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

Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

msn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#11

Post by metiscus »

chrisco255 wrote: post #3

I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.

"It is a crime punishible by xyz to hold any of the following offices and while owning any of the following classes of asset. A newly elected xyz shall have XXX days to divest themselves of any of the prohibited securities after the election is certified."

Something like that seems constitutional to me, although I am not a constitutional scholar.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#12

Post by gottorf »

chrisco255 wrote: post #3

I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.

The idea that Congress cannot bind a future Congress doesn't mean that Congress can't make laws that regulate itself. It just means that a later Congress can vote to repeal whatever laws that an earlier Congress had voted to enact.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#13

Post by phone8675309 »

jameslk wrote: post #9
phone8675309 wrote: post #2

Per the article this is likely DoA: > Two bills on this matter — the TRUST in Congress Act and the PELOSI Act — have failed to move the needle this year, and it’s unclear if or when the Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act will be debated and voted on.

If it's truly a democracy I'd expect otherwise given the polling on this issue: > Public support for a ban on stock trading among members of Congress is almost unanimous — with 86% in favor nationwide, according to a new survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.

The approval rating of Congress as a whole is 20% versus 76% disapproval rating.

The pretense of this nation being a functional democratic republic has long been abandoned. We have merely the simulacrum of it now.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#14

Post by JumpCrisscross »

gottorf wrote: post #12
chrisco255 wrote: post #3

I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.

The idea that Congress cannot bind a future Congress doesn't mean that Congress can't make laws that regulate itself. It just means that a later Congress can vote to repeal whatever laws that an earlier Congress had voted to enact.

> just means that a later Congress can vote to repeal whatever laws that an earlier Congress had voted to enact

Laws aren't passed by the Congress alone. OP is confusing the law with e.g. the principle that says the 118th Congress can't adopt a House rule with two clauses:

(1) All Democrats must tape a weenie to their head, and (2) This rule may only be changed by unanimous consent.

When it comes to laws, they can't bind the Congress (collectively) but they can bind its members individually. For example, the 118th Congress can't pass a law compelling the 119th Congress to pass something else. This doesn't arise out of any law, but is a natural result of, quoting Cicero: "when you repeal the law itself, you at the same time repeal the prohibitory clause, which guards against such repeal" [1].

[1] https://ij.org/cje-post/state-con-law-case-of-the-week-can-o...

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#15

Post by tacticalturtle »

chrisco255 wrote: post #3

I don't see how any law like this would be constitutional without a full amendment. One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment.

Sure they can. Here’s an example where Congress banned itself and future classes from engaging in insider trading (which was previously legal):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#17

Post by gottorf »

jameslk wrote: post #9
phone8675309 wrote: post #2

Per the article this is likely DoA: > Two bills on this matter — the TRUST in Congress Act and the PELOSI Act — have failed to move the needle this year, and it’s unclear if or when the Ban Stock Trading for Government Officials Act will be debated and voted on.

If it's truly a democracy I'd expect otherwise given the polling on this issue: > Public support for a ban on stock trading among members of Congress is almost unanimous — with 86% in favor nationwide, according to a new survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.

A democracy doesn't mean that the representatives you elect must always and only follow the will of the constituency: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Of course, when it comes to this particular matter of insider trading, it would seem particularly self-serving for Congress to not pass such a law with such popular support. But I want to point out that there is no broad agreement that in a "true democracy", the will of the majority is always reflected in policy.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#18

Post by gottorf »

phone8675309 wrote: post #13
jameslk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's truly a democracy I'd expect otherwise given the polling on this issue: > Public support for a ban on stock trading among members of Congress is almost unanimous — with 86% in favor nationwide, according to a new survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.

The approval rating of Congress as a whole is 20% versus 76% disapproval rating. The pretense of this nation being a functional democratic republic has long been abandoned. We have merely the simulacrum of it now.

> The pretense of this nation being a functional democratic republic has long been abandoned. We have merely the simulacrum of it now.

The institutions of democracy in this country are challenged, but I'd say we are a long way from being a mere "simulacrum" of a functional democratic republic. I am confident that the populace and the institutions will rise up to the challenges.

Popular policies or leaders aren't necessarily good, and vice versa. As an example, the president of El Salvador is wildly popular, with 80-90% approval ratings in polls; but critics also accuse him of being an authoritarian whose rule may well end up leaving El Salvador in a backslide into autocracy.

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#19

Post by gottorf »

coreDNA123 wrote: post #5

If this can avoid congress members from trading defense stock and declaring war on china and iran to bump it...

Indeed. It doesn't appear to be such a huge burden to ask Federal elected officials, who are all paid a substantial salary and have great benefits, to put their assets in a blind trust, like in that old Onion joke[0].

[0]: https://www.theonion.com/you-people-made-me-give-up-my-peanu...

Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks

#20

Post by nullc »

> The new bill would bar Washington officials from owning or trading stocks, even in blind trusts.

Unless you're going to ban congresspersons to hae wealth-- where is the money going to go and what distorting effects will that have -- and will it be superior to the problems of (say) having a blind trust that just holds market indices?

Post reply on HN