I've always felt that we should 5x-10x the salaries (Singapore style) of federal elected officials and cabinet secretaries but require them to divest their entire portfolio within 30 days of taking office and only hold securities issued by the US government, states, and localities.
Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
61–70 of 84 posts
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 shrin…
> They are not granted to impose targeted legislation against elected members of legislative bodies
They don't have to be granted power for every possible description of a law, only for any description and not prohibited any of the others. And while it may not be obvious to you on its face, its pretty well established that regulating securities trading in general falls within interstate commerce power, so as long as there isn’t some provision prohibiting legislation that applies to conduct of members of Congress (and there isn’t), that’s that.
> > 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
Yes, they can.
Setting the size: the only thing the Constitution does is set an upper bound, which the current legislatively-fixed size is well below, allowing it to be altered in either direction without hitting a Constitutional limit, abd requiring eachbstate to have at least one member. Art I, § 2, ¶ 3, in relevant part: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative.”
Changing how members are picked: this is given to the state legislatures in the absence of Congressional action, with Congress given overriding authority except as to the location of elections for the Senate [0]. Art I, § 4, ¶ 1 (emphasis added) “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.”
[0] this is a legacy of when Senators were chosen by the state legislature, since setting the place would mean Congress was relocating the statr legislature for that one function, but was not explicitly altered when direct election of Senators was established by the 17th Amendnent.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
FTA: Blind trusts wouldn't be allowed. >The new bill would bar Washington officials from owning or trading stocks, even in blind trusts. The implication is that blind trusts are just wealth managers with a facade of independence.
Thanks for pointing that out -- I missed that originally. It seems heavy-handed. Either blind trusts are actually blind (that is, real independence on the part of the trustee, not just a facade) or they aren't. If it's the latter, then that should be the part that needs dealing with. But I have a hard time believing that this is a real problem; trust law is extremely well established.
In the end, what we want to do is align the personal incentives of our elected representatives with the incentives of society as a whole. That includes the ability for elected officials to (indirectly and passively) participate in the stock market, just like how millions of Americans do with their 401ks and IRAs. The problem is the rampant insider trading, not that congresspeople own stock.
If this bill would make it so that elected officials can only own Treasury notes and real estate, well, it will probably end up inflating the value of those assets instead ;-) but jokes aside, it appears an undue burden.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#64I've always felt that we should 5x-10x the salaries (Singapore style) of federal elected officials and cabinet secretaries but require them to divest their entire portfolio within 30 days of taking office and only hold securities issued by the US government, states, and localities.
Sounds nice on first order. Are there any unintended consequences? Personally I don't think you can kill corruption you can only balance it against itself.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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.
The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment (but not that of the 14th) does limit Congress, the Equal Protection Clause (of the 14th, there is only one of those) does not, it only limits the States.
In any case, those provisions don't prevent Congress from passing laws which regulate your or my participation in securities trading, either with rules that treat us the same as everyone else, or with rules that provide targeted limits based on institutional relationships (targeted restrictions need to not be on grounds that are specifically prohibited, and need to have sufficient relationship to a legitimate government purpose, but you haven't presented an Constitutiinally-grounded argument against either.)
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#66Earlier 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.
If it’s unenforceable and unconstitutional, then why was the FBI able to obtain a search warrant for Richard Burr’s phone?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_t...
Clearly both a judge and the FBI understood that they could act in this law.
I don’t understand why you are so adamant on this point about regulating Congress. Multiple people in this thread have posted examples refuting this.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
Honest question: if we can enforce limitations on a person's liberty, freedom and so on when they drive a car, why couldn't we do the same when they hold public office?
Seriously, a cop can pull you over and your fourth amendment protections are dead, must help that driving is considered a privilege and not a right by states
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#68Earlier 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.
"But my rep is pretty good" says a majority of people as incumbents win.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#69Ask professional loophole writers to write a law inhibiting their own wealth.
Even more jaded, they will propose it to large media fanfare, but then delay the actual vote for months while they all voice their support for it.
Then they will allow any Senator to vote FOR this if they need a local boost in their approval numbers. But obviously they will carefully make sure that the bill fails by a few key votes.
Re: Senators propose law that bans members of Congress from trading stocks
#70I've always felt that we should 5x-10x the salaries (Singapore style) of federal elected officials and cabinet secretaries but require them to divest their entire portfolio within 30 days of taking office and only hold securities issued by the US government, states, and localities.
Sounds nice on first order. Are there any unintended consequences? Personally I don't think you can kill corruption you can only balance it against itself.
Im sure there are but not really aware of what they are. The one that I can think of is putting some downward pressure on asset prices when the market knows that a lot of wealthy people have to sell off assets somewhat quickly.