Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law

[Cardinal]

Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Washington (CNN) – The U.S. House on Friday eliminated a key requirement of the insider trading law for most federal employees, passing legislation exempting these workers, including congressional staff, from a rule scheduled to take effect next week that mandated online posting of financial transactions.
Aides to lawmakers insisted the changes were needed to avoid potential security risks to federal employees by revealing personal information.

The House vote followed similar action by the Senate Thursday. The votes were done with little notice and came at a time when most people were paying attention to the Senate’s work on high profile issues like guns and immigration.
One advocacy group pushing for greater government transparency blasted the move, saying it “guts" the law.
"Not only does the change undermine the intent of the original bill to ensure government insiders are not profiting from non-public information, it sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent suggesting that any risks stem not from information being public but from public information being online,” Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation wrote in a statement,

Look! Over there! Abortion, gay marriage and gun control!

I had to learn about this from Jon Stewart, and even then I had to unbury it in a google search so I could link to a mainstream media story, only to find it had already happened on April 11. This shows that when you favor term limits, all you're really arguing about is how many years a congressman is able to secretly profit from insider stock trading.

Bastards.

And before anyone tries to make this a liberal vs. conservative issue, the extensions for the original STOCK act were passed in bipartisan votes and signed by Obama.

 

[MaggieD]

Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



Look! Over there! Abortion, gay marriage and gun control!

I had to learn about this from Jon Stewart, and even then I had to unbury it in a google search so I could link to a mainstream media story, only to find it had already happened on April 11. This shows that when you favor term limits, all you're really arguing about is how many years a congressman is able to secretly profit from insider stock trading.

Bastards.

And before anyone tries to make this a liberal vs. conservative issue, the extensions for the original STOCK act were passed in bipartisan votes and signed by Obama.

I agree with you.

Bastards.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I wonder who were the key sponsors of this bullish--- I mean bill?

If the vote was unanimous I will blow a gasket.

 

[azgreg]

if I read the article right they still have to report any securities trades over $1000 just not post them online.

 

[Fisher]

I think it is a stupid policy to require Congressional staff to report so that part I am fine with.

 

[Cardinal]

I think it is a stupid policy to require Congressional staff to report so that part I am fine with.

Why?

.......

 

[Fisher]

Why?

.......

Because I personally do not think that it is good as is that people can go to legistorm and look up all their co-workers pay. I think it drives up Congressional staff pay and breeds discontent. It is none of my business where by Congressman's staff invests their money. It is their money.

 

[Cardinal]

Because I personally do not think that it is good as is that people can go to legistorm and look up all their co-workers pay. I think it drives up Congressional staff pay and breeds discontent. It is none of my business where by Congressman's staff invests their money. It is their money.

You don't think there should be greater transparency in how congressmen profit while serving their terms?

 

[Fisher]

You don't think there should be greater transparency in how congressmen profit while serving their terms?

I have been discussing staff reporting not Member reporting.

 

[jonny5]

Im not a fan of publicizing peoples financial transactions. While we are right to be suspicious, this appears to be an invasion of privacy.

 

[jonny5]

You don't think there should be greater transparency in how congressmen profit while serving their terms?

I think govt should be smaller so that there is less opportunity for congressman to profit, and there should be shorter terms so their is less time for congressman to profit.

 

[Cardinal]

I think govt should be smaller so that there is less opportunity for congressman to profit, and there should be shorter terms so their is less time for congressman to profit.

So your concern is not with how elected representatives can take advantage of knowledge and profit from it in a way that no one else is allowed to, but how long they can profit from it? This is a rather odd set of priorities.

 

[jonny5]

So your concern is not with how elected representatives can take advantage of knowledge and profit from it in a way that no one else is allowed to, but how long they can profit from it? This is a rather odd set of priorities.

Not at all. Power corrupts. So give them less power. Problem solved.

 

[Cardinal]

Not at all. Power corrupts. So give them less power. Problem solved.

So let me get this straight: you expect the same people who struck down a law making their profiteering off the system more transparent to also pass laws limiting the lengths of their terms?

 

[Redress]

So let me get this straight: you expect the same people who struck down a law making their profiteering off the system more transparent to also pass laws limiting the lengths of their terms?

You seem to be confused since you did not read your source article. Let me quote from it:

The president, vice president, Cabinet secretaries, deputy secretaries, as well as members of Congress and candidates for Congress, would still need to post their financial transactions online.

The change applies to staff, not Congressmen and Senators. The objection is actually a fairly legitimate one too, that posting financial transactions online would be a security issue.

Once again folks, it is always best to read the source material as the person starting a thread might either not have read it himself, or might be lying about it. It rarely takes long to read a source and almost half the time, there are details contained within that present a somewhat different picture from what the person posting the source is presenting.

 

[specklebang]

Why are they allowed to trade at all? They obviously use insider information that the rest of us would be jailed for.

You seem to be confused since you did not read your source article. Let me quote from it:



The change applies to staff, not Congressmen and Senators. The objection is actually a fairly legitimate one too, that posting financial transactions online would be a security issue.

Once again folks, it is always best to read the source material as the person starting a thread might either not have read it himself, or might be lying about it. It rarely takes long to read a source and almost half the time, there are details contained within that present a somewhat different picture from what the person posting the source is presenting.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'm curious, under the legislation, if you get your insider information from one of the exempt sources, let's say a congressional staffer, are you still guilty of insider trading or can only the congressional staffer legally screw the system?

 

[Redress]

Why are they allowed to trade at all? They obviously use insider information that the rest of us would be jailed for.

Because they have the same right to make money as any one else. Congress will still have to submit their trades to oversight and post them online, staffers still have to submit their trades to oversight. Do you think working for the government should mean you are not allowed to invest for your retirement and eliminates your right to privacy?

 

[Redress]

I'm curious, under the legislation, if you get your insider information from one of the exempt sources, let's say a congressional staffer, are you still guilty of insider trading or can only the congressional staffer legally screw the system?

Yes, and if the congressional staffer buys stocks based on their insider knowledge, that would be illegal too.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Yes, and if the congressional staffer buys stocks based on their insider knowledge, that would be illegal too.

Good catch - thanks - I'd misread the lead and didn't notice it was only related to posting transactions, not the actual transactions themselves.

 

[specklebang]

Yes, I do. People should be in politics to serve their country. As it is, the rewards are great. You can leave and become a lobbyist for some corporation, give speeches for $20K etc. and make your fortune later. But while you are purportedly "serving the nation", you shouldn't be "using the nation" for your personal profit. You should have no stocks - CDs would be fine.

Because they have the same right to make money as any one else. Congress will still have to submit their trades to oversight and post them online, staffers still have to submit their trades to oversight. Do you think working for the government should mean you are not allowed to invest for your retirement and eliminates your right to privacy?

 

[Cardinal]

Yes, I do. People should be in politics to serve their country. As it is, the rewards are great. You can leave and become a lobbyist for some corporation, give speeches for $20K etc. and make your fortune later. But while you are purportedly "serving the nation", you shouldn't be "using the nation" for your personal profit. You should have no stocks - CDs would be fine.

Edit: I disagreed with you initially, but the potential for abuse is too fantastically high, and proving insider knowledge would be akin to impossible since privileged information would affect nearly everything they invest in. Keeping track of their investments would take oversight that would be overwhelming in time, cost and energy.

 

[specklebang]

How does my idea prevent them for preparing for their retirement? Insider stock trading isn't the only way to earn a ROI. It's just inappropriate for the insiders to take advantage of it.

I think it's a bit much to suggest they shouldn't be allowed to invest or prepare for your retirement, but I also think transparency should be greater for them and their staffers and their families as the potential for abuse is so high.

 

[pbrauer]

Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



Look! Over there! Abortion, gay marriage and gun control!

I had to learn about this from Jon Stewart, and even then I had to unbury it in a google search so I could link to a mainstream media story, only to find it had already happened on April 11. This shows that when you favor term limits, all you're really arguing about is how many years a congressman is able to secretly profit from insider stock trading.

Bastards.

And before anyone tries to make this a liberal vs. conservative issue, the extensions for the original STOCK act were passed in bipartisan votes and signed by Obama.

The STOCK Act was modified on April 15, 2013, by S.716. This amendment removes the online disclosure portion of the STOCK Act, so that affected persons can no longer file online and these records are no longer easily accessible to the public. [11] The reasoning for this change was to prevent cyber criminals from gaining access to the financial data and using it against affected persons. This bill was introduced by Senator Harry Reid on April 11, 2013. It was considered by the Senate for 10 seconds and passed with unanimous consent. In the house, S.716 received only 14 seconds before being passed by unanimous consent.[12]​

STOCK Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cardinal]

How does my idea prevent them for preparing for their retirement? Insider stock trading isn't the only way to earn a ROI. It's just inappropriate for the insiders to take advantage of it.

see edit