New Democratic bill would block lawmakers from buying and selling individual stocks while in office

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ericgtr12, Dec 6, 2018.

  1. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816


    Mar 19, 2015
    This seems like it would be a common sense no-brainer but let's watch Republicans dismantle it.

    From CNBC
    • Two Senate Democrats introduced a bill on Wednesday to prevent members of Congress from trading stocks in industries tied to their legislative work.
    • The legislation was prompted in part by the scandal surrounding Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., who was indicted on insider trading charges in August.
    • "There must be more accountability and transparency," Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is considering a run for president, said in a statement.
  2. zin macrumors 6502

    May 5, 2010
    United Kingdom
    You know they're grandstanding, right? The STOCK Act, which was supported almost unanimously by both Democrats and Republicans, already prohibits insider trading by members of Congress.
  3. jkcerda macrumors 6502a


    Jun 10, 2013
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    DOES THE bill cover their families as well? seems easy to just have the stocks under a family members name to bypass it.
  4. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Mar 10, 2005
    Remove the power of government positions, and bill proposals like this would not exist.
  5. Arran macrumors 601


    Mar 7, 2008
    Atlanta, USA
    For sure!

    But the corrupt individuals would just shift to the private sector - and there'd be no effective oversight, accountability or scrutiny.

    Problem would grow unchecked.
  6. bradl macrumors 68040


    Jun 16, 2008
    This is where the next Constitutional Amendment should come into play and further codify not only the Emoluments Clause, but while in office, put all monies made outside of their position as lawmakers into a blind trust that they do not choose, and forbid any members of immediate family from accessing those monies.

    Anything monies made before they entered office would be fair game. Once they are in office, it all goes to that trust, and the spouse, nor immediate children shall not be the benefactors to it for the duration of the lawmaker's time in office. Once they leave office, it returns to that lawmaker to do as they wish. They are on our dime, and while they can continue to make the money from their stocks, should not be paid for them while they are salaried employees of the people in this country.

    I suggested this to restrict the POTUS and vPOTUS when it came to Trump's dealings with getting the SS and foreign dignitaries and staying at his properties while he banks the money that we, the taxpayer, pay for. He works for us, and is paid by us. He should not be double dipping by making us pay him for housing our officials on his property. Again, he's already getting paid by us, so he should not be charging the taxpayer additional money for the government to patronize his business.

  7. stylinexpat macrumors 65816


    Mar 6, 2009
    That would perhaps have some affect on conflict of interest trades made
  8. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Jun 13, 2015
    having disinterested third parties is always useful.

Share This Page

7 December 6, 2018