Congress's Big Tech Stock Stakes Make Regulation Awkward (bloomberg.com) 60
A proposed antitrust bill has cast a spotlight on the immense portfolios of dozens of lawmakers. From a report: At a December press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked her opinion of proposed restrictions on stock trading by members of Congress. Her response was quick and clear: She hated the idea. "We are a free-market economy," Pelosi, whose family's shareholdings exceed $100 million, shot back. "They should be able to participate in that." Growing numbers of legislators from both sides of the aisle disagree. Following a series of recent abuses, at least five bills making their way through Congress would forbid lawmakers from owning individual stocks or force them to move their assets into a blind trust. One would make violators turn over any profits they earn to the U.S. Treasury Department. Another would extend the ban to family members. A third would also encompass top staffers.
[...] The fight over the measure highlights the potential conflicts of interest in lawmakers' shareholdings. A Bloomberg Businessweek examination of financial filings found that at least 18 senators and 77 House members report owning shares of one or more of the companies, and the law could have a significant effect on the value of their portfolios. Pelosi disclosed that her husband has as much as $25.5 million in Apple stock alone. Republican Representative Mike McCaul of Texas reported that his family holds shares of all four tech giants, with a collective value topping $8 million. Last year members of Congress filed more than 4,000 trading disclosures involving more than $315 million of stock and bond transactions, according to Tim Carambat, a researcher who maintains databases of lawmakers' financial trades.
[...] The fight over the measure highlights the potential conflicts of interest in lawmakers' shareholdings. A Bloomberg Businessweek examination of financial filings found that at least 18 senators and 77 House members report owning shares of one or more of the companies, and the law could have a significant effect on the value of their portfolios. Pelosi disclosed that her husband has as much as $25.5 million in Apple stock alone. Republican Representative Mike McCaul of Texas reported that his family holds shares of all four tech giants, with a collective value topping $8 million. Last year members of Congress filed more than 4,000 trading disclosures involving more than $315 million of stock and bond transactions, according to Tim Carambat, a researcher who maintains databases of lawmakers' financial trades.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up Nazi shithead.
Re: (Score:2)
Any unarmed Marine who can't kill a liberal celebrity in less than a second hasn't been properly trained.
Any that actually did haven't been either.
Outlaw corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
legalized bribes
The Supreme Court has already ruled that these bribes are a form of speech and cannot be restricted.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually it's worse than that:
https://www.vox.com/2022/1/19/... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Of course Ted Cruz is involved.
Re:Outlaw corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The spin of this whole story works just as well in the other direction - regulating business harms the economy, so why should politicians be insulated from those costs?
It's not just politicians who are invested in the markets - it's much of electorate. No different than sky-high housing prices. All the "appreciation" enjoy
Re: (Score:2)
Did you look at the article linked in the post I replied to? Ted Cruz is not Nancy Pelosi. Despite the fact that they are both corrupt assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"conservatives" in America ... "Make money and fuck you."
All this horrible right wingers like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Cook, Pichai, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting article. I'm sure it wouldn't hold up but my simple answer to this problem would be to make a law that you can loan any amount of money you want to your own campaign but it has to be a zero interest loan. That way there is no way for you to make any profit off the deal (and can actual lose money in the form of opportunity costs) and thus no one can buy your influence (via this method anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
Hey. At least insider trading has been illegal for senators for a few years now. Sort of.
Before that it wasn't.. So go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, other that Trump, everyone else in government put their stock holdings in a blind trust - as in a third party maintains the investments per good investment practices
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing the issue. Only the President (prior to Trump) has put their holding into a blind trust while they were in office. Ordinary senators and congress members don't have to do this when they are elected. That is the whole point of the proposed laws (to make it mandatory for elected officials to use a blind trust).
You don't say! (Score:2, Insightful)
Elected officials and politicians having conflicts of interest and not being completely impartial? Surely you jest.
You know what? Elect me! I ain't got nothing: I'll work for you, because you and I are in the same boat.
Oh wait... You can't elect me: I ain't got nothing. People without a billion kajillion dollars and a lot of buddies in the corporate and media world have zero chance of being elected...
Re: (Score:1)
Surely there's a federal program to subsidize people like you to be able to afford to run for office. You know, paid for by that "fair share" you keep advocating for everyone except yourself?
Of course, it will take time to accumulate the campaign funds to start out small, and build your constituency to get support for higher offices. No one will vote for someone that has no base. Picking random nobodies just never works out. Even school board members have to pay their dues to the teacher unions.
Re: (Score:3)
Bernie Sanders made a good run of it.
Didn't take corporate money. Limited individual donations.
It's possible.
(Of course, the corporate politicians prevailed in the end against the "socialist". People are stupid.)
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting about his 16 years as a Representative followed by the 15 as a Senator.
Re: (Score:2)
You really drank the kool-aid didn't you... You really think I saving up to fund a campaign a dollar at a time at my local credit union or something will get me anywhere close to the plutocracy money needed to get elected in this country? What the fuck rock have you been sleeping under for the past 50 years?
Oh and by the way, I ain't a freeloader. Unlike the megarich fucks in charge, I pay my taxes.
Even school board members have to pay their dues to the teacher unions.
Well, I'm glad you think this is okay then...
Re: (Score:1)
Except there are many examples of people in Congress who were of limited means (at least until they got there).
I think you can argue that some offices like the presidency and maybe some state wide offices like Governor or US Senator are out of reach but you certainly can get elected to your local school board, city council, county sheriffs office, state house, or congressional district if you are willing to put in the work, have the right message, are genial and can get people to like you.
Similarly some sta
Re: (Score:1)
Where I live, some offices have nobody running. On election day, if you can persuade your spouse to write in your name, you're likely to be elected. If not, show up at the next meeting and volunteer to take the position; you're likely to be accepted.
Note that these are unpaid positions, like being responsible for selecting who gets paid to mow the grass in the cemetery.
Re: (Score:3)
I appreciate it when someone I vote for has some inking of what their office is supposed to do and how to do it. What qualifications do you offer, for which office you want to run for, beyond "not being a megarich fuck"?
You'll note that the story that less than 25% of the legislators in question are playing with stocks in tech companies. At least 75% of both houses are NOT, so they shouldn't have a problem with dealing with them.
But they're all beholden to someone for SOMETHING. After all, they somehow conv
Re: (Score:1)
The reasons a candidate gets a vote are often quite mundane.
Primaries are different, since most names are unknown, many people will actually research the candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
Primaries are different, since most names are unknown, many people will actually research the candidates.
Another way to phrase that is that primaries are dominated by the partisans. The "mundane" people don't care enough to bother participating. The most partisan among us choose who we're allowed to vote for.
This is why you often seen candidates putting forth seemingly outrageous positions prior to the primary, then move swiftly towards less-outrageous positions for the general election.
The ideological among us are not enough for any particular party to dominate most elections. A candidates "base" is 20-40%. T
Re: (Score:2)
You really think I saving up to fund a campaign a dollar at a time at my local credit union or something will get me anywhere close to the plutocracy money needed to get elected in this country?
As a general rule, no, but last year the sitting NJ state senate majority leader lost an election to a truck driver who spent a whopping $2,300 on his campaign (about 1/150th of what the incumbent spent).
Gee, I wonder why big tech is allowed free reign? (Score:2)
Pelosi disclosed that her husband has as much as $25.5 million in Apple stock alone. Republican Representative Mike McCaul of Texas reported that his family holds shares of all four tech giants, with a collective value topping $8 million. Last year members of Congress filed more than 4,000 trading disclosures involving more than $315 million of stock and bond transactions, according to Tim Carambat, a researcher who maintains databases of lawmakers' financial trades.
And people wonder why congress doesn't do anything to actually slow down big tech's more dastardly moves. They're making as much off big tech's scheming as the companies themselves when it comes down to it. Of course they aren't going to try and stop it. They'll just have hearings every once in a while to put on a show for us plebes, make a big stink about it, then go party with the dudes they were just roasting and talk about how gullible the public is.
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, Pelosi's husband is a venture capitalist. This legislation would basically force him to liquidate and retire, or force her to retire from Congress. Not that either of those would necessarily be a bad thing, but it's kind of shitty and clearly why she's opposed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Pelosi is also known to have made a TON of money off of COVID due to knowing ahead of the public. I do think we need some sort of law preventing that type of insider trading among the congress critters, but how do you get a group of corrupt assholes to vote against their own self-interest? It's a conundrum.
Re: (Score:1)
So its better she and her husband were able to enrich themselves clearly leveraging her inside knowledge of what legislation was likely to pass? While your or I may very well have lost big portions of our retirement because the folks managing the funds largely selected for us in our 401ks made some bad bets?
I am not sure there is anything so wrong with the idea Pelosi and her husband should not have had to have a conversation in their household about his career vs her congressional aspirations.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, there should absolutely be some regulation of congress critters being able to self-enrich based upon the legislation and hearings that they preside over. I'm suggesting it shouldn't be so draconian as to force spouses out of careers. Let's have the GAO publish lists of public-traded companies that would be materially affected by proposed legislation or hearings scoped by committee and a blanket list for all members for legislation headed for a floor vote; and have members of Congress have trading wind
Restricts Who Will Run (Score:2)
One consequence of legislation that prohibits stock ownership is that it will keep a lot of people from running. I would certainly think twice before doing anything that would force me to sell off the stocks I own that I expect good long-term gains from.
If they prohibited trading except when Congress is not in session or certain small windows every few months, that would work. It would allow long-term investing, but make it much harder to take advantage of inside information.
I see the current issue to be
Re:Restricts Who Will Run (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost like your job is being a public servant.
Re: (Score:1)
Trading windows aren't a bad idea... blackout period for all times when Congress is in session, with an additional 1 week added to either end.
I mean, I'm in a relatively low-level role in my company, and even I only get one month per quarter open trading window in our stock - starting 2 days after earnings are announced, and ending at the end of the following month (so as an example, if earnings are announced Jan 25, window would open 2 days later, and run through the end of Feb).
It's annoying as hell somet
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with demarcating anything based on when Congress is "in session" or not, is that Congress is never out of session any more. They have "pro forma" sessions to prevent recess appointments, or any of another half-a-dozen things that can happen when Congress isn't in session.
I'd be more in favor of quarterly trading windows, with trading of any company's stock that has business impacted by pending legislation in front of either committees, or a specific bill that is headed for a floor vote banned o
Re: (Score:2)
One consequence of legislation that prohibits stock ownership is that it will keep a lot of people from running. I would certainly think twice before doing anything that would force me to sell off the stocks I own that I expect good long-term gains from.
If they prohibited trading except when Congress is not in session or certain small windows every few months, that would work. It would allow long-term investing, but make it much harder to take advantage of inside information.
I see the current issue to be a mix of legitimate reform to address corruption and hating the rich.
One could require a blind trust so you could keep your investments but not actively mange them; another would be to require all trades be made public the same day they are executed, whether they are options, actual stock transactions, etc. Add in serious penalties for having a third party such as a family member make the trades. Finally, produce a real unicorn; I'm betting that happens first.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree with you. However there are some solutions like blind Trusts (all though you still know the structure of the portfolio before the trustee took it on).
On the other hand its supposed to be 'public service' maybe having to sacrifice a little to 'serve the public' isn't the end of the world. Its not like these guys can't walk away antime they want and get a book deal or consulting gig something. There are still plenty of was to 'profit' from having been in office, so asking them to give up a few years
Re:Restricts Who Will Run (Score:4, Interesting)
Broad-based mutual funds are your friend. Employees of certain Federal Gov't Agencies, most notably the SEC, have very strict rules on owning or trading in financial markets. One of the big exceptions is broad-based mutual funds. Get an S&P 500 index fund for the duration of your service. Odds are it'll outperform anything you do anyway.
As a former SEC employee, I can tell you that even Sector Funds were prohibited. Gotta be broad-based so nothing you can do influences it, and you can't predict it based on information you may have.
Power should come with limits (Score:5, Insightful)
They are a lot of extra rules set on active service men, who enlist to serve our country. Which include a lot of limits on their free speech, what they can do and when, even if it isn't a war time activity.
Many of these rules which civilians don't have to follow, are actually necessary, as it creates uniformity within the uniformed armed services, as well to be sure that you can trust every individual to carry out their duty. Where if a service man is public about their feelings of the commander and chief, leadership may not trust them to follow orders, as well their opinion may be considered the opinion of the service.
If we are able to get away reducing constitutional rights to our service members, why should it be inconceivable that our elected leadership should have a number of restrictions applied to their lives outside of their normal jobs.
If they have stock in a rival company, it might make them unnecessarily harsh to a company, because they have invested interest in that companies failure. Or willing to let the greater good slide, because they are blinded by their own personal benefit.
Because these law makers, and executive and judicial branches have so much power, being able to invest in individual companies is just leading to additional corruption.
Sure some people will say, well just elect those bozos out of the office. However with the current 2 party system, we are not electing individuals, but just the party you want to be in control. Politicians in solid party areas, tend to be the ones who will get kicked out in disgrace, while if they are in contested areas, will often get the party full support and strong attempt to discredit their indesgressions.
Meanwhile in Canada (Score:2)
Who watches the watchers? (Score:3)
Modern stock market was not invented when the USA was founded almost 250 years ago. Hence, founders did not put safeguards against these corruption opportunities.
The problem is, once the country is set rolling, those who make the rules are unlikely to make rules that will inconvenience themselves. All of them will talk against something when in minority, but will use every effort to use it when tables change (judge appointments, filibuster, list goes on).
At this point, only a very strong grassroots operation can fix them. But of course, that is also very unlikely to happen. (i.e.: the public does not care).
Re: (Score:2)
Exchanges existed will before then as well as trading shares of stock.
The emoluments clause exists in the constitution to restrict members of the federal government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So no Potsy, the founding fathers were well aware of this type of cor
Re: (Score:2)
"Modern stock market"...
We can drown in details, but my point is current financial markets are very different than what we had back then.
Conflict of interest (Score:2)
Not my country. (Score:2)
Just proves how corrupt our government is (Score:1)