House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading

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

#241

Post by jnwatson » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

granfalloon wrote: post #219

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 r…

Your solution eliminates accountability to donors, but it also eliminates accountability to voters.

Both houses essentially have this. It is called a voice vote.

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

#242

Post by tobylane » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:31 PM UTC

hgomersall wrote: post #209

com2kid wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First you need to make the corruption illegal.

And enforce it with an office that won’t get defunded by someone who can delay their corruption by a year or so. I believe Singapore solved this, but can multi party systems copy them?

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

#243

Post by erulabs » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:33 PM UTC

TameAntelope wrote: post #80

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's get real...term limits This is a proven strategy for tanking legislation. Ten lawmakers on a linear political spectrum. Compromise is at 5. 1, 2, 9 and 10 said no; 3 and 8 grudgingly accepted. The measure looks poised to pass with six votes. What can you do to tank it? Propose a sizzling 3½. 3 can't help but demand it at all costs. It's so juicy! And so close to the real intent behind 5! 8, meanwhile, horrifi…

Good, then we tank legislation. Fewer laws seems fine by me, and the laws that do pass will be based on a groundswell of support that comes in waves.

Exactly. The impulse to make legislative government nimble and powerful is a strange one. Should it not be considerate and slow? "Who governs least, governs best", etc.

Moving quickly is the executives job.

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

#244

Post by granfalloon » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:34 PM UTC

anonymoushn wrote: post #234

granfalloon wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

How will voters know whether their reps are voting for the right things though

They wouldn't! That's the downside. Or maybe not a downside -- there could be an even stronger incentive for politicians to get stuff done. Since voters would have to make their decisions based entirely actual results, and not an individual politician's voting record, the politicians might have a stronger incentive to build coalitions and influence other politicians' votes.

My half-baked point is that the harm of voters NOT having access to this information is less than the harm of lobbyists and major donors having access to it.

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

#245

Post by lambert_ » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:37 PM UTC

plainnoodles wrote: post #227

lambert_ wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Yes I'm sure China or Russia would be *thrilled* if their citizens wanted workers to own the means of production. Definitely would not involve tanks or squares or soon-to-be iconic historical photography at all.

China is called the CCP… if Russia and China aren’t communists or communist friendly then who is? And why won’t you accept the proposition that americas problems might be due to a poor implementation of capitalism but then call all unattractive communist countries just “poor implementations of communism?”

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

#246

Post by sohdas » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:37 PM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #224

Uehreka wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that if the job doesn’t pay well, it attracts people who are independently wealthy and who are more likely to represent the interests of the wealthy. For most wealthy politicians, the bulk of their wealth comes from a business they own that pays out hundreds of thousands of dollars (or millions of dollars) per year, not their 100K-ish government salary. The upshot of this is that when “the peop…

> Part of the problem is that if the job doesn’t pay well, it attracts people who are independently wealthy and who are more likely to represent the interests of the wealthy. Just don't elect them. When running for office in most places, being considered wealthy or coming from a wealthy family is a considerable hurdle to overcome (as is being extremely poor).

Trump?

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

#247

Post by donarb » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:42 PM UTC

notafraudster wrote: post #178

csours wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Senate routinely takes voice votes for which no rollcall division is recorded. But there is generally little incentive to make votes private because in general legislators want to engage in credible credit-claiming (including about margins of passage and rates of bipartisanship) and parties want to preserve the whip as well.

What? Republicans in Congress will routinely vote against funding legislation and then show up at ribbon cuttings bragging how they fought to get the funding for their district. Just out and out lie about voting for it.

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

#248

Post by bobthepanda » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:46 PM UTC

granfalloon wrote: post #244

anonymoushn wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will voters know whether their reps are voting for the right things though

They wouldn't! That's the downside. Or maybe not a downside -- there could be an even stronger incentive for politicians to get stuff done. Since voters would have to make their decisions based entirely actual results, and not an individual politician's voting record, the politicians might have a stronger incentive to build coalitions and influence other politicians' votes. My half-baked point is that the harm of vot…

That doesn’t really work though, people vote for their rep, not some amorphous party blob.

On the other hand, it gives pols plausible deniability that they aren’t getting bought out.

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

#249

Post by mynameisash » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:47 PM UTC

afpx wrote: post #240

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…

In the US, wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment? I thought Citizens United declared money to be free speech (paraphrasing) .

Yes, Citizens United made it explicit that money is speech and as such can't be hindered. I suspect that because of this ruling, we couldn't just pass a law that prohibits money in politics because the ruling precludes it.

A constitutional amendment would nuke the current limitations, but it's impossible in practice for us to get there. On the other hand, as we've seen as of late, no decision by the Supreme Court is set in stone, so we could, in theory, get Citizens rolled back and then some. That also seems unlikely in the short term.

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

#250

Post by bobthepanda » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #210

noasaservice wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number needs to be effectively an unbribeable number. If you're selected for public service, then you're expected to do good for the country, and not just a specific monied interest. And that means not having to worry about money ever again. You win capitalism. Done. Have fun. Live your life. That could also be done with annuities so that they get a "allowance" each month until dead.

Why wouldn't you take the money AND the bribes? If you have a system in place that can find and punish bribes - why not pay them a reasonable amount of money - and just eliminate bribes without spending $0.1T per year...

Bribes need to increase proportionate to salary to maintain the same risk/reward calculation.

Famously, Singapore maintains a very effective, clean civil service by paying market rates, and sometimes for some ministers that is actually millions of dollars a year.