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

Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 238 posts

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#191

Post by mcpackieh »

lesuorac wrote: post #28
ccppurcell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about they do their jobs, and put off making money in other ways till after their term ends. Maybe they can buy government bonds.

Or perhaps the salary of congress critters /etc should be significantly higher than it is. Is the CEO of Tesla (~50B ?) really more impactful than the US president (~400k/yr) ?

400k/yr or even the 174k/yr congressional salary puts you in what percentile of earners in America? Tell me that.

Rich people whining about not being super mega rich. Fuck these asshats.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#192

Post by blitzar »

_lb0d wrote: post #14

My wife works in the audit department of a bank. I'm heavily regulated by the SEC on what stocks, ETFs, mutual funds I can buy/sell. An internal group monitors my buying/selling and makes approval/denial before I can do so. I have to hold an ETF for 1 month before I can sell it--not that I should be swing trading ETFs, but still. It's very frustrating at times, especially when I'm relegated to using just her bank's t…

Also at a bank. If I am authorized to trade it on behalf of the Bank - I am not allowed to trade it for myself, nor is anyone in my family.

Anything I am not authorized to trade it on behalf of the Bank, I have to seek approval and agree to minimum holding periods (for me and my family). Anything close to what I am authorized to trade it on behalf of the Bank would be instantly rejected for personal trading.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#194

Post by jqpabc123 »

strictnein wrote: post #149
jqpabc123 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bill is step one. No, it's not. It's just the latest in a long line of campaign finance reform --- most of which is ineffective because it was purposely designed from the get-go to be easily circumvented. The open secret here is that you're counting on an organization (Congress) to police itself. This makes no more sense than an counting on Congress to avoid raising it's own pay. How has that worked out?

> This makes no more sense than an counting on Congress to avoid raising it's own pay Congress hasn't had a raise since 2009. Their current effective pay is the lowest its been in 75 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_Uni...

No one is really counting but graft is probably the highest it's been in 75 years.

The reform laws (like this one) are written to make it's incredibly easy for politicians to personally profit from "campaign contributions" --- among other things.

Example: Trump personally buys copyrighted MAGA hats in bulk from China for $3 each and sells them to his campaign for $35 each. Instant personal profit --- from your "contributions". His campaign sells some, gives some away and trashes any remainder. They don't care, it's your money, not theirs.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#195

Post by DontchaKnowit »

munchler wrote: post #83
harry8 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of thing, outsiders from both sides of government joining to try to get something done is the only way you will ever get any reform. Also why the insiders from both sides will be so scathing about outsiders on the other side and claim they are literally $evil_person_from_history

I'm scathing about Josh Hawley because he encouraged a coup against the US government, not because he's some sort of "outsider".

imo, even more egregious than this is Josh Hawley's incessant needling, pestering, leading, talking over, and ultimately ignoring every single person he has ever questioned as part of a congressional hearing. He asks people leading questions, then when they start to give a legit answer he just talks over them in an attempt to make them look like they couldn't answer the question. Conservatives eat that dumb shit up. drives me insane.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#196

Post by gautamdivgi »

KingLancelot wrote: post #8

There is 0% reason Nancy Pelosi should be allowed to be one of the best traders in history, it’s nothing but corruption. Either lawmakers should not be allowed to own stock, or insider trading shouldn’t be a crime, though the latter option is a lot more abusable.

I don’t think she is the best trader. I think it’s her husband that’s the best trader.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#197

Post by nashashmi »

pc86 wrote: post #181
nashashmi wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rules on Congressman trading should be coming from their districts and states that they represent. it could possibly hurt the quality of congressmen and senators that run for election if this rule is implemented at a federal level.

How so? One, there are no district-specific rules for members of Congress. But even assuming states are legally able to restrict federal officials' trading, why is it better to have some states regulate it and some states not compared to a consistent federal rule one way or the other? "Good people won't run for Senate if we don't let them trade stocks on the information they get" doesn't really make that much sense t…

Apparently there was a state rule for the NJ senator that he could not run for president while in senate. They changed it for Cory Booker. So apparently it is possible to add rules for senators and congressman.

On a federal level, There are safeguards we can add and perplexity to trading stock for congressmen. One such rule is the disclosure rule. This makes it a slight pain to invest. A second rule I propose is committee conflict rule, declare stocks that are in conflict with a committee hearing, and offer recusal to the chair each time on a hearing with a potential conflict. A third rule is prohibition on potential stock trades after a committee hearing for 90 days or until hearing is published. And do not disclose details of the hearing with anyone until it is published.

These rules add pains and discouragement to stock trades. But outright bans are not there.

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#198

Post by engineer_22 »

https://archive.is/KB69t

Alternative Universe:

New Proposal Bans Plumbers from Houses of Congress.

Read: Under new proposal Mario Bros must trade in plungers for portfolios. Minority Leader Bowser had this to say: "It's important for the koopas of our nation to know their leaders are working for them, and not taking all the mushrooms and star powers for themselves."

Re: Senators to Propose Ban on U.S. Lawmakers, Executive Branch Members Owning Stock

#199

Post by shagmin »

jakearmitage wrote: post #93
ckardat123 wrote: post #39

I started building out tools to track congressional stock trading in 2020. Since then, I believe there have been 9 other proposals similar to this one. None of them have been even called to a vote. It seem like Congress is pretty unwilling to regulate its own trading. Until they are, feel free to track the trading here: https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/

I wish there was a tool that allowed me to follow Congress as if it was an index. Automatically buying and selling what they buy and sell. Right from my Fidelity or something.

Someone with some spare cash for seed funding could file with the SEC to create an ETF that does exactly this.
Post reply on HN