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

351–360 of 382 posts

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

#351

Post by medvezhenok »

mrandish wrote: post #335
ckosidows wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why would someone elected to office, who knows they can't run again, have any concern about the will of the people? Reason #1 is the Princeton study cited in other posts: > The key finding: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”[1] It's already clear that "the will of the people" isn't being represented currently…

Single term limits might not be a great idea, since new representatives will have to rely even more on people who've been around Washington a lot (i.e. lobbyists) to write legislation (since part of joining Congress is getting ramped up on a lot of tradition/things you have to learn on the job).

Public funding of elections would help - take the current $2 they ask you about on taxes, and make that $100 or so. Then give proportional time to candidates with publicly funded money.

The other counterintuitive one is to bring back the secret ballot in Congress. Publicizing voting records actually makes lobbying more effective since the lobbyists can measure effectiveness of their $$. If you brought back the secret ballot, people are more free to vote their conscience without having to take the brunt of the blame for it (lobbying really took off after the elimination of secret ballots in the early 70s)

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

#352

Post by medvezhenok »

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

It's actually how congress worked before the "sunshine" act of 1971 which made voting records public.

The vast majority of people don't actually go and look up their senator's/congressperson's voting records, where as lobbyists do. So I think the voter disclosure argument is overblown; I don't think that voters actually need to know the exact voting records of their congressperson. I think voting should be selecting people based on character and rhetoric and then letting those people act as representatives.

It would be less democratic, but more functional (and more akin to what the founders imagined anyway).

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

#354

Post by rascul »

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.

I'm might be Ok with paying something in line with market rates for comparable positions. I don't know how that works or what positions might be comparable, though.

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

#355

Post by ch4s3 »

tootallgavin wrote: post #52
ch4s3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Senators make $174,000/yr and most are already wealthy before running for election.No one is asking them to give up all income streams outside of their jobs, just to stop trading individual stocks. Senators have a LOT of knowledge about things that will effect stock prices that is outside of the public realm. Trading on that knowledge is a clear violation of public trust.

> just to stop trading individual stocks Why? Is buying a particular car not an investment? what about a house? Buying and selling assets should not be criminalized. Having privileged knowledge is part of the game. Someone who cannot read and write is going to have a tough time in life. Insider trading is already illegal. Also, investing in a publicly traded company is a weird way of violating public trust. Its as if…

First, a car is a depreciating asset.

It’s not just that senators can front run institutional investors, it’s that they can make the rules that cause a stock to rise or fall. Allowing them to trade in financial markets directly creates perverse incentives. If they want to buy funds, bonds, or toss money into a 401k that’s fine. Hell, but property. Just not publicly traded stocks.

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

#356

Post by rootusrootus »

jaredhallen wrote: post #331
rootusrootus wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If such a law were passed (and I agree, it's extremely unlikely), I expect that litigation would be filed as to it's constitutionality. Which would put the ball back in the Supreme Court's court, so to speak.

I'd like to see how that would work. In the past, SCOTUS has acknowledged that the Constitution indeed grants Congress the ability to remove legislation from the court's jurisdiction.

Notably, the Constitution does not grant the court the power of judicial review. The court granted itself that right. So in a battle between precedent and the text of the Constitution, I hope the latter would win.

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

#357

Post by paulcole »

tootallgavin wrote: post #263
paulcole wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am also saying that the money allocated, by taxpayer money, may not be enough What is this hunch based on, given that you didn't know they had another $1,000,000+ to spend?

> What is this hunch based on Politicians trade stocks

Homer: Aw, twenty dollars? I wanted a peanut!

Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts.

Homer: Explain how!

Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

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

#358

Post by tootallgavin »

paulcole wrote: post #357
tootallgavin wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is this hunch based on Politicians trade stocks

Homer: Aw, twenty dollars? I wanted a peanut! Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts. Homer: Explain how! Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

Paul: Aw, what do I do with all this money? My purse is so small!

Mr. Cole: That money could be put to use, to gain more money.

Paul: Explain how!

Mr. Cole: Money can be exchanged for stocks and bonds. The value of these securities shifts over time. Performing analysis on these securities can help you produce probabilities on how the value may change.

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

#359

Post by twblalock »

wyre wrote: post #215
twblalock wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody sane would take that deal.

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

It's a bad deal for the kind of people who are capable of succeeding in national politics.

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

#360

Post by tastyfreeze »

kelnos wrote: post #346
tastyfreeze wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying them more wont change the types of people that are drawn to politics. Power corrupts regardless of the salary. The only way to fix corruption is to make it illegal and prosecute it ruthlessly.

That sounds unrealistic. How do you make corruption illegal when the people who benefit from corruption are the ones who have the power to make it legal? At the very least, they get to decide which cases to pursue.

The only non-violent way the Constitution affords us. Article V Convention of States. For congress to overturn an amendment requires a 2/3 majority in both houses. That doesn't mean it can't happen. Just much more difficult than passing a bill.
Post reply on HN