Live data from Hacker News

House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

seekingalpha.com

271–280 of 382 posts

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

#271
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.

As I understand it, just as in the Commons here, although it's technically possible to do this for a controversial issue it's basically pointless, and so it's actually used when it's obvious how the vote will go and nobody cares.

You don't need a rollcall to know why you lost if not even enough people were in favour of your proposition to even force the actual count.

The intended reform would be that the rollcall would happen, yet the details (beyond a total Yes/No count) would not be released, presumably even to the voters themselves. This is a problem because it's hard to maintain trust in such a system.

For popular elections the scale is such that election monitors on behalf of interested parties can easily see a bunch of administrators correctly tallying votes and not focus in on the fact that, hey, voter #283204349 picked Jim Smith for Grand Leader -- however when you're talking about exactly 100 senators that's surely much harder to get right.

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

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd cut those numbers in half, 5x and 2.5x and the pension at half pay... Over a Million a year for a few years is a great way to bank up a "set for life if I'm smart with my money" stockpile (at least it has been until now, and may continue to be for a little while) and so you want it a little lower to avoid a constant churn of people charging at the gates for a shot at that money. Otherwise totally agree. I'd even…

This is a great way to ensure politicians are utterly disconnected from the private economy. I don't think we want this scenario to play out. Politicians need to have skin in the game and a real understanding of the consequences of their decisions.

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

#273
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could with a constitutional amendment, which would absolutely be a requirement for much of the GP proposal.

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

#274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"few people want to run for federal office already. The pay isn't great and it's hard work." Is there any data to back that up? Because it seems to me like people are falling all over themselves and saying all kinds of crazy shit just to get into office. It looks to me like we have the opposite problem - certain kinds of people CRAVE this power and attention and will do anything to get it.

I agree. Seems like they spend more than one (or two) orders of magnitude more than the salary of the job to get the job.

Are we seeing a change to that with folks like AOC, MTG, Boebert, ect? AFAIK, none of them were wealthy by any means.

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

#275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 elect…

>In particular - they are much less likely to always blindly follow party lines, or corporate wishes, and I think there's value there. I want the politician I vote for to more or less follow the party line on important votes. That's why I voted for her.

Personally - I think that's a shortsighted and naive approach. The "party" is not your friend. Politics are not team sports, and they shouldn't be treated that way.

I also think this leads to a preponderance of "division" politics - where the goal is to find a wedge issue that forces people to pick a side.

It's poor governance all around.

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

#276

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…

That study has a lot of problems, and several subsequent problems pointed out the holes.

Here's a good summary of subsequent research that debunked it. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-...

Even if the study were true it shows that when economic elites (150k+) disagree with the middle class they get there way more often. (Btw it showed that the middle class and the rich agreed like 80-90% of the time on policy, and when they disagreed it wasn't by very many percentage points)

But a much more likely scenario than corruption is senators/representatives/presidents are all members of the economic elite, and all their friends are members of the elite and so it's no surprise they share the same opinions as their friends/wives/family members and socio-economic class.

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

#277

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…

Your solution eliminates accountability to donors, but it also eliminates accountability to voters. Both houses essentially have this. It is called a voice vote.

[deleted]

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

#278

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…

That study has a lot of problems, and several subsequent problems pointed out the holes. Here's a good summary of subsequent research that debunked it. https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-... Even if the study were true it shows that when economic elites (150k+) disagree with the middle class they get there way more often. (Btw it showed that the middle class and the rich agreed like 80-90% of…

Why is that at all more likely?

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

#279

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.

Yes, the DNC uses superdelegates, which is an undemocratic part of the process. But in both 2016 and 2020, Sanders did poorly enough in the regular primaries that the number of superdelegates was irrelevant to the final outcome.

As much as I hate to say it, and as someone who very much would like to have seen Sanders win either of those primaries, much of America is further to the right than Sanders, and seemingly have no desire to learn the difference between social democracy and socialism.

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

#280
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Congress could fix it if they really wanted to. Make a law that essentially reverses the interpretation of Citizens United, and then take it out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Not that this is in any way likely to happen, of course.

Post reply on HN