House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading

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

#211

Post by nradov » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:10 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #195

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…

Wouldn't this be solved rather easily by prohibiting fund raising and using tax dollars to finance campaigns? Everyone gets the same budget? That means money has no sway over politicians and money can't influence the result unfairly.

That would presumably require a Constitutional amendment to carve out an exception in the 1st Amendment. So not easy.

https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-uni...

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

#212

Post by wyre » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

dhritzkiv wrote: post #89

mfer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Many reps do rent in DC, sometimes in frat-house-like conditions with other reps.[1] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/politics/real-alpha-house/ind...

Why isn’t this the basis for a tv show?

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

#213

Post by Bloating » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:12 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #148

seibelj wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a sibling comment explaining why you might not actually want to live in an oligarchy, but regardless of your preference, there are a couple of flaws in your logic. First. The greatest predictor of individual wealth is their parents’ wealth. This undermines the whole notion of the free market (or at least in its current state) giving rise to a meritocracy. Second. Statistically, in a completely free and fair…

Maybe compounding interest should be outlawed

If player1 can make the same widget with less resources than player2, its not zero-sum. That does often entail that player1 has some advantage, which could be any number of things. Is that OK?

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

#214

Post by horsawlarway » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

philosopher1234 wrote: post #149

ryandvm wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is that a lesser concern? How can the public have any influence over their politicians this way? You're saying corporations can choose who gets into power becasuse they finance them, and the public cant even tell what they're voting for to punish them. It seems all around worse.

I'm not sure - I think there's certainly an interesting truth that people act differently when you remove the pressures of public scrutiny.

In particular - they are much less likely to always blindly follow party lines, or corporate wishes, and I think there's value there.

How would you feel about a tweaked system? All votes are recorded, but the voting record is entirely withheld until 3 months before the next election for that seat.

The public is made aware of the voting record when it matters: During the next election. But during the term, they are much less susceptible to corporate donors and lobbyists, or pressure from members of their own party.

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

#215

Post by wyre » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:14 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.

Only on HN is a 1 million dollar salary a bad deal

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

#216

Post by nradov » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

hazmazlaz wrote: post #205

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…

I agree with you so much that it's difficult for me to convey. The magnitude of both the upside of good governance as well as the downside of bad governance is so great that it amazes me that we have so few pro-society incentives for competent and well intentioned individuals to serve on the highest governing bodies. If I could wave a magic wand and change things, here's what I would do: 1. Increase pay for senators…

You can't reasonably impose employment limits on adult relatives of elected politicians. That would legally be considered a punishment without legal due process. If my sister gets elected to Congress, that's not my problem.

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

#217

Post by caymanjim » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:15 PM UTC

Pulcinella wrote: post #199

eloff wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't this be solved rather easily by prohibiting fund raising and using tax dollars to finance campaigns? Everyone gets the same budget? That means money has no sway over politicians and money can't influence the result unfairly.

Would you enforce that on “friends of the campaign” as well? E.g. Political Action Committees. John Jackson is running for political office using only public money. However, Big Titanium Inc. creates the privately run and funded “Friends of John Jackson” organization that is entirely unaffiliated with John Jackson but nevertheless runs pro-John Jackson ads in TV.

And if that's clamped down on, they just run increasingly vague ads that don't mention a candidate by name, but are clearly boosting the person/party/side they want to see succeed. A lot of people--particularly Democrats--like to say the Supreme Court got Citizens United wrong, but there's no way to get money out of politics while still maintaining any level of free speech.

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

#218

Post by lambert_ » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:15 PM UTC

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 don’t think Bernie sanders lost entirely because he didn’t get his funding from rich people or corporations. Democrats don’t like to admit that you also need the approval of the corrupt political bodies that decide everyone ie the DNC.

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

#219

Post by granfalloon » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:15 PM UTC

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 like the idea of "blind" or anonymous congressional voting. It feels counterintuitive, but donors might be less willing to "buy" votes if they can't confirm that they're getting what they pay for. And a representative who has accepted lots of corporate money might feel safer "betraying" those donors.

I think representatives would still feel pressure to vote in line with the interests of their constituents and get results, otherwise they get replaced by the next exciting candidate.

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

#220

Post by matheist » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:17 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…

That only solves for explicit quid pro quos. It does nothing for the case where corporate sponsors donate to candidates who honestly signal during campaigning that they are the kind of candidate who cares about those sponsors' interests.

I think explicit quid pro quo is far less impactful/prevalent then pro-corporate donors simply looking at the pool of campaigners and putting weight behind candidates that look like they'll vote how the donors want. All that requires is for the donors to be able to at least partially predict future behavior from candidates' current appearance. Secret votes won't change anything on that view.