You can't stop bribes without making legislative votes secret again. There's always a way to thread kickbacks to skirt any law. The only solution is to remove the feedback mechanism.
I suspect you're probably right to be apprehensive, but it's a slight step forward from a few months back when they were signaling that a bill wasn't necessary. Progress, I guess?
To throw dust in voters’ eyes. And make it harder to get people in congress indicted for insider trading.
Oh I was following ex rule which allows me to give nudges via that pathway to my investment portfolio.
Well, they do ultimately depend on the voters believing that they will have some kind of integrity. If they have to go up against a challenger in the fall who says, "Senator X is so corrupt they voted to continue insider trading for themselves", that's a risk they have to manage.
It's not an automatic win for the opponent. Some people are incensed by it, but I don't think it's really on anybody's top 10 list. ("The economy" is always #1. Currently, guns and crime are #2 and #3. "Size and scope of the federal government" is the closest item on the list, and it's #11.)
No matter where you think their self-interest lies, it always runs through keeping their voters happy. Voters hate Congress in general but are usually strongly in favor of their own representatives. Challengers use anything they can to upset this, and there's a wedge issue here.
One other thing: most legislators don't get any of the access they would need to seriously inform trades. A few do, and they tend to be on the most powerful committees -- meaning they have seniority, which means their constituents like them a lot and aren't easily deterred by things like this. But other Congresspeople aren't relying on making money this way and aren't necessarily fans of those who are (even within their own party).
Elected officials currently brazenly violate insider trading laws with impunity, there’s no reason to think the law would be applied equally to them when we make their spouses and children do the insider trading instead.
Did you read the article… it specifically mentions that their spouses and dependent children are included. So that would mean another third party would do the trading.
I thought that courts ruled that insider trading laws don’t apply to the elected officials who can (and do) get far more information, far earlier than anyone else? Which is a delightful level of BS, but means that such actions aren’t “breaking the law” because… reasons?
The correct course of action would be to say, sure you can trade on info you receive, however your instructions must be made publicly available, and say 7 days ahead of time, and the instructions cannot be rescinded.
I don't necessarily want to see bans on it, I just want existing insider trading laws to be enforced and those with strike rates 7x higher than Warren Buffett to be investigated.
28 comments
[ 116 ms ] story [ 535 ms ] threadWhy?
To throw dust in voters’ eyes. And make it harder to get people in congress indicted for insider trading. Oh I was following ex rule which allows me to give nudges via that pathway to my investment portfolio.
It's not an automatic win for the opponent. Some people are incensed by it, but I don't think it's really on anybody's top 10 list. ("The economy" is always #1. Currently, guns and crime are #2 and #3. "Size and scope of the federal government" is the closest item on the list, and it's #11.)
No matter where you think their self-interest lies, it always runs through keeping their voters happy. Voters hate Congress in general but are usually strongly in favor of their own representatives. Challengers use anything they can to upset this, and there's a wedge issue here.
One other thing: most legislators don't get any of the access they would need to seriously inform trades. A few do, and they tend to be on the most powerful committees -- meaning they have seniority, which means their constituents like them a lot and aren't easily deterred by things like this. But other Congresspeople aren't relying on making money this way and aren't necessarily fans of those who are (even within their own party).
https://nypost.com/2022/01/18/its-not-just-nancy-pelosi-plen...
The correct course of action would be to say, sure you can trade on info you receive, however your instructions must be made publicly available, and say 7 days ahead of time, and the instructions cannot be rescinded.
start with the biggest one and work your way down