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

201–210 of 238 posts

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

#201

Post by engineer_22 »

j33zusjuice wrote: post #174
munchler wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hawley’s on the same level as Greene. They’re insane, incredibly stupid, or incredibly bad.

Josh Hawley has a JD from Yale - this isn't proof that he's smart or sane, but an indication that Yale thinks so. Maybe he is incredibly bad, there might be some data points for that.

Interesting, as JH would probably not agree with most of the personal politics of Yale's campus community, but the Law School may have a different culture. I don't know.

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

#202

Post by mschuster91 »

tivert wrote: post #106
mschuster91 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, the cops are actually doing at least something to weed out the bad apples now? Sarcasm aside: interesting how far they go for a simple copper on the street now. Here in Germany, that level of background checks (Sicherheitsüberprüfung Ü2/Ü3) is only done for higher level (i.e. leadership) cops and IT staff. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheits%C3%BCberpr%C3%BCfu...

>> To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to [hand] over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it. > What, the cops are actually doing a…

> How is forcing a friend or family member to surrender their own PII have anything to do about "weed[ing] out the bad apples"?

Well, interviewing family and friends can definitely help weed out people with problematic far-right attitudes, a history of domestic violence or other issues.

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

#203

Post by amalcon »

BurningFrog wrote: post #138
amalcon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your spouse can definitely affect your ability to get a security clearance. Last I heard, cannabis use is still relevant to this, even if you live in a state where it's legal. Your spouse being a foreign national can also be significant, depending on which country and their connections there. It's not really a legal obligation as such ("only" putting the job at risk), but it does cover rather a lot of jobs.

That doesn't put any legal obligation on the spouse though.

Correct, and I did say so. While "your spouse will lose his or her job if you do X, Y, or Z" is not technically a legal requirement, for most people it's a distinction without a difference.

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

#204

Post by mschuster91 »

massysett wrote: post #123
mschuster91 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes sense now that it's legal and foreign/criminal actors can't extort people any more for being gay or smoking pot.

It is not legal. It is a violation of federal law.

Thing is, in a legal state there is no leverage for a bad actor, unless the US federal government changes its policy - but that's very unlikely under a Democrat government given they're pro federal legalization, and even under a hardliner like Trump the Republicans didn't dare touch the issue because it would counteract their entire "states rights" agenda and piss off a sizable amount of their own voters.

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

#206

Post by [deleted] »

skizm wrote: post #56
BurningFrog wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of any other situation when one person getting a job puts legal obligations on their spouse, but I haven't looked into it.

To less of a degree, when applying for law enforcement jobs, family members and sometimes friends have to surrender a lot of personal data. I had to hand over my SSN along with pretty much all my PII and do interviews on behalf family members when they applied to be cops. I tried to say no, but at the end of the day they're holding their jobs hostage until I comply. Hate it.

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by HWR_14 »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #189
datavirtue wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish we just called people up like we do for jury duty.

That would be amazing. Maybe have some minimum requirement afterwards with knowledge though.

Government tests for knowledge to participate in democracy do not have a good history.

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

#208

Post by digdugdirk »

Xeamek wrote: post #86
digdugdirk wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Is this the other side of the argument? If so, it really helps frame just how messed up this system is.

No, not really. As far as "it would be nice" for politics to be free market of ideas, having to deal with scale is simply an inherent part of the world we live in. Like What system would You propose where campaigning funds don't matter? What, public fund where every candidate gets a fair share and they are prohibited to, for example, printing flyers on their own? In the land of free, nonetheless? Ofcourse it costs a…

There's definitely alternatives. Just as an example - Require every campaign to fund all expenses and advertising from a single campaign account, and limit funding sources to individual people with a personal contribution limit per candidate. Heck, limit the actual campaign period to the 3-4 months before the election while we're at it.

No more super bowl campaign ads? That sounds like a great system to me.

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

#209

Post by HWR_14 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #157
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/

For me, I'm not sure why there is a "Ms. Nancy Pelosi," and a "Nancy Pelosi," that both have trade activity. (Nancy Pelosi is interesting. She entered Congress worth about ~3-4 million. Now she is worth $100 million, give or take $20 million depending on the estimate. Interesting. I'm not saying it's Insider Trading, but the probability...)

Wow, Nancy Pelosi is interesting. She entered Congress 36 years ago. If she put $3MM in the S&P index when she joined Congress, and never touched it, it would be worth $108.66MM today. If anything, that's a clear argument she isn't insider trading. I always assumed she was a huge inside trader making a ton of money.

Meanwhile, her husband is a VC, and probably makes a good deal of money for them as well.

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

#210

Post by neilv »

pc86 wrote: post #186
neilv wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixed asset allocation aligned with ordinary American, and no moving back and forth from cash. (Just cash for modest bill-paying, emergency fund, home, big child-raising expenses like college tuition.) They're generally incentived to keep all 3 indexes up.

Going from "no individual stock picking" to "we feel you have too much cash, you have to buy index funds!" is quite the leap.

Moving huge sums between index funds and cash can constitute trading on insider information, and/or on conditions that a lawmaker is able to manipulate.
Post reply on HN