Politicians and Insider Trading (1 Viewer)

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 14:43
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,312

The_Doc_Man

Immoderate Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 09:43
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
27,003
Is this a case of corrupt officials designing laws that feather their own nests?

You mean they aren't supposed to do that? Gosh, who knew?
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:43
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,984
Even 60 Minutes which is outrageously liberal couldn't let this one pass so a couple of years ago, they did a segment on this law that exempts Congress members from profiting on their insider knowledge. There was the usual outrage for 2-3 days and Congress modified the old bill to plug the holes but a few months later, quietly put it back to its previous state.

Rumor has it that Pelosi even directs government contracts to her husband's company and let's not forget AOA feeding her campaign contributions to her boyfriend's company. They all do it although the Democrats seem to more outrageous in their corruption than the Republicans but the Republicans are dirty too which is why no one does anything. They all profit from the gravy train.
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 10:43
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,619
Is this a case of corrupt officials designing laws that feather their own nests?
This will be an underpinning as to why Biden's proposed tax legislation to "force" the rich to pay their "fair-share", will be nothing but hot air to appeal to the gullible masses. When the (you must pass the legislation to find out what is in it) is passed their will be obscure language allowing some, like to the members of Congress to "feather their own nests". As one glaring example, of dishonesty, some Democrats are proposing the restoration of the SALT deduction, which would be a tax break for the rich. Not exactly forcing the rich to pay their "fair-share".

Though not specifically a "feather their own nest" example, the following is an illustration of Congressional corruption. Congress when it passed the Affordable Care Act, with great sanctimony included themselves in the legislation. A little bit later, under the cover of "darkness", Congress quietly exempted themselves from the Affordable Care Act to restore their tax funded medical coverage (that could be considered "feathering their own nest" for financial advantage.)
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:43
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,984
At some point during the Trump years, it came out that the House maintains a slush fund funded by the American taxpayers of course, which is used to cover up their peccadillos when the women (or men) complain. The House members of course were all OUTRAGED (Republicans as well as Democrats) that Trump had paid two women to not talk about their affairs probably because he didn't want Melania to walk out on him in the middle of the campaign. The women weren't even accusing Trump of anything. They were just going to profit from talking about him. Hypocrisy reigns and I'm going to guess that the slush fund is still well funded although these days, they probably wouldn't use it for a Republican except maybe to buy a billboard where they could plaster the accusation..
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 07:43
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,828
Look no further than Hunter Biden he exhibits the classic pay to play corruption that is currently infesting Washington DC. But lt also infects other nations that want access to the president of the United States. They have to climb into the sewer via Hunter, whilst uncle Joe takes his vig.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:43
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,984
But no one cares. The FBI, the DOJ, and the media pretty much squashed this story the year before the election because they knew it would hurt Papa Joe's chances and no other Democrat could believably win the stolen election. The talking heads are idiots but the suppression of justice by the FBI and DOJ is the end of civilization as we know it.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 07:43
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
I have just come across an article that states 37 members of Congress have violated laws designed to prevent insider trading. Yet these politicians, who design the laws, have set only $200 as the typical fine.

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/con...dianne-feinstein-a-democrat-from-california-1

Is this a case of corrupt officials designing laws that feather their own nests?

I like this article

One quote of note:
Members of Congress often have information that can mean millions, or even billions of dollars to market participants. Should they knowingly be misappropriating that information for themselves, their families, or their friends? Of course not. But it’s also unreasonable to expect members of Congress to pretend to not know something.
(concluding that they shouldn't be allowed to engage in outside business activities at all)
 

Jon

Access World Site Owner
Staff member
Local time
Today, 14:43
Joined
Sep 28, 1999
Messages
7,312
As I see it, if insider trading is illegal and congress members are privy to information that directly affects the markets, it is criminal for them to make related investments. Didn't Nancy make something like $5 million in the last 2 years from stocks, or something like that?
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 10:43
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,619

A bit old now, but:

Many of those in-power seem to develop an "immunity" complex regarding rules such as "insider trading". As long as they are in-power and in alignment with the general in-power political consensus, they are "immune" from prosecution. Hunter Biden being one such example. Once there is a fallout, as with now ex-Governor Cuomo, their "immunity" expires. They are then sent-off to the emergency room to be treated (removed from office or put in jail). The emergence of two stories above, for those into conspiracy theories, may imply that Biden and Powell could soon be losing their "immunity".

Concerning Pelosi and her apparent "genius" ability to generate wealth also involves the role of her husband.
 
Last edited:

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 07:43
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
Maybe it's kind of like the Hatch Act.

They all do stuff that seems like a violation (to me as a layperson), but then again, I'd have to spend an entire week reading case law and taking into account jurisdiction and binding to actually know whether a given hypothetical prosecution to a certain federal court is going to go anywhere.

Apparently most of it is just ignored. And I'm sure both sides do it, no illusions there. As well as your stock scenario.

My company governs insider trading by simply having an annual window during which trades related to my employer's company can be made by employees. The window never changes. That solves that and absolves all.

Insider trading laws seem like a weird concept to me. Do we really expect these politicians to find something out, know that they're about to lose millions if they don't sell, and just sit there pretending not to know? I mean, maybe......but.......it does seem a little odd. There must be a better solution, I'm starting to think the author who suggested NO dealings while in congress may have the best idea.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 07:43
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
5,828
Insider trading laws seem like a weird concept to me. Do we really expect these politicians to find something out, know that they're about to lose millions if they don't sell, and just sit there pretending not to know? I mean, maybe......but.......it does seem a little odd. There must be a better solution, I'm starting to think the author who suggested NO dealings while in congress may have the best idea.
What if they caused something to happen for financial gain?
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 07:43
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
AWF 'similar threads' had me poking around.
This isn't entirely persuasive by any means, but it does make a few decent points.

One thing that annoys me is when people make a point, and someone else accuses them of "blaming".

For example, that speech makes a point that "regime change" was a "thing" of US policy before Bush.
That's a reasonable point to make, and it's a useful one.
Does it totally absolve Bush of any and all blame for Iraq decisions? OBVIOUSLY not - nor intended to - but that doesn't mean it isn't worth bringing up, and is relevant for all the people who were essentially pinning the whole "regime change" concept on Bush, as if he had dreamed it up.

A good point is a good point even if it's not, in and of itself, totally dispositive of the entire issue at hand.
When people dismiss it as "Bush blaming Clinton", I see that more as them deflecting from the intellectual honesty required to directly address it.

There are many things in life that can make a person "still guilty, but a little less guilty".

Ability to acknowledge nuance is a cornerstone of honest debating. Yes, I made that up myself!
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:43
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,984
Ability to acknowledge nuance is a cornerstone of honest debating. Yes, I made that up myself!
Add it to your tag line:)

Presidents have to turn over management of their investment portfolios to blind trusts, Members of Congress should also.. No member of Congress nor his minor children should have any control over an investment portfolio. All of the trades of the trusts and the immediate family members should be closely monitored by the SEC to look for insider trading. We really can't go further than that. If they feed their friends info, it can't be stopped. If the members of elected officials own businesses, those businesses should be prevented from future contracts with any government agency. They can keep the ones they have until the contract expires. That's where a lot of Nancy's money comes from.

If being a member of Congress weren't so profitable, we'd have less trouble passing a term limits amendment.

When the Constitution was written, we didn't have the portfolio problem nor did we have the government contracts problem, nor did we have the lobbyist problem or the revolving door problem. We really need amendments to fix these loopholes and stop Congress from being the fountain of wealth it has become. It is the money that is causing the corruption. We need to cut off the ability to profit from their positions. Their salaries are probably the top 5-10% of the nation, plus they get paid staff and an expense budget to run their offices. It's not like they need to work a second job to support the family. They just have to live frugally if they want to support two households. Wouldn't it be nice if members of Congress lived in a rooming house when Congress was in session and then had to leave town:) That might clean up the swamp a little bit. Being back home for half the year might keep them more in touch with what the people how elected them want. At the moment, they don't care and they have no reason to care. Gerrymandered districts do a lot to keep the seat in the party so unless they are primaried, their chances of reelection are better than 50%.

Why do ordinary citizens enter Congress as middle income and exit with a golden parachute in the way of permanent health care and a huge pension plus all the graft and insider trading they can profit from on the way and a very profitable job as a lobbyist if they want it?

Gerrymandering - Wikipedia
Name that District contest winner: ‘Goofy kicking Donald Duck’ - The Washington Post
Name That District contest winner: ‘The Praying Mantis’ - The Washington Post
Name that district winner: ‘Beavis eating pizza’ - The Washington Post

How are districts drawn in other countries?
 
Last edited:

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 07:43
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
I had to click on the Beavis one
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:43
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,984
I posted the Gerrymandering links because our non-US friends have probably never heard the term and a picture is worth a thousand words:)

There're some very fumy districts in Chicago also where they slalom around houses.

I'm also pretty sure we have had algorithms available for years that don't try to favor one party over another. They just clump people together in approximately square shapes of equal population.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 07:43
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
I'm not even sure where I'm at with gerrymandering. My good instinct is, "Wow, that seems terribly clever and unfair".
But I also feel it may be one of those things where if both parties are using it (or could be), then maybe we just leave it alone.
Maybe similar to the filibuster. Since I was little, I've questioned the idea of letting people read from the Phone Book (is the way my mom explained it to me when I was 9) just to avoid a vote.
However, it does have some theoretical basis as far as minorities and mob urges. And both parties are free to use it, so leave it be, too much change brings too much chaos. Chaos eventually develops a momentum all its own.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 10:43
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
42,984
The only party that gets to redistrict is the party in power during the year when redistricting is allowed so the balance doesn't actually swing as evenly as you might imagine because the whole point of the gerrymandering is to keep the other party from ever gaining control over the state legislature.
 

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 07:43
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
8,738
The only party that gets to redistrict is the party in power during the year when redistricting is allowed so the balance doesn't actually swing as evenly as you might imagine because the whole point of the gerrymandering is to keep the other party from ever gaining control over the state legislature
The only party that gets to redistrict is the party in power during the year when redistricting is allowed so the balance doesn't actually swing as evenly as you might imagine because the whole point of the gerrymandering is to keep the other party from ever gaining control over the state legislature.
Devious stuff..
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom