• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law

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

What special data would have been posted that could have been more potentially damaging (and exploited by cyber criminals) than, say, a politician making their tax returns public? I'm genuinely curious -- the wikipedia page doesn't explain and the article already provided that rationale (more or less).
 
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.

Seems about right. This is a great Status Quo law that will really go a long way towards benefiting the Aristocracy. But no one cares cause it's not "exciting" or whatever other reasons we use to excuse our ignorance and stupidity.
 
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?

No, I dont expect anything to change.
 
If they are concerned about the security of federal employees, then redact the names and put in something like: 'Office of Representative X' and then any transaction that is of concern should be reviewed by an independent board. Then if there are issues, the perp can be punished. Congress people should have high standards, but they are public figures. Their staffers while powerful in their own way are still more private and should have some degree of privacy but they should still have a high level of accountability for their actions.
 
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?

Blind trust is one option.
Limited transactions for pending legislation and submit it to oversight. Have it cross referenced with votes and committee actions via computer to red flag items for review is another. Loss o profit gained as the fine would seem to be just about right for penalties.
 
Blind trust is one option.
Limited transactions for pending legislation and submit it to oversight. Have it cross referenced with votes and committee actions via computer to red flag items for review is another. Loss o profit gained as the fine would seem to be just about right for penalties.

They do have to submit to oversight. Putting themselves at security risk simply to try and plan for their retirement and the future of their family is excessive.
 
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.

Most congressional staffers are not becoming lobbyists, and certainly not the high paid kind. Congressmen do become lobbyists at times after they retire, but they are still required to post their investments online.
 
May I respectfully ask what point you are trying to make? Do you feel that anyone should have greater access to valuable information that others (like you and I) don't have?

My point is that these people are purportedly serving their country. As far as I can tell, the purpose of politics has become a method of financial success as opposed to actual service. Millions are invested to win these positions, are they a kind of investment in their own right. Do you run for office to win the jackpot? Sadly, I think that is exactly what it has become, a money game, and damn little concern for the nation itself.

As for their investments being online, does this happen the moment they make the trade? Could I (or you) see what they buy and buy at the same price (more or less) and thus negate their advantage? Can thy invest in a stock knowing that a contract will soon be forthcoming that will lift its value? Is this what they should be doing with their time?

You've seen enough of me in the last year to (hopefully) know that I don't have a chosen side. I just want my country to prosper and for all boats to be lifted. I am very critical of our rulers based on their performance, not based on their suffix initial.

I'm no expert on politics - or anything else for that matter. Sure, I have opinions© but I don't over-value them. I'm very amenable to changing my mind when someone else proposes something that makes more sense to me than my own thoughts. Until I'm otherwise convinced, I am of the opinion© that the rulers and their lackeys should not get an investment advantage. They shouldn't be buying stocks at all if there is any way they can influence the outcome of those stocks, directly or indirectly. Actions cause reactions. If you were able to take actions and gain from those reactions, should you be doing that instead of your job?






Most congressional staffers are not becoming lobbyists, and certainly not the high paid kind. Congressmen do become lobbyists at times after they retire, but they are still required to post their investments online.
 
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.

Hey, that's not an obviously corrupt thing to do. Not at all. /epic sarcasm
 
May I respectfully ask what point you are trying to make? Do you feel that anyone should have greater access to valuable information that others (like you and I) don't have?

My point is that these people are purportedly serving their country. As far as I can tell, the purpose of politics has become a method of financial success as opposed to actual service. Millions are invested to win these positions, are they a kind of investment in their own right. Do you run for office to win the jackpot? Sadly, I think that is exactly what it has become, a money game, and damn little concern for the nation itself.

As for their investments being online, does this happen the moment they make the trade? Could I (or you) see what they buy and buy at the same price (more or less) and thus negate their advantage? Can thy invest in a stock knowing that a contract will soon be forthcoming that will lift its value? Is this what they should be doing with their time?

You've seen enough of me in the last year to (hopefully) know that I don't have a chosen side. I just want my country to prosper and for all boats to be lifted. I am very critical of our rulers based on their performance, not based on their suffix initial.

I'm no expert on politics - or anything else for that matter. Sure, I have opinions© but I don't over-value them. I'm very amenable to changing my mind when someone else proposes something that makes more sense to me than my own thoughts. Until I'm otherwise convinced, I am of the opinion© that the rulers and their lackeys should not get an investment advantage. They shouldn't be buying stocks at all if there is any way they can influence the outcome of those stocks, directly or indirectly. Actions cause reactions. If you were able to take actions and gain from those reactions, should you be doing that instead of your job?

I think you may still be laboring under the impression that the change in the bill was for congressmen. It was not. The people at issue are staffers, who are certainly not spending millions to get their job. Congressmen, under the change, still have to post their transactions online.
 
OK, I got it.

The staffers have a lot of opportunity to benefit from working for the elected officials. The reason there is a law against insider trading is to (attempt to) insure a level playing field. I'm glad they finally made some effort to cut back on this. Took until 2012 to even prohibit this.



I think you may still be laboring under the impression that the change in the bill was for congressmen. It was not. The people at issue are staffers, who are certainly not spending millions to get their job. Congressmen, under the change, still have to post their transactions online.
 
IMO no one is above the law, nor should an elected leader see their position as an opportunity to aggrandize themselves.

I'm also opposed to their being able to park anywhere in DC without being ticketed/towed. We're Americans, we abhor the notion of royalty or special classes.

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.

How do you feel about regular citizens insider trading? I mean its their money...
 
Anyone find the bill number, and read the actual bill, or are you trusting a reporter?

I hope nobody is trusting a reporter...
 
They do have to submit to oversight. Putting themselves at security risk simply to try and plan for their retirement and the future of their family is excessive.

Not when their ability to profit is just as great as Congressman, arguably even greater since they often write the laws and have a greater understanding of them. So I still am going for the blind trust argument or open oversight with infractions becoming public knowledge whether the ethics committee acts on them or not.
 
if I read the article right they still have to report any securities trades over $1000 just not post them online.

If that's the case, then Opensecrets.org can put them online like they do all the other money shenanigans going on in our government.
 
IMO no one is above the law, nor should an elected leader see their position as an opportunity to aggrandize themselves.

I'm also opposed to their being able to park anywhere in DC without being ticketed/towed. We're Americans, we abhor the notion of royalty or special classes.



How do you feel about regular citizens insider trading? I mean its their money...

When I was a staffer I did not get to park anywhere I want to in DC and regular citizens do not have their finances broadcast all over the internet for people to nose into it so neither should staffers, many of whom do not live or work in DC to begin with.
 
When I was a staffer

Congressmen have that privilege, not their staffers nor did I suggest that.

I did not get to park anywhere I want to in DC and regular citizens do not have their finances broadcast all over the internet for people to nose into it so neither should staffers, many of whom do not live or work in DC to begin with.

Aww poor them, If I could make a killing insider trading and it was legal, I care not who looks at my finances.
 
Aww poor them, If I could make a killing insider trading and it was legal, I care not who looks at my finances.
Trying to make libertarians look bad with your presumptions?

My understanding is that the new law only makes them not have to post their transactions online. Has to do with others obtaining personal information for unscrupulous reasons.

Here is the bill:

S.716
 
We have representatives who answer to the voters. We have oversight committees who are either civilians or representatives of the people. I see no need for me to have intimate knowledge of someone elses private financial transactions so long as someone trustworthy is supervising them. This could all be solved by simply stopping electing the same idiots over and over again.
 
Trying to make libertarians look bad with your presumptions?

My understanding is that the new law only makes them not have to post their transactions online. Has to do with others obtaining personal information for unscrupulous reasons.

Here is the bill:

S.716

Thats the bill as it stands now, it was gutted.
 
Most congressional staffers are not becoming lobbyists, and certainly not the high paid kind. Congressmen do become lobbyists at times after they retire, but they are still required to post their investments online.

What information, that the staffers and family members would have posted online, is at greater risk of abuse than the the information that the congressmen post?
 
What information, that the staffers and family members would have posted online, is at greater risk of abuse than the the information that the congressmen post?

Wrong question. The better question is what is the difference between a congressman and a staffer. I think the answer should be obvious.
 
Wrong question. The better question is what is the difference between a congressman and a staffer. I think the answer should be obvious.

No, I think I'd like my question answered, thankyouverymuch.
 
No, I think I'd like my question answered, thankyouverymuch.

The problem with your question is that the reason for the differing standards is not the level of security risk. It is the difference between congressmen and staffers. Congressmen, being at the top of the food chain, are asked to assume more risk. This is true despite your claims otherwise earlier in the thread.

By the way, are you aware that the more you treat people like **** who work for the government, the less likely you are to get good people to actually work in government?
 
The problem with your question is that the reason for the differing standards is not the level of security risk. It is the difference between congressmen and staffers. Congressmen, being at the top of the food chain, are asked to assume more risk. This is true despite your claims otherwise earlier in the thread.

The level of security risk was one of the main premises for eliminating the key requirement. As Pbrauer already posted, "The reasoning for this change was to prevent cyber criminals from gaining access to the financial data and using it against affected persons." So if staffers and family members are made vulnerable by the requirement, why aren't the congressmen?

By the way, are you aware that the more you treat people like **** who work for the government, the less likely you are to get good people to actually work in government?

Demanding greater transparency of our elected representatives and those who could profit from their connections to them is treating them like ****?
 
Back
Top Bottom