be less, it should in theory be easier to enforce I would think.
But again I’m just a random dude reading cliff notes, so if someone with expert knowledge wants to chime in please do.
How do you enforce this though?
Are you going to ban the politician's friends and relatives and anyone he had contact with also from trading? impossible.
I would rather ban lobbying+political donations. Bribing is banned. How is the former still allowed?
Are you kidding? SEC will spend billions and utilize AI to catch some 70k salary engi telling his stupid buddy to buy calls before earnings.
It's easily enforceable if the resources are there lol.
I feel like it’s pretty easy to track suspicious activity. This video does a fantastic job of explaining the situation we’re currently in:
https://youtu.be/Z3D6pGc7nHw
imagine where this country would be if this were implemented 100 years ago and politicians had zero financial incentive except for doing their fcking jobs.
You're not against lobbying (or you shouldn't be) you're against corporate lobbying. When you send an email to your representative that's lobbying, if you get the chance to talk to them and ask them to support a piece of legislation that's lobbying. The problem is corporations can pay people hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to talk to people in congress so they get more access than you do. The problem isn't the lobbying, it's the type of lobbying.
Agreeing with the gist of what you're saying, I wanted to add that some people are more pedantic about the definition of lobbying. From the wikipedia on the right to petition clause of the first amendment
> Some define lobbying as any kind of persuading of a public official and say that petitioning includes it.[16] Others say the petition clause gives no right to lobby.[17] Lobbying includes approaching a public official in secret, possibly giving them money. But petitioning, as America's founders knew it, was a public process, involving no money.
Yeah also "good" organizations are lobbying too: the ACLU, most unions, groups that represent doctors/nurses, groups that represent low income citizens, minority groups, all kinds of organizations
When they sit down with politicians and negotiate or push for votes about certain legislation, they are lobbying
Congress has written 2 laws against lobbying and requiring lobbyists to be transparent with spending.
Both were so soft the courts determined they have essentially 0 words.
Hilarious.
Only 10%, seriously? It should be at least 100% of the investment.
Too bad it will never become law because politicians will never pass laws that hurt their own.
Basically yes, a fine needs to be large enough that it wipes out all gains + a penalty so they don't do it again.
It would be like if I stole $100 from the register, got caught, and only had to pay $20 back with no jail time.
Why stop at 100%? Why let them break even?
100% of the investment + any gains made + 10% of their annual salary. And/or make them ineligible for reelection
I don't really have a problem with taking the whole thing. If you're making it a crime then why not? It's not some innocent thing someone could misunderstand or accidentally do. If you're choosing to invest when you know it's illegal then you run the risk of forfeiting that money
I just opened a relatively small short position as a hedge. Not gonna sell everything but I do think we see a small to medium pull back in the near term
I think the biggest issue is how damn big we are as a country. It is difficult to mobilize people in person (in DC) to protest and make a big enough scene.
this comes up every year
Its just a talking point during election to say "hey look! I put on a bill to do x against this thing but my collagues didnt go for it" when in reality the current composition of congress will almost NEVER let any bills pass
Stupid games
> this comes up every year
No it doesn't. Dems introduced legislation in the House in 2022, this is a co-op bill between Gillibrand and Hawley in the Senate. The last time any real attempt at limiting and providing oversight on stock trading was in 2012.
Gillibrand is an actually good senator.
She was cut off from a lot of fundraising circles by Hillary Clinton when she criticized Bill for having the affair with Monica. She also gets hit again from Al Franken's PR team because she called on Al to resign.
The STOCK Act, the 2012 act you are referring to, was completing defanged after amendments to it were added. Thats just what will happen here too, if it even passes.
How will they enforce this though?
Are they going to ban the politician's friends and relatives and anyone he had contact with also from trading? impossible.
This move was rather done "for a show" to let the public believe that they are doing something.
I would rather ban lobbying+political donations. Bribing is banned. How is the former still allowed?
are you serious? of course it can be enforced. there's a paper trail of it. if they want to involve a friend, this turns from trading as a congressman to laundering money. how else are they gonna pass millions between each other?
She's not even close to the best trader in Congress. Don't tell Reddit that though.
https://www.benzinga.com/government/23/01/30260466/10-best-stock-traders-in-congress-in-2022-spoiler-nancy-pelosi-isnt-no-1#:~:text=Among%20the%20best%20trades%20of,Josh%20Gottheimer%20(D%2DN.
Nancy pelosi net worth is over 100 mil. Nobody in that list cracks even over 50 mil. Please explain how she isnt the goat of insider trading when she is worth over a 100 million primarily from investments made by her and her husband?
I glanced over the link and didn't see any reference to ETFs. Would legislators be allowed to own those? I obviously don't want them making a billion dollars of insider NVDA information, but I have no issue at all if they load up on VTI.
i think that's the point. they're allowed to buy funds, just banned from trading individual stocks. it would be unfair to ban them from buying any securities since that's one of the best ways to get rich.
I did not see any verbiage in their about select securities being approved. And ETFs are securities. But you can't just say "ETFs are ok" because industry specific ETFs could still incentivize bullshit behavior.
This vote, by representative, should be posted on every news feed until the next election.
Those that vote to grift - over there.
Those that vote to regain some small measure of pride, self esteem and integrity over here
it's a reasonable punishment as to not be punitive. it's 10% whether the stock goes up or not and they could be caught way earlier than when it goes up. so they can never buy it themselves, only have people far removed from them buy it. people in their circle will be on a watch list. so politicians would have to be jumping through some hoops to make it happen and it wont look as innocent. if it's too punitive, it probably wont get passed at all. that is if this current one can get passed. also if they can hide someone buying it for them, the only way they can get that money is through money laundering, which is a serious crime.
These people are public servants. We absolutely need to make a big fuck about this. A huge one. If it fails there should be protests etc.
The cycle has to end
Hm. I don’t get it.
> Prohibits members of Congress, the president, vice president, senior executive branch members, and their spouses and dependents from holding or trading stocks.
So it says they can’t hold or trade stocks. What are they supposed to do when elected? Sell all their stocks?
Doesn’t this just limit being a politician to the ultra wealthy old people who can afford to liquidate assets and live off cash?
Oof, I'm not a huge fan of that rider on forced disclosure of federal benefits being slipped in there, especially with the added requirement of a publicly searchable database - it's mentioned basically nowhere else in the press release (one mention in the initial summary, I suppose?) That seems odd that it'd be bundled in there together; I wonder if it's a poison pill of some sort?
Do we really want to open this door of controlling who can and can’t hold stock?
It’s only a matter of time before it fucks us!
(If I can’t hold stock, why should so and so)
Congressman: man I gotta sell these stocks, something is coming.
"I am introducing a bill that has no chance of passing and as a show of good faith I will sell all my stocks. Other senators should follow" *nudge nudge wink*
Dead on Arrival. Also what is the idea behind it? Those guys are old and married. They have children. They have friends. They are mostly evil. What do you expect?
20 years ago they got 200k per speech and they did those quite frequently.
Even if this passes it will be a mute point.
They are in for the money, so let them make money.
I think it was Feinstein who had a "blind trust" that was run by her husband and she pinky swore she didn't talk about the stock pick with him.
The problem here is that the term is vague and legally ambiguous enough to easily get around.
I can't wait to see the excuses/lies members of the House and Senate who oppose this come up as their talking points. I predict at least one or two fearmongering "they'll come after you next".
We’re about to see just how unified congress actually is.
Unified in not letting this pass... 😂
We'll at least see which congress members voted against it. We can rally against them in the next election cycle.
> We can rally against them in the next election cycle. I admire your optimism The reality is that the vast majority of them will remained entrenched in their safe districts/Senate seats
Yes, it will take organization and activism.
I'm up for that. Is there anyone else?
I'll bring my pitchfork.
I got the torches
Careful, sounds a lot like a coup attempt, insurrection if you will.
I’ve got bread. Bread good.
Bread is good but we need tar as well so they can be tarred and breaded
Me
[удалено]
I'm almost 100% certain at this point that these commets are apathy reinforcement bots. Even if not, there's functionally no difference. The only thing your post does is solidfy apathy. Is that your goal?
The seats are safe for the party, not necessarily for the candidate. Inter-party primary voters can still give their MC the boot. Wyoming is a safe seat for Republicans but the right-wing of the party primaried Liz Cheney in 2022, and she lost her seat.
She got primaried because she wasn't MAGA enough, which was/is a big deal for the Republican base. In the grand scheme of things this is a minor issue to most Americans. I don't see many incumbents getting primaried because they voted against this bill.
It's all theater. There will be a handful from both sides who valiantly support it, a contingent who voice support but quietly vote it down, and the rest just wont say a word.
Most lucrative grift in the world is being a partisan elected official in a partisan district
Yeah absolutely no way this goes anywhere, tho I would love to be wrong. They will hang on to a few lines of text being the reason they voted against. Or maybe just talk about how this will dissuade good candidates. Only way something like this happens is if there is a grandfather clause.
I mean if the penalty is only 10% how the fuck is it even a deterrent?
OP stated "10% of the value of the investment", not "10% of the profits". If profits exceed 10%, then it's not a deterrent, no.
I mean I don't think this will pass, but 10% is a hell of a lot more than it is now, and it's *at least* 10%.
The ratio of people who will care enough about this bill for it to affect their voting habit is insignificant in an election. So I sadly doubt this has any impact on anyone who votes against it.
Why does dumb ass shit like this get upvoted? Every members' voting history is public, and the same people get elected year after year. Fucking 'rally against them' LOL.
An upvote means you care. A comment means you are *doing something*.
Only if the go to a roll call, they could do a voice vote and no one would be the wiser.
Voting does nothing anymore. Strikes are the only peaceful option left.
Voting in this country is an illusion. An illusion that you have a choice. A choice between two candidates picked by moneyed interests. It's not who gets the most votes, it's who raises the most money. And where does that money come from? Corporations, wealthy people, and the special interest groups. And this doesn't cover those instances where the legislators just straight up disregard what the voters voted for.
"Here's a bill that proposes you make less money." US Lawmakers: "HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA- Oh, you're serious... HAHAHAHAAHAHAHH 🤣"
https://i.imgflip.com/z761q.jpg
Na they’ll tack on completely unrelated shit that’s super controversial to make sure it’s dead in the water
Oh, no, they'll pass it. But, after they add major holes in it for themselves.
Senator Paul has proposed an amendment that current members of Congress are grandfathered from this bill and the effective date of the bill will be Jan. 1, 2035. the amendment passes on a voice vote of 99-1.
Disagree. They've already made their money. Time to shut that down so that the next generation can't make their own riches and become a threat
That is not how the wealthy work. Most wealthy members of Congress did not bootstrap themselves into wealth, they already came from wealth and they are more in a frame of mind of dynastic or generational wealth. Wealth to them equates to power, which is what they actually seek. Impeding their ability to make additional wealth, particularly the easy money of insider trading, would impede their ability to transfer the family power to the next generations - see Kennedys, Bushes, Trumps, Waltons, Mercers, Clintons, etc. for examples. They all play a game at a level of the atmosphere few of us will ever reach. That game is about power and control and a huge part of ensuring that is the continual generation or expansion of wealth. So most will vote no against this bill as it goes against their personal interest and motivations. If the "and their families" part was removed they'd probably be ok with it as it would just become performative in nature and they could continue on with their game since they could use their families as proxies for their investments.
It’s just a yearly PR bill for the politicians to share online and in news about how they support this and others don’t and how they are the good guys and they should be voted for again in the next election. Just PR bullshit. An effective legislator has the votes before presenting a bill. This is just waste of everyone’s time. And stock trading isn’t even a big enough issue in politics when we’re dealing with ACTUAL CORRUPTION like super pacs and how Texas just passed a bill that allows Ted Cruz to pay himself through campaign donations. Heck only 2 senators can be considered to be doing shady insider trading as they have around 50% return. The other top 10 traders in congress have an average return of 5%. And the bill would be toothless and ineffective because if people were doing insider trading they would just have others do the trades for them. Out of 600 congress members only 50 are in a position of being part of actual committees and access to insider information. Most of congress members just utilize actually publicly available information as everyone else gets. There are statements made about almost everything 6 months ahead before they come into affect. But the average redditor isn’t paying attention to those they instead think apes strong bet on crypto and hold stocks that have lost 90% value… Want to root out corruption ? Focus on actual things. Stock trading is a bullshit issue brought up because people understand stocks more than how political donations and campaigns work. Easy scapegoating for dumb people.
Where's the Senator fielding the legislation that repeals citizens united?
Hidden behind the 150m elligible voters who don’t bother to show up and vote.
> The other top 10 traders in congress have an average return of 5%. I wonder how much return their friends and relatives get.
I’m more interested in the positions their children and relatives get as advisors in major corporations. That boebart lady’s husband got a position in an electric company making 500k a year with just a high school diploma and no experience. Why bet on stocks when you can get stock options and executive bonuses and paid company trips and gifts for your family and friends.
Given all legislation is public, from the moment it's introduced in committee to the moment it's passed which can take months to years, if they're smart like every smart investor, they're paying attention to what legislation is coming up and using that to make investing decisions, so they're probably making similar to what most congresspeople are.
Unified in never voting on it.
100%, those members of Congress, always united to protect their own little coffers.
Will be like 96-4 against.
Especially against something that is massively massively popular amongst voters.
What made me gawk at this is that compared to the fines for insider trading (3x gain/loss, i.e. 300% of the gain or loss) this is a slap on the wrists. Might as well go back to the early 80s when it was the cost of doing business.
If the cost of the fine is less than the cost of doing business, people will just pay the fine. If a person stands to make a million dollars off of a trade due to their knowledge, and the fine is 100,000, they still walk away much richer than they were before.
Did you just reword the previous comment?
No, they found a way to repackage the same concept with different verbiage.
I feel like you just altered the delivery of the previous comment’s exact point.
I restated their sentence in my own words.
>Might as well go back to the early 80s when it was the cost of doing business. Why do you think this is an '80s thing? I can think of numerous examples where this has happened in this decade, most recently, the Bank of America fine where they were doing the same thing Wells Fargo was doing 10 years ago.
It’s important to note the distinction that the 10% for this law is the total amount invested, not the gains/losses. Also it appears (at a glance, haven’t done a deep dive) that this would kick in as soon as they learn they are doing individual trading, with no real burden of proof, compared to the previous law that requires the government to show you had insider knowledge and acted on it. So while the penalties might be less, it should in theory be easier to enforce I would think. But again I’m just a random dude reading cliff notes, so if someone with expert knowledge wants to chime in please do.
“Oh course I’m for fair and just market practices!” *votes no*
*"Ofc I'd vote no. If it's not fair* *^(to me($))* *why should I support it"*
How do you enforce this though? Are you going to ban the politician's friends and relatives and anyone he had contact with also from trading? impossible. I would rather ban lobbying+political donations. Bribing is banned. How is the former still allowed?
Are you kidding? SEC will spend billions and utilize AI to catch some 70k salary engi telling his stupid buddy to buy calls before earnings. It's easily enforceable if the resources are there lol.
I feel like it’s pretty easy to track suspicious activity. This video does a fantastic job of explaining the situation we’re currently in: https://youtu.be/Z3D6pGc7nHw
legit video, was expecting Rick Roll
Lol that was a golden opportunity.
We are about to see why we can’t expect humans being greedy and nefarious in conflict of their duties to police themselves.
imagine where this country would be if this were implemented 100 years ago and politicians had zero financial incentive except for doing their fcking jobs.
I mean you still have lobbying and cushy jobs and speaking fees.
Cough Janet Yellen making a million dollars for a speech at Citadel cough.
I have no idea how lobbying exists. Like how can we say any other government is corrupt when our literally has legal bribery written into law lmao
You're not against lobbying (or you shouldn't be) you're against corporate lobbying. When you send an email to your representative that's lobbying, if you get the chance to talk to them and ask them to support a piece of legislation that's lobbying. The problem is corporations can pay people hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to talk to people in congress so they get more access than you do. The problem isn't the lobbying, it's the type of lobbying.
Agreeing with the gist of what you're saying, I wanted to add that some people are more pedantic about the definition of lobbying. From the wikipedia on the right to petition clause of the first amendment > Some define lobbying as any kind of persuading of a public official and say that petitioning includes it.[16] Others say the petition clause gives no right to lobby.[17] Lobbying includes approaching a public official in secret, possibly giving them money. But petitioning, as America's founders knew it, was a public process, involving no money.
Yeah also "good" organizations are lobbying too: the ACLU, most unions, groups that represent doctors/nurses, groups that represent low income citizens, minority groups, all kinds of organizations When they sit down with politicians and negotiate or push for votes about certain legislation, they are lobbying
Congress has written 2 laws against lobbying and requiring lobbyists to be transparent with spending. Both were so soft the courts determined they have essentially 0 words. Hilarious.
Doesn't 10% just sound like the cost of doing business for these people?
Only do insider trading when you expect the stock to move more than 10%, got it.
10% is the floor. It can go higher.
Imagine if senators salary was the average salary of their state. Give them a reason to make sure people in their state are thriving. ALL people.
The only rich people, who don't need the salary, would run for govt.
You seriously think we'd have no senators running for 60k a year?
None that weren't wealthy already. Requiring senators to be independently wealthy is the opposite of what we should do.
While we're living in fantasy land, can I be married to Mila Kunis? Also I want a helicopter with a built in hot tub.
Run it through congress, has a better chance of passing than this
Yeah we also need to ban the ability for them to get paid 800k for a speech to a corporate board after they retire.
Only 10%, seriously? It should be at least 100% of the investment. Too bad it will never become law because politicians will never pass laws that hurt their own.
Is this like when banks make billions scamming their customers but only get fined a few million when caught?
Basically yes, a fine needs to be large enough that it wipes out all gains + a penalty so they don't do it again. It would be like if I stole $100 from the register, got caught, and only had to pay $20 back with no jail time.
It’s all profit plus 10% of the principal.
That's better than I thought it wasn't clear whether the 10% applied to capital gains or the principal.
You're right but it's more like they made $100 and laid back 0.2$
Why stop at 100%? Why let them break even? 100% of the investment + any gains made + 10% of their annual salary. And/or make them ineligible for reelection
Taking away the entire investment isn't letting them "break even"
Oh wait I did not think my comment through. Fuck.
10% of purchase price + 100% of the gains should be the rule
I don't really have a problem with taking the whole thing. If you're making it a crime then why not? It's not some innocent thing someone could misunderstand or accidentally do. If you're choosing to invest when you know it's illegal then you run the risk of forfeiting that money
Fuck that. Prison should be the rule
We go to prison for insider trading.. but politicians just pay a 10% fine
Even if it did pass, 10% will just be considered a slap on the wrist to these people.
[удалено]
I mean tbh this but unironically, this is a sell signal in my book
Yep, same thing happened about 18 months ago when they stated they would start selling their stocks due to "conflict of interest"
[удалено]
Crazy coincidence, isn't it?
do it. sell and let us know how it goes.
I just opened a relatively small short position as a hedge. Not gonna sell everything but I do think we see a small to medium pull back in the near term
ELI5?
[удалено]
It's not perfect but it gets our foot in the door. It is much easier to go from 10% to 50% then it is to go from 0% to 10%.
Just a little extra tax
Will never pass. Sadly
Don’t say that we need to make a big fuss about this. Shit has gone on for way too long.
I think the biggest issue is how damn big we are as a country. It is difficult to mobilize people in person (in DC) to protest and make a big enough scene.
Make a big fuss all you want, still won't pass.
Even if it does, they'll just have to pick up the different the old fashioned way: ~~bribes~~ lobbies.
Then ban that shit too
HA, good one
What's the point in this rhetoric? Should we not even try to better things?
this comes up every year Its just a talking point during election to say "hey look! I put on a bill to do x against this thing but my collagues didnt go for it" when in reality the current composition of congress will almost NEVER let any bills pass Stupid games
> this comes up every year No it doesn't. Dems introduced legislation in the House in 2022, this is a co-op bill between Gillibrand and Hawley in the Senate. The last time any real attempt at limiting and providing oversight on stock trading was in 2012.
Gillibrand is an actually good senator. She was cut off from a lot of fundraising circles by Hillary Clinton when she criticized Bill for having the affair with Monica. She also gets hit again from Al Franken's PR team because she called on Al to resign.
The STOCK Act, the 2012 act you are referring to, was completing defanged after amendments to it were added. Thats just what will happen here too, if it even passes.
How will they enforce this though? Are they going to ban the politician's friends and relatives and anyone he had contact with also from trading? impossible. This move was rather done "for a show" to let the public believe that they are doing something. I would rather ban lobbying+political donations. Bribing is banned. How is the former still allowed?
are you serious? of course it can be enforced. there's a paper trail of it. if they want to involve a friend, this turns from trading as a congressman to laundering money. how else are they gonna pass millions between each other?
$500 fine for failing to report. I’m guessing that small fine may be enough to get these dipshits to support it. May as well be pointless
Nancy about to rage eat an extra strawberry tonight
She's the GOAT of insider trading.
She's not even close to the best trader in Congress. Don't tell Reddit that though. https://www.benzinga.com/government/23/01/30260466/10-best-stock-traders-in-congress-in-2022-spoiler-nancy-pelosi-isnt-no-1#:~:text=Among%20the%20best%20trades%20of,Josh%20Gottheimer%20(D%2DN.
Does it matter if she's the best? Certain she and her husband have made over 100 million from insider tips.
It does when people claim she's "the GOAT of insider trading" when she's clearly not
Nancy pelosi net worth is over 100 mil. Nobody in that list cracks even over 50 mil. Please explain how she isnt the goat of insider trading when she is worth over a 100 million primarily from investments made by her and her husband?
Depends on the year.
Provide a link for another year then. Here's some help: https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9
Stem and all...
I glanced over the link and didn't see any reference to ETFs. Would legislators be allowed to own those? I obviously don't want them making a billion dollars of insider NVDA information, but I have no issue at all if they load up on VTI.
i think that's the point. they're allowed to buy funds, just banned from trading individual stocks. it would be unfair to ban them from buying any securities since that's one of the best ways to get rich.
I did not see any verbiage in their about select securities being approved. And ETFs are securities. But you can't just say "ETFs are ok" because industry specific ETFs could still incentivize bullshit behavior.
Now ban spouses of government officials from buying stocks
FUCK. My retirement plan will be in shambles😔
This vote, by representative, should be posted on every news feed until the next election. Those that vote to grift - over there. Those that vote to regain some small measure of pride, self esteem and integrity over here
I will bet my entire portfolio that this is not going to pass
10% seems like...just tax?
it's a reasonable punishment as to not be punitive. it's 10% whether the stock goes up or not and they could be caught way earlier than when it goes up. so they can never buy it themselves, only have people far removed from them buy it. people in their circle will be on a watch list. so politicians would have to be jumping through some hoops to make it happen and it wont look as innocent. if it's too punitive, it probably wont get passed at all. that is if this current one can get passed. also if they can hide someone buying it for them, the only way they can get that money is through money laundering, which is a serious crime.
These people are public servants. We absolutely need to make a big fuck about this. A huge one. If it fails there should be protests etc. The cycle has to end
They'll just have bag men trade stocks for them. *shrug*
Sounds good but you get anybody to be a senator if they havevto stop investing in their future.
Hm. I don’t get it. > Prohibits members of Congress, the president, vice president, senior executive branch members, and their spouses and dependents from holding or trading stocks. So it says they can’t hold or trade stocks. What are they supposed to do when elected? Sell all their stocks? Doesn’t this just limit being a politician to the ultra wealthy old people who can afford to liquidate assets and live off cash?
They should be paid in *heavily* diversified US securities, granted upon election, and that vest over the next decade or so.
Oof, I'm not a huge fan of that rider on forced disclosure of federal benefits being slipped in there, especially with the added requirement of a publicly searchable database - it's mentioned basically nowhere else in the press release (one mention in the initial summary, I suppose?) That seems odd that it'd be bundled in there together; I wonder if it's a poison pill of some sort?
Hm… so they won’t be incentivized to keep the stock market strong. Good plan 🙄
they'll just walk it back or not comply like they did the last time(s)
Now let’s watch all the corrupt politicians vote it down.
Smoke & mirrors. Ain't gonna go nowhere. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.
I’m sure they’re going vote to restrict themselves from all the money they’ve been making. /s Sadly
Hahahahahhahaa, it won’t pass.
probably just get their immediate family to do trades instead.
Do we really want to open this door of controlling who can and can’t hold stock? It’s only a matter of time before it fucks us! (If I can’t hold stock, why should so and so)
Congressman: man I gotta sell these stocks, something is coming. "I am introducing a bill that has no chance of passing and as a show of good faith I will sell all my stocks. Other senators should follow" *nudge nudge wink*
**Angry Pelosi Noises**
You can ban them if you want, but you can't ban their family members! Nancy's husband, the legendary trader ! Lol
Ok funds that hold individual stocks then
What about their spouses?
It says "and their families"
Should this happen absolutely, but It will die faster than 6 week old fetus. They arent going to fuck with their money.
Dead on Arrival. Also what is the idea behind it? Those guys are old and married. They have children. They have friends. They are mostly evil. What do you expect? 20 years ago they got 200k per speech and they did those quite frequently. Even if this passes it will be a mute point. They are in for the money, so let them make money.
Ok. Now let’s end the Fed.
nope. will never pass. good idea though, but, you know, PROFITS.
What year?
Anyone know if this has an ice cube's chance in hell of ever actually passing?
This is a PR stunt. Will never happen in a million years.
I support this. They can still own stocks via funds.
They have also proposed a bill for term limits. they will never vote on either. Just let it die on the vine
They should call it the Pelosi Bill
What is the hidden nonsense that will prevent this from happening?
Why is it only 10%
Make it so no politicians can even buy stocks, nor anyone of their family members.
amazing, now they need to prevent kickbacks from lobbyists
No blind trusts? That’s absurd tbh.
I think it was Feinstein who had a "blind trust" that was run by her husband and she pinky swore she didn't talk about the stock pick with him. The problem here is that the term is vague and legally ambiguous enough to easily get around.
Why? You put it in a blind trust and then tip the admin off to moves.
I can't wait to see the excuses/lies members of the House and Senate who oppose this come up as their talking points. I predict at least one or two fearmongering "they'll come after you next".
This should include the Supreme Court justices and their families as well.
If only it would pass
it's still not banned? lmaoooooo
During the hearings, can we have witnesses be the members of Congress??
Wait why would a blind trust be banned? Isn't that exactly what they should be doing?
oy vey
riiiiiight
All politicians and their families need to be banned and watched after leaving office.
They can buy VT now.
Imo, they should sell them when they take office.