House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#101

Post by rococode » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

mfer wrote: post #74

Sevii wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's do a trade. Congress people get paid 1mil/year adjusted for inflation plus pension, but in return they don't get to own stocks or real estate while they are in office.

> they don't get to own stocks or real estate So, they can't own a home in a location they represent? I don't see that going over well. Your primary home is real estate. So is that little family cottage. Also, congressional reps need to have a home is Washington. So, they have to rent there?

That's pretty trivial to work around... you can own one primary residence, and one additional residence in DC. You can't own 10 buildings.

That said, I don't think real estate is as easily abused as stocks. Much harder to influence the value.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#102

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

tootallgavin wrote: post #53

ziddoap wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere? Am I mistaken? I thought most political position are paid positions. Currently north of $150,000 USD for members of congress, I think?

And so how do these members of congress pay for staffing, research, etc? with just 150K per year?

> And so how do these members of congress pay for staffing, research, etc? with just 150K per year?

They don't. The $174k-193k (the latter for certain leadership positions) is their salary. They also have individual staff budgets, and there are shared services with their own budgets (CRE, CBO, etc.)

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#103

Post by HWR_14 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

rychco wrote: post #97

This is absolutely essential and desperately needs to pass. Additionally, spouses of lawmakers should be banned from stock trading too. That would be a tremendous starting line .

Spouses are also restricted in the current proposal.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#104

Post by tootallgavin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #81

tootallgavin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just to stop trading individual stocks Why? Is buying a particular car not an investment? what about a house? Buying and selling assets should not be criminalized. Having privileged knowledge is part of the game. Someone who cannot read and write is going to have a tough time in life. Insider trading is already illegal. Also, investing in a publicly traded company is a weird way of violating public trust. Its as if…

> Why? So keeping in mind this doesn't preclude lawmakers from investing or buying index funds or ETFs, but the reason is because they literally create legislation that benefits certain companies. CHIPS Act is a recent example. So they can do something like buy stock in a company, and then advocate for a law to pass that benefits that company, and then make money by doing that. What we want to do is separate "what's…

> There's no real reason for a lawmaker or their immediate family to be buying individual stocks.

You lost me here. Participating in society is okay. Maybe in the case of a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, this could be the case. But an insulated lawmaker is definitely not the way to go. If a lawmaker riuns his financial status via the stockmarket, cool! Elect someone else.

> So they can do something like buy stock in a company, and then advocate for a law to pass that benefits that company, and then make money by doing that.

They could do same thing with real estate or vehicles or guns or anything else.

Imagine a politician attempting to pass a law banning guns but just before it passes that politician buys a bunch of guns.

Or, in 1930s, when an order was given that made it a criminal offense for U.S. citizens to own or trade gold anywhere in the world.

> What we want to do is separate "what's good for me" from "what's good for the country" and remove conflicts of interest like that.

Which politicians are interested in "what's good for the country" over "what's good for me"? And why is that why anyone is elected? I though we voted on issues, ideologies, directions-to-go-in and policy etc.

Every politician gets elected because what they'll do is "what's good for the country". And then we elect the next politician

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#105

Post by hayst4ck » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:28 PM UTC

Lawrence Lessig (Harvard law professor famous for fighting for sane copyright law) does a great presentation on the root cause of Americas problems. He also ran for president in 2016.

It can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE

The short version is that to win primaries you need money. Money mainly comes from corporations and rich people. Taking money from corporations and rich people creates a relationship where you have some loyalty to them or they can punish you if you don't act how they want. Thus the primary corrupting force in America is pro-corruption campaign finance laws.

The test for democracy is whether elected politicians pass legislation that the public at large wishes to be passed. Our very own Princeton did a study to answer this question.

The key finding: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”[1]

In a very real, non hyperbolic sense we are in a plutocracy where money rules. We are not a democracy due chiefly to our campaign finance laws.

Here is a campaign that aims to work on this: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba/

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#106

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

tootallgavin wrote: post #85

paulcole wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s called the Members’ Representational Allowance and is north of $1,000,000 per year. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30064.pdf

I am sure we could find some Members who think this number inadequate. that number could fund about 8 people's salary per year, is that enough staff to do the job? I don't know

> that number could fund about 8 people's salary per year,

At the first-ever minimum salary for Congressional (non-intern) staff (which actually doesn't go into effect until September), it could actually pay the salary for 22 people with a little left over.

And lots of work is done by interns, who now do get some pay ($20k is allocated to each House office and $50k to each Senate office of this purpose annually), but not much.

(Yes, any private employer doing this would have the Labor Department all over them for wage and hour violations. Guess who those rules don't apply to?)

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#107

Post by DiggyJohnson » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

melony wrote: post #70

ckardat123 wrote: post #14

I've been collecting and sharing (@QuiverCongress on Twitter) data on stock trading by U.S. congressmen for the past couple years. While there is currently legislation that requires congressmen to disclose their financial dealings, enforcement around it is incredibly weak. Congressmen are supposed to disclose stock transactions within 45 days of when they are made, but in practice there are dozens of violations of th…

Quoted post unavailable.

I don’t see any shilling in this comment in particular, and I have no relationship or awareness of this person or their company.

Unless GP comment was edited, I think you are the one violating the HN guidelines for not responding to the best interpretation of a comment.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#108

Post by RajT88 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #39

tootallgavin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should all politicians receive money exclusively from lobbyists/donors? Or I guess they should go get paycheck jobs somewhere? Where does a politicians money come from? If they exclusively received their money from stock trading as opposed to lobbyists/donors, how do you think the policy decisions would change?

Senators make $174,000/yr and most are already wealthy before running for election.No one is asking them to give up all income streams outside of their jobs, just to stop trading individual stocks. Senators have a LOT of knowledge about things that will effect stock prices that is outside of the public realm. Trading on that knowledge is a clear violation of public trust.

Indeed. And generally senators retire their terms as millionaires if they weren't already.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#109

Post by willcipriano » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:31 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #90

willcipriano wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is huge by the people they are supposed to govern standards though. It would be a raise to virtually everyone except the top 1% of people in terms of household income. They also receive top of line medical care and retirement benefits in addition to the salary. The salary isn't preventing poor people from becoming elected officials.

It would be much more effective to guarantee that the salary of Congresspeople was a fixed multiple of the minimum wage than to attempt to force Congresspeople to live on minimum wage (or anything similar). Even as it stands, just relying on their Congressional salary, it can be difficult for Congresspeople to maintain a residence in their district and one in DC—which is a fairly expensive real estate market—which is…

Studio apartments in DC are available for $2000 - $2300 a month, that's $27,600 a year, leaving them with $146,000 a year to secure a place to live within their home state, or roughly triple the median household income. For most Americans that would be a massive increase in their standard of living.

Rather than paying our politicians more to hopefully prevent them from being corrupt I'd suggest putting them in prison anytime we catch even a slight whiff of impropriety.

Re: House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

#110

Post by burkaman » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

tootallgavin wrote: post #52

ch4s3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Senators make $174,000/yr and most are already wealthy before running for election.No one is asking them to give up all income streams outside of their jobs, just to stop trading individual stocks. Senators have a LOT of knowledge about things that will effect stock prices that is outside of the public realm. Trading on that knowledge is a clear violation of public trust.

> just to stop trading individual stocks Why? Is buying a particular car not an investment? what about a house? Buying and selling assets should not be criminalized. Having privileged knowledge is part of the game. Someone who cannot read and write is going to have a tough time in life. Insider trading is already illegal. Also, investing in a publicly traded company is a weird way of violating public trust. Its as if…

The goal is to remove an incentive to pass bad laws that benefit someone's personal finances. You're looking at this from the wrong direction - instead of asking "why shouldn't they be able to invest based on their knowledge", ask "why shouldn't they be able to pass laws based on their investments?"