Should lawmakers be banned from trading stocks?

@comeonman: You don't think laws designed to prevent corruption will result in less corruption? Granted this topic talks about one very specific part of a broad subject and might not be any help at all, but are opposed to any checks and balances because "corruption will find a way"?

I put this in my original post in this thread, but you either did not read it, or it went over your head.

The problem is power. Money follows power. Reign in the immense, absurd, over-reaching power of the federal government, and becoming an elected federal official becomes a lot less lucrative opportunity.

Laws that we are told are designed to prevent corruption may reduce it in the short term, but money will eventually find a way to buy influence.

What I support are checks and balances on the power these elected officials have to sell.

@comeonman: These checks and balances have failed utterly during this administration. And if you can openly buy one of them, what is stopping you from buying the others?

Oh yes. Its just been during the Trump administration that politicians have been enriching themselves by selling access to their office. *rolls eyes*

I guess, by that argument, once Trump is out, you won't need to pass Senator Lie-awatha's bill to stop members of congress from trading in stocks.

Seriously though, I think you and I are talking about different things in regards to checks and balances. I want a dramatic rollback of the federal government's role in our domestic economy. If they cannot invoke laws and policies that affect the economy in such specific ways that those with a stake in the game will enrich them to do so to the stakeholder's advantage, then these slimy, corrupt human beings (i.e. politicians) will not be attracted to federal office.

Did I say this wasn't abused before? This bill was just as valid during Obamas terms as now.

If we are to be able to handle a crisis like this one in a humane way, we need someone or something that can intertwine greatly with the economy.

Increased transparency could also help. And it has to be easily accessible.

"in·sid·er trad·ing/inˈˌsīdər ˈtrādiNG/noun

1. the illegal practice of trading on the stock exchange to one's own advantage through having access to confidential information."

considering the fact that these politicians have access to confidential information and pass laws that affect certain industries is a conflict of interest. it's an unfair advantage and that's exactly what insider trading laws are trying to quell

Again, we could apply this logic to any law and crime we have in society. What you're spouting is some non-applicable nonsense. We have plenty of laws on the books that aren't ironclad, can be abused, yet they provide us a net good even when applied.

Let me try a hypothetical example.

Let's say I have a company that makes toilets, and my toilets only use 3/4 of a gallon per flush. Almost every other toiler maker uses 1 gallon per flush. If I can spread around some cash and get congress to pass a law that mandates all toilets must use less than one gallon per flush, I just cornered the market. At least for a while.

You are never going to get people to stop acting this way. Greed and the desire to gain advantage is just human nature. However, if we could all agree that the federal government should not be deciding such micro details in society and the economy, there would be no reason for me to waste my money trying to get congress to pass a bill they have no authority to enact.

So, if we take away their ability to pass so many damn laws, which result in so damn many regulations, dealing with such minutia in our economy and day to day lives, they would be much less able to make stock A go up, or stock B go down, thus greatly reducing their opportunity to use their inside knowledge for profit.

To quote Madison: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." What we have been seeing over the last 50 to 60 years is what happens when men govern men with little or no limits on where and how they exercise the power of the government in our economy.

So, by all means, pass your law restricting stock trading by lawmakers if it makes you feel better. It will not reduce corruption, even a little.

Your example illustrates something we've instituted time and time again, so I'm not sure why you would create a scenario which DOES work. The government has mandated emissions and mileage standards in cars, unleaded gasoline, clean water standards, etc. The list is countless and we've done just that over time, and it works with curbing negative externalities on society (even toilet usage laws exist per your example).

People have yet to circumvent these laws and regulations as you're implying.

I thought we were discussing corruption, or corrupt behavior, of lawmakers, particularly using insider information to profit in the stock market.

I have not argued that there is no resulting good from the , imo overreaching, economic micromanagement our federal government engages in. There is, undoubtedly, some measure of benefit from federal regulation of everything from vehicle emissions to how much water is used to flush a turd.

But we have created a leviathan, and the people with the levers of power, lawmakers amongst them, will, in many cases, succumb to the temptation to sell access to that power. Or otherwise abuse that power to enrich themselves.

Expecting the people with the power to sell, to pass a law to take that away from themselves, is not very realistic in my opinion.

Then your entire stance is a bit of doublespeak. Your own example, with respect to flushing toilets, is a proven measure by which the government can enforce behavior and curb resulting negative effects. I'm simply extrapolating based on your response. You're arbitrarily drawing a line 'just cause' and it doesn't make sense when applied logically or in the real world.

Do you have any evidence of this what so ever? Because politicians involved in insider trading isn't anything new. To make the statement that this suddenly became a problem under Trump is being completely disingenuous. Which isn't surprising in the least from someone who denies Joe Biden used his position as vice president to aid in the financial enrichment of his own family.

Insider trading is illegal. Why are you defending it?

Got anything to back up that claim of yours?

Yes. If they have assets when entering office, those should be kept in a blind trust of some sort where they have no influence.

They need to be banned from having any interaction with corporations. In fact, in an ideal world, a law would be put in place not only banning trading stocks and accepting bribes disguised as "lobbying," but would be retroactive and immediately removing all sitting politicians who have done so and get all past and present ones arrested on felony charges. Hell, throw the book at the CEOs of those companies too.

No. It’s their right to make wealth!

Insider trading is illegal. So no.

@LJS9502_basic: Shouldn’t be