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

41–50 of 84 posts

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

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

chrisco255 wrote: post #32
dragonwriter wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One class of Congress cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on future classes of Congress without an amendment. No such rule exists. The closest is that an act of Congress can’t limit Congress ability to exercise its Constitutional powers in the future (e.g., a past Congress could not limit a future Congress’ ability to set its own rules), but there is nothing that prevents a Congress from passing laws which regul…

Of course it does. The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.

> The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution.

Except that they aren’t. Apportionment is in part…but salary is not (although there are some rules as to when changes can take effect). The rules are not. Elections are not.

> Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change.

Regulating the personal behavior of members of Congress is not “regulating future generations of Congress” in any way that is restricted by the Constitution or requires Constitutional change. You are just inventing rules out of thin air–apparently riffing on (without understanding) the maxim that the Congress can’t bind future Congresses–that have no basis in the Constitution or, really, anything else.

> Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.

The interstate commerce clause has absolutely everything to do with regulating securities trading.

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

#42

Post by isaacremuant »

coreDNA123 wrote: post #5

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

I presume they'll just receive the money from their lobbyists in those industries but it's definitely better than having that AND their own stock "great investments".

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

#43

Post by isaacremuant »

gottorf wrote: post #17
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.

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…

If you're going to go down that route, democracy is a sham in that there's little to no incentive for an elected official at a high level to represent their constitutients since they do better by representing their donors/lobbyists/political partners and paying lip service right before election times. Accusing their opposition of "being terrible, so you have to vote me" work wonders too, if they're able to convince people that false dichotomies are real.

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

#44

Post by chrisco255 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #39
chrisco255 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> you're proposing a Constitutional change to deny members of Congress a legal right that is available to the broader population Is this a crackpot legal theory about how the last hundred years of precedent are unconstitutional because Redditor No. 9 million said as much? Where in the Constitution does it explicitly bar bribery? Come on.

This is not a crackpot theory, this is how the Constitution works.

You cannot impose specific restrictions on Congress on personal rights that ordinary members of the public have (trading stocks and other property assets) without a specific clause set out for it in the Constitution. Their private property rights are explicitly protected by the Due Process of the 5th amendment and Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment (same as you and me):

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.]"

They do not lose 5th and 14th amendment protections in their private affairs just because they were elected to Congress. Bribery is illegal for everyone, not just Congress. Trading stocks are not.

That being said, you'd be naive to believe that implicit bribery does not occur in U.S. politics. And in practice, it's very difficult to prosecute a bribery case against a member of Congress as it's not permissible to introduce acts of legislation as evidence in court (US v Helstoski, 1979). In US v Brewster (1972), it was found that taking of a bribe was not protected by the Speech and Debate clause since the taking of the bribe was not related to "performance of a legislative function". Even then, though, Brewster was found not guilty despite quite overtly requesting a bribe.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/408/501 [3] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/442/477.h...

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

#45

Post by chrisco255 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #41
chrisco255 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it does. The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.

> The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Except that they aren’t . Apportionment is in part…but salary is not (although there are some rules as to when changes can take effect). The rules are not. Elections are not. > Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Regulating the personal behavior of members…

> Except that they aren’t. Apportionment is in part…but salary is not

Yes, it is:

Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States."

That gives them the authority to set forth legislation for their own salaries. The 27th amendment ratified in 1992 held that any change in salary would not take effect until the following Class was elected.

> Regulating the personal behavior of members of Congress is not “regulating future generations of Congress” in any way that is restricted by the Constitution or requires Constitutional change. You are just inventing rules out of thin air–apparently riffing on (without understanding) the maxim that the Congress can’t bind future Congresses–that have no basis in the Constitution or, really, anything else.

No, the private property rights of Congress are protected by all of the same property rights clauses that protect you and me, including Due Process and Equal Protection. You cannot arbitrarily deny property rights to Congress that are broadly accessible to the general public.

> The interstate commerce clause has absolutely everything to do with regulating securities trading.

We can debate securities law another time, but no, the interstate commerce clause does not allow you to restrict elected members of the legislature from all the same rights as private individuals enjoy, including the right to own and sell stocks.

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

#46

Post by chrisco255 »

bern4444 wrote: post #34
chrisco255 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it does. The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Regulating the behavior of Congress in a way is a constitutional change. Sorry, no, the interstate commerce clause has absolutely nothing to do with the legislature regulating future generations of Congress.

> The whole institution of Congress and everything from its apportionment to its salaries are determined by the Constitution. Congress decides how much to pay themselves in Salary. They can pass bills to raise or lower it. They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it. The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, t…

They are granted the privilege to decide Congressional salaries by the Compensation Clause of the Constitution. They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies. Also by the 27th amendment any increase must take effect in the following election.

> They could also decide to pass a bill to change how the members of congress are picked, or to expand the congress, or shrink it.

No, they cannot. That requires an amendment, not a bill, and amendments have to be ratified by 3/4 of all state legislatures.

> The constitution quite literally be amended and changed. In a way, this is the ultimate strength of our system of government. We (the government being represented by the people) choose the limits and rules to impose on ourselves - we are not subject to an arbitrarily picked ruler and assume full responsibility for what we allow in society.

The strength of our system of govt in part derives from the fact that it is not trivial to change the Constitution. It requires supermajorities (2/3) in both chambers of Congress and 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify any change. This is A Good Thing, because simple majorities are fleeting and temporary and allowing chaotic changes to the Bill of Rights, for example, would be devastating to the idea of liberty. Too often in history, democracies have failed because they buckled to the whims of simple majorities, or granted themselves or an executive branch too much power. Our system is the oldest continuous democracy in the world in part because of those supermajority requirements.

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

#48

Post by hiatus »

clove wrote: post #21

If they do this, we will lose the smartest members of congress. Hear me out via an example: Consider Nancy Pelosi, who made $20M via trading in 2020. To have predicted the market would crash during otherwise good times and then rise during otherwise hard times, you would have had to be an economic genius. If we had banned our senators from trading, Pelosi would probably choose trading over guiding our nation, essenti…

In your own profile you mention that you are a stock trader. Do you not see the potential confusion between cause and effect you are making here? When you control the laws of an entire country, it should be trivial to multiply your wealth by investing in areas and industries that you intend to effect with legislation.

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

#49

Post by mcv »

gottorf wrote: post #19
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...

Is that still satire? The URL says The Onion, but the article sounds totally serious.

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

#50

Post by hiatus »

chrisco255 wrote: post #33
tacticalturtle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's still very much practiced as seen during COVID-19 and Nancy Pelosi's exceptional portfolio performance and timing. It is also unenforceable. The 2012 Congress cannot regulate the legal activity of members of Congress without an amendment, unless the law broadly applies to the general population.

How was Congress exempted from insider trading laws yet powerless to enact laws that restrict their own conduct?
Post reply on HN