Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House Democrats to propose ban on lawmaker stock trading – report

seekingalpha.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 382 posts

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

#321

Post by lapetitejort »

ckosidows wrote: post #312
mrandish wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money in politics is the root of most of what ails the U.S political system I disagree that money is the root . Money is still one level above the true root, which is what the money is needed to buy: "Re-election." Thus, an alternative, though unconventional, solution is single-term limits. Once elected to any national public office, you can never run for that or any other elected office again. One and done. This i…

Why would someone elected to office, who knows they can't run again, have any concern about the will of the people? At best you would have the same outcome that you get from politicians at the end of their terms, and it's not like these politicians are solving all of society's ailments. If they can still get lobbying money by operating on the will of corporations, they could spend their whole term making money for th…

I'm under perhaps the insane notion that politicking is a job, and when done well, the citizens see the benefit. No profession allows someone to work in it for two to six years, then never allows them to work in it again (aside from some nuclear-related jobs). Term limits have their place at the leadership level of their respective institutions (president, speaker of the house, president pro tempore, supreme court judge), but not for the rank and file politicians.

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

#322

Post by kelnos »

JamesBarney wrote: post #282
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…

When you pay people very little you get 1. The selfless (or the insane or crazy activists) 2. The rich 3. The corrupt When you pay people a lot you also get 4. Competent hard working people who aren't necessarily selfless. (this is most people) This group of people makes up the vast majority of people in the US, so why not have some of those people represent us.

... and the problem with US politics in particular is that people who are selfless but not rich/corrupt will have a very hard time getting elected, because they don't have the money to run their campaigns, or the ability to raise it.

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

#323

Post by jmyeet »

If you are in possession or are likely to be in possession of inside information, there are severe restrictions on how you can trade. Many companies will have trading windows on normal employees and more extreme limits on leadership.

We have a vehicle for how such insiders can divest themselves of stock. It's called a 10b5-1 trading plan [1]. With advance planning the security holder can divest themselves of their holdings without discretion that could be misconstrued as trading on inside information.

Every member of the House, the Senate and the White House as well as all of their direct family members should be subject to those same restrictions. It is utterly outrageous that the likes of Joe Manchin can be chair of the Senate Energy Committee while directly benefitting from his brother's coal company or Nancy Pelosi's husband is just the most amazing stock trader in recent history.

We haven't even scratched the surface of the level of corruption by government officials here. High on that list should be the $2 billion Saudi Arabia gave to Jared Kushner's "fund" with a 1.25% management fee. Kushner can quite literally just keept in in the bank and collect $25 million per year.

[1]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rule-10b5-1.asp

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

#324

Post by kelnos »

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.

Making things illegal, or, rather, enforcing those laws, is an uphill battle if you don't also structure the incentives in such a way that it's easier to follow them than to break them.

Also what does "make corruption illegal" even mean? Corruption takes many forms, and there will always be loopholes through which the most savvy can escape legal repercussions. I would much rather structure things so not being corrupt is just the easier, better, more natural choice. That's also not easy, but sounds more achievable to me.

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

#325

Post by mushbino »

mrandish wrote: post #307
wkimeria wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm originally from Kenya. We used to have a joke "If it happens in Africa it is called corruption. If it happens in the US it is called lobbying". I remember seeing a chart of how much money a Senator had to raise every week for their next race and it was stark bonkers (and this was in the 90s, before Citizens United). I just checked and the figure is even worse now. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/state-of…

> Money in politics is the root of most of what ails the U.S political system I disagree that money is the root . Money is still one level above the true root, which is what the money is needed to buy: "Re-election." Thus, an alternative, though unconventional, solution is single-term limits. Once elected to any national public office, you can never run for that or any other elected office again. One and done. This i…

This is why the revolving door exists. Do what we want and we'll give you a high paying job afterward. There are former congressman currently making $3 million a year as lobbyists as soon as they leave office.

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

#326

Post by JamesBarney »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #315
JamesBarney wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How much are politicians paid —and how does their salary affect corruption? It might not be a popular opinion, but perhaps we should double the wages of US Representatives (they currently make $175k—not a lot in Washington DC). Is paying US representatives $350k worth the money? First, a bigger financial cushion for representatives might reduce financial corruption. Second, a bigger salary might attract more talented…

I think we should pay them more. I just think getting better candidates would be much more influential than the reduction in corruption.

Most corruption isn't someone dropping off a bag of money. It's an organization donating a bunch of money so they can put somebody intelligent charming and attractive in front of the senator who is going to have a really good argument why certain provisions are good for their constituents.

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

#327

Post by goatlover »

nextstep wrote: post #194
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…

Marx saw this problem 100 years ago. Democracy under capitalism is just a mechanism for settling disputes among the ruling class.

As opposed to democracy under one party communist rule? Who cares what Marx said, when we have history of his ideas being tried in Russia, China, North Korea, etc.

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

#328

Post by lossolo »

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…

Here is a short video about that study for people that like more video content than written content.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6w9CbemhVY

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

#329

Post by thelock85 »

Lots of great ideas here around how to augment the Congressional voting system to counter influence of dark, corporate money, but as a few have pointed out, not voting at all seems to be preferred on most potential legislation. I think that's because super PACs and corporate lobbyists are fighting for overall influence, not legislative outcomes --that is, how existing law is regulated/interpreted, how Congresspersons posture on various issues that are far away from a vote (esp. when affecting economic outcomes), and most importantly how Congresspersons wield the threat of their powers (e.g. initiating an inquiry or whatever the formality is into their corporate patron's rival).

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

#330

Post by [deleted] »

Alupis wrote: post #170
pjbeam wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not afford my life on a senator's pay. Not even close. Couldn't take the job even if it was offered to me on a silver platter. President's pay comes with housing so my family could probably make that work, would be belt tightening--especially because I'd be on the hook for the food in state dinners and such. Not that I think anyone wants me to be a senator or the president but rather I couldn't afford to be.…

What kind of lifestyle are you imagining couldn't survive on a single-income of $174,000[1] per year. This, of course, doesn't account for spousal income (if any). When you're a senator, you also receive a lot of "perks" that reduce your overall expenses. Most travel comes out of an office fund, hotels, rental cars... many meals can also be expensed to the same fund, etc. Clothing even in some cases. [1] https://en.w…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN