Should lawmakers be banned from trading stocks?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Friday she’s reintroducing a bill to prohibit lawmakers from trading stocks as Democrats look to make the issue a key aspect of Georgia’s two Senate runoffs.

The reintroduction of the bill by Warren and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) coincides with scrutiny Georgia Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R) and David Perdue (R) are facing over their own stock trading during the pandemic.

Democrats have accused the two senators, who are locked in competitive runoffs to keep their seats, of using private information gleaned from congressional briefings to buy and sell stocks during the pandemic.

Source (source has more, I just copied the beginning of the article).

Banning it could lead to different kinds of people seeking these positions. Less corruption perhaps?

I used to 70/30 yes on this. After this administration I'm 100 percent convinced it needs banned.

Considering GOP behavior........yes.

@LJS9502_basic: It was a combination of Trump and McConnell for me, honestly. This is something we should be able to get conservatives on board with too, tbh. If they truly believe in incentives guiding the markets, this is an easy case of removing perverse incentives and conflicts if interest.

Loeffler didn't convince you?

@horgen: I was already there by that point. Trump had already illustrated perfectly well why the emoluments clause exists, so why something like that shouldn't be in place for Congress was already questionable. McConnell's and Chao's side projects answered the question. By the time Loeffler had dirtied her hands I just saw it as further confirmation.

It was partly in place for a short time I think. They had some laws against insider trading. Removed quickly of course.

I guess AOC will support something like this, however corporate democrats will not.

Before, 2020, I would have said no 100% of the time.

But after how the GOP acted this year, I say... yes! this needs to happen.

If not banned, at least forced to be put into a blind trust that they can't manage or influence.

Yep. **** these guys. They serve us, not the other way around.

You probably could if you addressed the matter towards people on the right in a less biased, accusatory manner. Trying to paint Trump and McConnel for something all politicians are notorious for doing isn't going to bring more people to your argument, but just make you look even more like a blind partisan looking to blame everything on everyone but your own.

Did you already forget how Al Gore, while acting vice president used his influence to direct billions of dollars of "green energy" research grants towards his own privately owned green energy company which made him worth a quarter billion dollars today? If you think the corruption is one sided, or even something new, you just haven't been paying attention.

Absolutely.

Too much money in politics, need to get it the **** out of there.

Honestly if it were up to me, the only income they would be able to use is a 100k salary. That's it.

Need some other restrictions as well, such as being required to stay in DC for at least four days/week, any and all activities logged and available for viewing by the public.

We need to grab our politicians by the balls and make them remember who they work for; they're all running wild for the most part doing whatever they want with an army of lawyers and lobbyists, exploiting loopholes for personal profit.

With a bit of luck, we can make the job so terrible only the most dedicated and patriotic civil servants would sign up for the job, and they'd want to leave before the 10-year mark.

I don't think anyone is disputing that both sides are guilty of this, it's just the most recent administration was a Republican one and therefore the most relevant example.

But yeah, they're both guilty. Hell, I bet there's more cooperation between both sides of the isle outside government buildings than inside them.

@eoten: You can deny it all you want, but the Trump administration has been the most corrupt administration in at least the last half century. There have absolutely been bad actors from both parties past and present, but the last four years has been extreme, out in the open, and completely unanswered for. Previously norms and mores prevented this behavior, but the voters of this party are literally cheering them on now. They're daring us to address it in legal terms rather than just norms, and it's time we do.

The same woman who folded her 88% corporate senate campaign money into her failed presidential campaign while saying "I don't take corporate money".

I haven't read the bill, but I bet it's swiss cheese if Warren has anything to do with it. It's usually the case with bills hundreds of pages long. I notice it talks about immediate family, but that doesn't really mean much. Still plenty of people who could do the dirty work for you, other than a spouse or kid.

The 'bu bu both sidez' responses are already coming in. Right on time from the morally bankrupt supporters of Trump and Co.

Both sides doing it would support the notion that it should be banned if you ask me...

@mrbojangles25: Holy shit, I 100% agree with you on this!

The only reason I do not agree with the chant of getting money out of politics is because the one side who screams this the loudest also gets about 99% positive coverage from the major media networks, a value that far, far exceeds the $10,000 donation limit that exists currently. If you want me to agree with it, then it'd have to include other services that exceed a certain value as well. The media bias and censorship is worse at this point in dictating politics.

As for investments though. We have laws against a lot of it, and limits as to how much people can receive. The problem is many of these people will use family to receive the benefits so it does not go directly to them. Like how Joe Biden used Hunter as a proxy to receive money from China. If Joe can do that and nobody bats an eye, then anyone can accept money from anywhere if they go through their family and there's not a lot you can do about that.

Holy F you can't let go of any chance to smear Joe Biden.

There's interesting overarching pillars in addition to lawmakers; military personnel/leadership and private companies, or law enforcement/first responders, unions, prosecutors, judges, even medical professionals with pharmaceutical companies, etc. The perpetual money web is definitely something that transcends many boundaries and definitely warrants discussion on where lines should be drawn, if any.

You don't seem to have problem with people taking shots at Trump whenever possible. Your bias is showing and you have ignored the actual content so I will ask again. How do you stop people from using family as proxies?

@horgen: Weird that I never saw you once say the same thing to the people constantly smearing Trump only way way way more often. Hypocrite much?

After Loeffler, it absolutely should not be allowed. She used inside knowledge to sell stocks and then had her husband buy stocks when she knew the stimulus was going to pass. That's just corrupt.

trump abused the emoluments clause.

As for your rant about Biden that is conspiracy and nothing with any teeth. If you can't post the truth, you shouldn't post.

Trump makes himself a national embarrassment on a daily or weekly basis. Reporting what he done or tweeted is by your views enough to smear him.

Post links to something that back up your claim about Bidens corruption.

Now are you two going to stay on topic or post more strawman arguments? Naturally close family can be mentioned in the laws as well. Which I hope is mentioned in it.

Why hasn't the party of law and order done anything about that?

Existing laws in the private sector already prevent this. Congress is simply exempt. Apply the laws to them.

Even if that were not the case, that argument that, "this loophole exists so we shouldn't close this other one," is RIDICULOUS and completely without merit. Anticorruption laws usually operate by stopping known methods and then stopping additional ones as they arise as technological, geopolitical, or legal changes make them available. That's how law works.

Fair points, but it's important to keep in mind that the far right have absolutely used and abused social media, and they have their own network/s, specifically FOX News, OAN, and other places.

True, most of the major networks have left-leaning bias, but they are still held accountable and tell the truth (skewed as it might be) because there are regulations in place. The right makes up for whatever financial disadvantage you think they might have by flat-out lying, using propaganda, and so on.

My ideal is that any and all politicians get a fixed budget, paid for by the taxpayers, and some other things. Each presidential candidate during an election, for example, get's one hour per week on major networks to talk. That's it. Each candidate get's a website that has every update fact-checked. They are banned from social media. As for funding, I don't know what a good amount is, but they get that, and that's it. No outside financial donations, no nothing; just the allowance we give them.

I, uh......yeah, yeah they probably should.

I tend towards no.

How are lawmakers any different from those in business privy to information conducive to profitable opportunities? Hold them to the law as anyone else, provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt they've taken dubious opportunistic initiative. I find it a tad unfair and selective to disallow individuals this freedom simply by virtue of their position.

Like the emoluments clause, open trading presents a set of complicated scenarios.

First and most obviously, they've now created a carve out for themselves in the insider trading laws twice. That needs to be eliminated and they need to be held accountable for insider trading like anyone else. The reason it's banned in the private sector is that it victimizes those in the public who aren't privy to the insider information and it holds here as well - the politicians engaging in it are financially preying on the voters who elected them.

Second, since they make the laws the inverse is a consideration. If politician X holds sizable investments in Saudia Arabia real estate, he's not going to want to enforce sanctions on the country whether they're necessary or not. If politician Y holds shares in the health insurance industry, she's not going to want to support any reforms that will reduce the rents obtained by the sector.

It presents opportunities to game the system both ways, and that's not even getting into the flat out bribery we've weaved throughout our lobbying and campaigning systems.

A valid point.

But the possibility of corruption exists everywhere. In principle, I'm generally disinclined to preclude broad swaths of individuals from taking actions on what they may do or what position they occupy that will allow them to do. We should be taking action post, not pre, utilizing measures to retroactively address, not pre-emptively prevent.

It's not a perfect solution and will be exploited by those who will game the system I realize, but I find it better than the alternative.

You cannot tell me the right has some kind of strong presence on social media, or are even remotely backed by such. Google, Facebook, and Twitter have been banning content from many conservatives. Their implicit bias has been the part of many congressional hearings, and now the subject of a few anti trust suits. Everybody knows social media censors conservatives, this isn't a secret, let's not pretend this happens. And just because Fox says they are conservative, doesn't actually make it so. Fox is basically the John McCain or Mitt Romney of television media. There is no comparison here.

I haven't said that we shouldn't close any loophole because there are other ones. I am asking what the idea would be to deal with the other ones because as it stands, right now, going through family is standard operation for those in politics.

@eoten: Once again, we already know the mechanism. It's already in place for literally everyone else.

This post is fantastic. *Chef's kiss*

It would take a lot of effort to more eloquently illustrate why the perceived bias claimed by many on the right isn't bias.

They've convinced themselves that if an outlet doesn't treat their climate change denial, deep state allegations, and Killary claims as legitimate that it's biased.

i can't see how this is a partisan issue at all.

politicians have easy access to insider information the public does not have. not only that, THEY'RE the ones creating policy that will DIRECTLY affect corporations.

it's fucking insanity that they're allowed to trade at all.

@horgen: So you're going to just stay a hypocrite, gotcha. The million times in the past 4 years Trump and Trump supporters have been called racist and a million other things with zero of anything to back it up, that was fine though. Poor Biden gets called out for something and you're in defense mode in trying to stop it in under a second. Once again, hypocrite.

It just shows you how closed minded, ignorant, and hateful people on the left are that they excuse themselves when they do all the things they accuse the other side of doing. They m

That's funny, because Biden makes himself a national embarrassment every time new information comes out about his son that points the fingers at Biden selling his position in government, like a cheap whore, to enrich himself and his family. Or when he tried to string a coherent sentence together before he trails off talking about kids rubbing his hairy legs that turn blonde in the sun... or get caught sniffing or touching women who are clearly uncomfortable with it.

You just admitted to your bias, that it's okay to talk shit about one side and not the other BECAUSE you agree with one side and not the other. But you know what really loses any shred of respect I may have had left? You not having the backbone to admit it. To insult my intelligence pretending that you have some kind of a right to say or believe things that the rest of us do not.

Wrong. Big difference between a family member and the president themself. trump abused the emoluments clause. He obstructed justice per the Mueller report. His campaign was involved with Russia. He's trying to steal the election. And he's entertaining martial law.

Defending him at this point is absurd.

So it's agreed? We can implement a pseudo emoluments clause in some form (and shift the enforcement of the emoluments clause from Congress to the judicial system) if we call it something like "the Hunter Biden Anti-corruption Act?"

So another Tuesday for President Trump?

"No, because candidate X of the opposing side did Y, which is something completely different."

This is exactly how these conversations go.

Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.

Anyone that thinks these career politicians are going to vote to cut off their own gravy train is delusional. They'll pass a bill with a great sounding name, but absolutely no teeth, and/or enough loopholes to make it look like, as our friend vl4d_l3nin said, swiss cheese.

The problem is power, not money. Money follows power.

The thread is asking what YOU think. This is ignoring that neither you or Vlad has probably read the bill to determine if it is 'swiss' cheese.

So, do you have an actual opinion on the matter?

@HoolaHoopMan:

I would have thought it was discernable from my post.

Politics has become a business in the USA, and getting elected to a federal office is making it to the big leagues. Very few politicians are in it for anything but their own enrichment. Therefore they will not vote for any bill that truly takes away their ability to accumulate wealth by selling access to the power of their office.

Take away the bulk of their power to manipulate the economy at the micro level, and the wealthy will no longer be knocking on their door to gain their favor.

Thanks for asking.

You still didn't answer his question.

The TC asked if banning lawmakers from trading stocks will result in less corruption.

My answer is No. It will not result in less corruption.

Even if a law could be passed with ironclad prohibition of stock trading by lawmakers, they will find another way to sell access to their power to replace whatever enrichment they lose.

You didn't. You're circumventing the topic entirely. A hypothetical is being proposed and then tied to a current piece of legislation. Rather than positing a stance or opinion on either you're just regurgitating talking points about corruption in politics and big money, yadda yadda yadda.

Now you've answered. And I disagree. By this measure why have any checks, balances, or laws, on those in power? They can simply find a way around them, no? Laws do not have to be ironclad in order to reduce corruption/crime. The nature of laws is that they evolve over time and get patched when abused. We have plenty of laws that do good and yet can be abused. Should we scrap all imperfect laws then?

That line of thinking is asinine and non-applicable to the world we live in.