House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading

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

#151

Post by throwk8s » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #124

hayst4ck wrote: post #105

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…

I prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.

If anything, people with a track record of amassing wealth should be treated with more suspicion on entering public service.

If all of their other decisions are geared toward increasing their wealth, one has to wonder whether the decision to enter public service is also geared toward increasing their own wealth.

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

#152

Post by tootallgavin » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

evan_ wrote: post #99

tootallgavin wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the salaries of the staff? What about the tools needed to perform the job?

They get a budget. They're not schoolteachers .

> They get a budget.

What happens when they exceed the budget?

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

#153

Post by gnaritas99 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #124

hayst4ck wrote: post #105

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…

I prefer those with more resources to have more say over the running of our country. On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country. Furthermore the structure of society should be organized to help those that know what they are doing. An unpopular opinion however.

> On average in a free market those with more resources are better organized and know what’s best for the country.

No, they don't, and there's not a rational or logical reason to infer they do.

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

#154

Post by idiotsecant » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #123

hedora wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd take it further: $1M/year for life, have to divest all investments they own coming in to office (i.e., turn them to cash). Accepting any third party payment during or after being elected (and during campaigns) is treason. If their kids accept their inheritance, the rules apply to them too. The rules always apply to spouses. Let them invest in whole-market funds / ETFs, but only allow withdrawls 5 years after leav…

Nobody sane would take that deal.

Nobody sane would take $1M USD per year for life?

Call me insane I guess.

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

#155

Post by runarberg » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

com2kid wrote: post #128

throwaway_4ever wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does paying a politician MORE than 3x median US pay make them less out of touch with the average American? We don't need politicians 15x out of touch with the median American's lifestyle. In NYC governor's last election, there was a question about how much the median house costs in Brooklyn, and two high level candidates gave absolutely bonkers answers like $90k and $120k, when it's actually $900k. You only want…

You want to pay people in positions of power so much money that they are afraid of losing their salary by being caught up in a corruption scandal. This is how America got rid of large swaths of police corruption. Go back 100 years and bribing police was trivial, they made so little money that taking bribes was how they kept afloat financially. Now days? An officer making $120k a year isn't going to take a $100 bribe…

No, but the same officer will use excessive force and make unwarranted arrests, etc. There is real accountability for a cop that is caught accepting a bribe, there is none for violence.

In our current political system a politician has no accountability for accepting favors or campaign funds. There is no accountability for passing bad laws or being corrupt. This behavior will continue regardless of the base salary, or at least until there are repercussions against it. Currently there are none.

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

#156

Post by mikeyouse » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

DIARRHEA_xd wrote: post #140

hayst4ck wrote: post #105

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…

The notable exception to this, of course, is Trump's primary AND general elections.

Trump spent hundreds of millions of dollars officially, outside groups that don't need to report all of their spending (like the NRA) spent further hundreds of millions, and he had hundreds of millions worth of "earned media" due to the circus-like nature of the campaign.

Because he spent marginally less than Ted Cruz in the primary and less than Hillary in the general doesn't give lie to the premise at all. His 2020 reelection campaign spent ~$1 billion when including independent expenditures!

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

#157

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:14 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?

[deleted]

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

#158

Post by csours » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:14 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #141

hayst4ck wrote: post #105

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…

Getting money out of politics would be a great reform (removing lobbyists, campaign finance reform, etc.). It also strikes me as almost impossible to implement. It's like getting the president of a company to switch to system whereby leadership is elected by the workers. It's all risk and low reward for them . However, another political reform I've toyed with in my head is secret voting in the House and the Senate. W…

I wonder if the Senate could pass a rule that allows them to choose when to take a secret vote. I don't know of anything in the Constitution that prohibits such.

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

#159

Post by runarberg » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:16 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #51

Hear me out... few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work. If the US was a company, there'd be no question that we'd need to pay our leadership much better to attract top talent. We pay senators $170k a year to manage our country with a $20 trillion economy. So what we end up with is activists who crave power and elites from rich families for whom $170k a year is a round…

That is the wrong solution. There is no evidence that corrupt behavior decreases when wealth is increased. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. A congressperson that can accept bribes with impunity will continue to do so on top of a larger base salary just like they did on top of a lower one.

The real solution is to actually tackle the corruption it self (as proposed by OP).

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

#160

Post by Zamiel_Snawley » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 6:18 PM UTC

ryandvm wrote: post #141

hayst4ck wrote: post #105

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…

Getting money out of politics would be a great reform (removing lobbyists, campaign finance reform, etc.). It also strikes me as almost impossible to implement. It's like getting the president of a company to switch to system whereby leadership is elected by the workers. It's all risk and low reward for them . However, another political reform I've toyed with in my head is secret voting in the House and the Senate. W…

Secret voting is one of the characteristics of sortition[1] governance systems.

Just like on a jury for a court case, people are randomly selected from the population to sit on the legislature. They naturally vote their conscience, and when their term is up, they go back to their normal life. Because compliance with a bribers' instructions is unobservable, bribery is not incented.

The beauty of it is that you don't need to hold anyone "accountable" because there is no election, only random selection. Of course, the devil is in the details. Should prisoners be eligible for selection, or the illiterate?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition