A bipartisan group of senators reached a deal Wednesday on legislation to ban stock trading by members of Congress, setting the bill up for action in the Senate later this month.

  • @dogslayeggs
    link
    785 months ago

    Bill dies in committee in 3, 2, 1…

    • @CaptainSpaceman
      link
      505 months ago

      Or allows their spouses to trade

      Or has zero teeth

      Etc

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        385 months ago

        From the article:

        The deal would immediately prohibit members of Congress from buying stocks and selling stocks 90 days after the bill is signed into law.

        It would also ban member spouses and dependent children from trading stocks starting in March 2027. Penalties for violating the law would either be the monthly salary of a lawmaker or 10% of the value of each asset they buy or sell.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            Most taxes on asset sale is based on profit, subtracting the bought price from the sold price. Given the wording the tax would be on the sale price, not the profit.

                • @NOT_RICK
                  link
                  English
                  45 months ago

                  More than pretty good, and certainly enough to accrue a million plus in assets over the span of a career.

              • Flying Squid
                link
                25 months ago

                But they sure do with their insider trading.

        • @CaptainSpaceman
          link
          75 months ago

          Sounds like zero teeth to me if the fine is just “the cost of doing business”

        • I Cast Fist
          link
          fedilink
          55 months ago

          Spouses and dependent children only? Then it’s time to call mom and dad! Also brother, sister, cousin, uncle, etc.

        • @webhead
          link
          -25 months ago

          AFTER BEING SIGNED INTO LAW seems like a huge loophole to me. They can just trade while they’re talking about it or right after it passes but hasn’t been signed, etc etc.

          • @jacksilver
            link
            125 months ago

            That’s how laws work. You can’t generally make something illegal retroactively, otherwise you could change the law to persecute anyone you want.

            How would you want them to approach it?

            • @webhead
              link
              15 months ago

              I dunno maybe they should be subject to more stringent rules like people at banks and such? If you can just trade your stocks right before you pass a law, what’s the point of the new rule? That’s part of why they’re under fire in the first place isn’t it? They have insider information. Saying you can’t trade after the fact seems like it’s too late to me. Maybe I didn’t explain that well idk.

              • @jacksilver
                link
                25 months ago

                I understand your point, but that’s what this law would theoritcally accomplish. It would limit representatives/senators from being able to trade stocks (a higher standard than an average citizen). While they can buy/sell stocks before the law, that’s just the current state of affairs.

                Regarding the timing of trades, etc. The value of their insider knowledge is really only beneficial over long periods of time. Yes they could buy/sell stock in the interim, but preventing it long term would be an actual win.

                • @webhead
                  link
                  15 months ago

                  I don’t disagree with you. Progress is progress. I just wish it was more.

  • Neato
    link
    fedilink
    English
    445 months ago

    YES, FUCK. How do we let people with some of the most insider knowledge profit off of that at the expense of the American people? Making money in the market isn’t just printing money: that money comes from others who lose out because they aren’t cheating.

  • @hark
    link
    255 months ago

    I’ll be shocked if this actually becomes law.

  • @robocall
    link
    245 months ago

    Being a congress member is about civil service, serving Americans. It’s not about self service or family service. They should put Americans before themselves. If they can’t do that, go work in the private sector.

  • originalucifer
    link
    fedilink
    225 months ago

    havent they tried this a few times… and each time its either abandoned or some loopholes are created making the endeavor pointless?

    • @mecfsOP
      link
      235 months ago

      From the article:

      **The big picture: **Previous efforts to get a stock trading ban passed through Congress have failed over the last few years.

      • But the bipartisan backing in the Senate could tee up the bill for rare progress during an election year.
      • The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will mark up the bill on July 24.
  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    85 months ago

    Penalties for violating the law would either be the monthly salary of a lawmaker or 10% of the value of each asset they buy or sell.

    Because I’m sure no one would make more than that and just take the trade off. And then take credit for saving the tax payers money. That’s definitely not the kind of thing that would happen in the Congress I know.

    • @mecfsOP
      link
      75 months ago

      if this law becomes a 10% levy on politicians trading stocks, ill take that as a win

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        35 months ago

        People settling like this just empowers these people to continue grifting us. We shouldn’t be satisfied with the bare minimum.

        • @mecfsOP
          link
          15 months ago

          I won’t be satisfied. But I’ll be happy that it’s better than before.

          Same logic as I have for most climate laws.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    85 months ago

    “We have finally figured out a way to pass this law with a big enough loophole for us all to continue to partake in all of the insider trading we want through other family members or our bagmen. I mean lawyers.”

    Honestly though, Merkley on board is actually a great sign in my opinion.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      35 months ago

      Meh I lost some respect for Merkley when he did his publicity stunt of bringing the media and trying to get into the ICE facility unannounced to see how the kids were living under Trump but then never mentioned the detainment or living conditions again once the news cycle refreshed. Wyden on the other hand has been killing it by blasting the government on matters of privacy and surveillance for years with his position on the Intelligence Committee.

      In any case, with this being a bipartisan bill, I’m sure there are healthy loopholes carved out (or plans for future amendments) in this bill.

      • @crystalmerchant
        link
        15 months ago

        Fuck yeah my boy Ron. Fun fact I saw him in a Portland coffee shop not that long ago. If you didn’t know him you’d never guess. He blends right in as an average older dude lol

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Hmm. Is there any restriction on them providing information to someone else and having them trade? The article text doesn’t say so.