E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAlleged insider trading by members of Congress, and its taint on the image of that already unpopular institution, continues to gain traction on Capitol Hill. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I- Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee, set the goal of Dec. 15 for a committee markup, or drafting session, on a bill to prohibit members of Congress and staffers from using knowledge gained from their jobs to trade in securities or to tip off others.
NBC's Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro discuss results from a Republican voter focus group, the jobs numbers for November and whether Herman Cain will stay in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
“It’s not a simple legislative drafting matter,” he told reporters after the hearing which heard testimony from five expert witnesses on insider trading and congressional ethics. But he said, “I’m confident we can get a good part of this done by the 15th.”
Explaining the need for brisk action, he said, “We start with the obvious reality that Congress is at one of its low points in American history in terms of public trust.” And he added that a recent “60 Minutes” story that raised new questions “really affected people. I find people asking me about it as I’m at home going through the supermarket and taking a walk with my wife-- and being upset about it. I think it is something we ought to try to answer quickly.”
The House Financial Services Committee has set a hearing for next Tuesday on a parallel bill to outlaw congressional insider trading.
Recommended: Next moves unclear on payroll tax cut extension
Lieberman said Congress should first make it clear that under existing law, there is no exemption for members of Congress from the laws punishing insider trading. As one of the witnesses Thursday, Indiana University law professor Donna Nagy said, the “60 Minutes” broadcast erred in stating that congressional insider trading is “perfectly legal.”
But there is, Lieberman said, “an ambiguity about how successful a prosecution of a member of Congress would be for using insider information to make money. We ought to clarify that as quickly as we can.”
Pushing for the ban on congressional insider trading at Thursday’s hearing were two freshman senators who must face voters next year when they run for re-election, Sen. Scott Brown, R- Mass., and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D- N.Y.
Each has sponsored separate bills which attempt to explicitly ban congressional insider trading.
Gillibrand told reporters, “it sounded from the chairman that he really wants to expedite it, get it out of committee which is exciting….I think we’ve got great momentum; the statement by the chairman was fantastic that he supports this and that he wants to do a markup in December.”
Nagy contended that congressional insider trading is already illegal under existing law. “I think it’s superfluous,” she said of the ban being proposed by Brown and Gillibrand.
But Brown noted that “there have been no successful prosecutions of members or their staff and I believe the uncertainty surrounding the existing legal framework provides an excuse for enforcement agencies (the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission) to avoid the politically difficult task of policing Congress, especially when Congress controls the purse strings” for those agencies.
But the proposal faces a long, twisting road before possible enactment.
One hurdle: to change a Senate rule to ban insider trading would require not just a filibuster-proof 60 votes, but 67, a problem of which Gillibrand seemed unaware. The Senate rules require 67 to make a change in the rules of the body. That super-majority might be a heavy lift.
Given this problem, Lieberman said, “What we would probably do is report out two separate recommendations: one would be legislation, the other would be an amendment to the (Senate) rules.”
He said the proposed rules change might have to be sent to the Senate Rules Committee. And that would add more delay to the effort.
Another potential problem: the Constitution’s “speech and debate clause,” which says members “shall not be questioned in any other place” for things they say in any speech or debate.
“There is an argument that because of the speech and debate clause, some prosecutions of members in the courts might be frustrated by saying you can’t prosecute a member of congress for something they learned in Congress,” Lieberman noted.
That obstacle would not exist if there were a change in Senate rules, since the Constitution gives Congress full power to discipline its own members. If the Senate rules banned insider trading, then the Senate could vote censure or expel those who broke the rule.
But the longer Thursday’s hearing went on, the more apparent the difficulties of drafting a clear rule became.
Ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, said, “I think this is a more complicated issue than it first appears” because members of Congress not only acquire information in the course of writing laws, but regularly learn information – sometimes about specific companies – when talking to constituents, conducting investigations, or advocating on behalf of their home state and its industries. “We have to make sure that when we do act we’re not having a chilling impact on the responsibilities of members of Congress to their constituents,” Collins said.
She suggested other options – instead of enacting an insider trading ban on members—that Congress ban its members of from trading in individual stocks, or that it require them to delegate investment decisions to a fund manager or to require that each senator’s assets be put in a blind trust.
Leave a Comment:
I'm sure they'll leave some loophole in it so they can keep doing what they're doing. They'll pass this law so the public thinks the issue is done, but they'll just use that loophole like nothing happened.
Lawmakers making laws that would take money out of their own wallets? Forgive me if I not trusting their integrity on this one.
Why should Congress be exempt to the laws that govern the electorate? Anything that applies to us should apply to them including Medicare and 401K's.
That is the same reason the TAX CODE is full of loopholes. Those making the laws always make sure there are ways around them for themselves, for lawyers, for accountants, CPA's and others but the common guy does not have access to them. A FLAT TAX is what we need but again the lawyers, and tax professionals will all be against it because their services and ripoff methods will no longer be necessary. Accountants and lawyers are unsrupulously wicked and they PRODUCE NOTHING but paper work and more unneeded bureaucracy that government wants. It is all about power and control and politiciansm all government emplyees, and lawyers, or judges or police are the worst kind of megalomaniacs there are.
im with ya all the way.. Dont applogize though....
A flat tax is not the answer. A flat tax is regressive and overburdens the working class, to the benefit of those worried only about enriching themselves further on the backs of the 99%.
A tax code can be progressive (tiered rates), entirely fair, and still not be complicated.
Evelyn, congress is very corrupt about taking care of themselves. I think they have slowly been becoming more corrupt in the last few years. The corruption might be less if congress was limited to how many years they can be in congress, like the president. That might limit how much corruption seeps into them before they are forced to end their congressional careers. I believe this is the type of thing that OWS has been trying to make the general public more aware and angry about. We, as the public, just need to keep picking on the law makers and hope the change will come. Just a side thought. Newt Gingrich has been in Washington Politics for years. I worry about how much corruption has seeped into him.
If it's a public hearing, it's not insider trading.
The 60 minutes show said something like "Even though it's all public record, regular people can't watch Cspan all day and read the minutes from every hearing".
Well then it's not insider trading. Just because others don't want to look at the same public records that the Congresspeople see becuase it's too time consuming - doesn't mean the info isn't publically available.
The real question is why 60 minutes never mentions that the problem is Gov't picking the winners and losers in the Private sector, not winners and losers in stocks.
Gov't is far too large and intrusive. It doubled in size in just the last 10 years!
They need to get their hands out of the private economy.
One way or another, the citizens will have to enforce the Constitutional Limitations on Gov't.
The Bigger Gov't gets, and the more things it controls, the more corrupt it gets.
We all know that power corrupts, and the more power the Gov't has, the more corrupt it is.
So the real solution is getting Gov't itself back under control. Not wasting efforts on making it harder for Congresspeople to profit from the knowledge of that corruption.
All that will do, and all any "ban" on "insider" trading will do is try to hide the corruption of Gov't.
Out of sight, out of mind doesn't change the fact that Gov't itself is the problem.
Ryan...I can't agree with that. Stopping insider trading is part of getting the govt. under control. We have to start somewhere and this is as good a place as any. What they are doing is wrong and corrupt and, among many other things, it needs to stop.
I agree Ruken, they cannot be trusted and we should send the whole bunch home packing.
If you expect Congress to pass any law that does not benefit themselves then you need to leave a tooth under your pillow for the tooth fairy and clean your chimney so Santa will not get his clothes dirty.
A flat tax is not the answer to the corrupted tax laws we have now. The only thing that will work is honesty from Congress and that will not happen because they are only accountable to themselves.
Ancient Rome went through this same thing.
Merry Christmas everyone.
All. Here's a petition to help get things going.
www. thepetitionsite. com /5 /take-back-the-power-of-the-vote/
Look at the underlying message here. Enough people complained and an Independent listened, not someone from either party. If you read the article closely the Independent is for this ban, but you already have the party people trying to come up with reasons it can't or shouldn't be done... typical party politics, both sides trying to keep their gravy train on track.
All the more reason to elect a majority breaking number of Independent candidates to break the deadlock and actually get something done, like some common sense solutions to this country's problems. That's our only hope of ever getting and kind of term limits for congress or campaign finance reform that isn't just smoke and mirrors.
The only option I think is feasible is requiring congress to put their money in blind trusts when they take office. I don't see them ever passing something that really stops insider trading.
Congress members should not be allowed to trade in individual stocks in any companies or industries that they have regulatory authority over or direct involvement with that leads to their having access to non-public information about the companies or their industry. This should be a law, not a Senate/House rule. If it is enacted as a rule then all Congress will do is censure the offender, but they will still get to keep the ill gotten gains from the trades. They should be subject to the same criminal prosecution as any other citizen. Since insider trading is a felony, they should be brought to trial even while they are still in office and any conviction should result in automatic impeachment from office, whether the sentence includes prison time or not.
Even though current law makes insider trading illegal and members of Congress are not exempt from the law, I think that a new law specifically applying to them should be passed to remove any doubts or issues related to Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution speech and debate clause that is mentioned in the article.
Seems this bill has been around the House for awhile. First introduced in 2007 by a democrat, Rep. Slaughter N.Y. Google stock act to learn more.
Senator Collins has the correct response. Simply ban all stock trading by members of congress. Put assets into a blind trust.
Trying to use what congressmen say or hear in the performance of their legislative duties is unconstitutional, so there could be no evidence presented to make a case for insider trading.
The way to ban insider trading is to ban all trading, during their elected tenure. That might also encourage their voluntary departure from serving - which would serve as effective term limits.
we all heard Pelosi, Boehner, John Kerry all claim they did nothing wrong. Not because it wasn't illegal, but because they've been doing it for years.
The scum don't even realize that this should be a non-issue. If they were really serving our interests, not theirs, their own honesty would preclude them from ever indulging in this nefarious type of trading. But it has been many many years since any member of our government had any inclination towards honesty or serving anyones interest but their own. And I truly feel I can say that with a straight face. Its not a joke anymore. Its serious.
They get paid a ridiculous amount of money just from salary. They should have access to NO stocks or bonds, Spouse's included while serving their terms. Any deviation should be a felony, so they cannot run for office or have a legal right to vote.
And THIS is why we need term limits. Do you think the old timers would be pushing for this? It's the new Congresspeople who get things done, not the entrenched interests. Just look at the success of the new TP Republicans. You might not agree with their goals or their methods, but they sure made a difference. Congress needs new people, new ideas, and a fresh committment to our interests, not theirs.
As long as they specify that it is priveledged information behind closed doors.
If it's a public hearing, that's not "inside" information.
That was my main problem with the 60 minutes report.
They tried to lump it all together.
Why would anyone want to be elected to a $ 174,000 a year Congressional job ?
Simple......they use the information they receive during their "behind closed door meetings" and use that information to their benefit. The more they keep getting re-elected and stay in the Congressional halls, the more "behind closed door committees" they are appointed to thus more "insider" information.
That is why most members "retire" as multi-millionaires.
BTW, why is it that a HECK OF A LOT of our "elite" Congressional members, along with 41 Obama White House staff members, have yet to pay their IRS FEDERAL TAXES ?
And why hasn't Mr. TurboTax Geithner taken these folks to Federal court ?
I'm no fan of Congress, but something's funny here. I thought there were only 100 people in the Senate. And the House only has 435 so apparently most of them are delinquent. Does this sound credible? Or are we talking about staffers, too?
Good point.....the total might include some federal employees assisting the 100 Sentaors:
Congresspersons, their staffers and their personal relatives should be completely banned from ALL stock trading while in office and for a period of at least a year, if not 2 years, after leaving office.
Woa,
If they can't cheat and lie where is the incentive to serve? Are we kidding ourselves that we are just now imposing such restrictions? Great book out there, "Throw Them All Out". Of course, we could just vote with our hearts. For instance, my congressman's wife is so nice and the kids are just wonderful. I'm gonna vote for him.
The tipping point was reached and there is little likelyhood of hope after this election. Let the masses rule while the masses get everything free from the gubamint.
This should be a NO BRAINER that no congressperson could justify voting against. This is EXACTLY what Martha Stewart and many others before (and after) her have gone to jail for! For everyone ELSE it is a criminal offense punishable by serious jail time.
In my opinion, it's even WORSE for congressmen (and women) because not only can they profit from insider information, but they are actually in a position to CREATE situations where they will profit by how they steer things to happen. They can essentially create the insider information that they then profit from.
Let's get a list of the Congress people who would vote against us so we will know immediately who to vote out of office.
Hopefully they make the penalty Capital Punishment for anyone who violates this new law. I'm tired of the Newt Gingrich's and Obama's making a fortune off of lobbyists and campaign money, then they stand there and tell us they don't do it. When you follow the money it's clear as day. Newt getting millions for consultations (yeah sure) and Obama accepting more campaign money from Wall Street than any other politician in history. They can't work for the People when Wall Street is pouring money on them. How did Abramoff put it, the committee heads get more money than the regular politicians and the Speaker of the House gets the most money. It's basically a price sheet. Anyone of them who isn't calling the other ones out by name for this is in on it, and no one was screaming until the 60 minutes airing, so they're all in on it.
There goes the real reason for getting elected. You dont think these people go through all this hassle for a $174k/yr job, do you?
It's about freakin' time this gets some traction!!! OWS- you want someone to rally against, how about your government creating all of the rules that the evil banks followed (while having those banks "consult" and have cabinet level access to the administration WHILE they create new legislation regulating those banks and their practices). NO ISSUE THERE!?!?!? How about Congress being "lobbied" by those banks and corporations so that the new laws align with their interests, WHILE they pour money into Congress' coffers and re-election campaigns. NO ISSUE THERE?!?!?!?!?? How about OUR Congress getting sweat-heart IPO deals by corporations and banks WHILE they write the legislation controlling those industries. NO ISSUE THERE!?!?!?!?
Add to that OUR Congress is playing pay-to-play politics (see Jessie Jackson Jr. is now being federally investigated for the filling of Obama's Senate seat). The President has been paying off his campaign bundlers with 1000%+ returns on their helping him using YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY(aka Solyndra, etc. etc. etc. etc. they are all over the news now). ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT?!?!?!?!?
The American people should DEMAND that Congress change their rules so that they can't go into Congress worth $100,000 and walk out with millions while "serving" the people. How do you make millions while you make about $175,000/year?!?! If these people are SOOOO brilliant at making themselves rich through great investments why is it that they can't create a national budget, can't find ways to make Social Security, etc. solvent with the money they take in, and can't fix our MASSIVE deficit through great investments? Look it up, 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the NATION are around DC. How could that be!?!?!? Look up your representative's records, they've most likely done it too. Get rid of them all- BOTH PARTIES!
Get that "Get Rid of Them All" book and read it. They basically took OUR representatives publicly available financial transactions records and compared them to their Congressional committee hearings/actions. MANY (both parties) went from their closed meetings to their brokers and cashed in on upcoming decisions and press releases by the FED, Congress, the President, etc. They are the biggest scammers we have!!!
Soldier's Dad - Hate to break this to you Dad but the House already has a bill pending to ban Congressional Members and staffers from "insider trading". I has a considerable number of co-sponsors and will probably go to the floor before Christmas break.
I agree with Ruken. If they allow any bill to pass at all, it will be filled with so many holes it won't even slow them down. They thumb their noses at everything else the public might demand, why should they stop at something that lets them further pad their retirement!
Blind trusts seeems to be the most appropriate answer, but neither party will ever agree to it. One of their reasons for running for Congress is to get their place at one of the many troughs. With absolutely zero risk and no cash they can go long or short BEFORE the hearing(s) starts. Everone knows that you "Buy on the rumour and sell on the news!"
Ol_Doc,
I'm aware of the Stock Act that only had 6 co-sponsors before this news broke. My point was the article saying that Leiberman was the one heading this up and talking to the press about it, it appears that both parties were keeping quiet and hoping for something else to draw the public attention away from this issue.
I think the best way to go is DON'T REELECT ANY ONE, that will give us a couple to years to regroup and get behind some Honest candidates( if there will ever be such a thing) but that would shake Congress up now and make a CLEAR statement to them that what they have been doing is wrong and we want our country back, if not for you and me, but for the Americans who died for this country so congress could fill their pockets while screwing us all. (they should make it illegal for Congress people to say they"Served our country" because all they did was serve themselves)
Amazing! They send Martha Stewart to prison, yet are jumping up and down burbling about "congress" not able to be prosecuted!!! Something is drastically wrong with these elected officials. Read the book "Throw Them All Out" by Peter Schweizer! You can find out if you representative enriched themselves underhandedly. We all know Pelosi was a big "winner". Yes, we should throw them all out!!
Insider Trading is insider Trading and illegal for all of us. Well most of us that is with the exception of the biggest crooks in America, Boehner and all the others in government that were involved in this. This is how they all made their riches. They conducted illegal activity and they all should be prosecuted accordingly. All of them IMO need to be tossed out of office and sentenced just like the average man would be sentenced.
These people in government work for the people, they are not above the rest of us and they should be made to follow the laws like the rest of us as well, and not setting up rules in Congress that allows therm to break the laws just so they can strike it rich off the backs of the people.
Pelosi and Boehner both need to be behind bars along with the rest of these crooks in government.
RON PAUL 2012
insider trading is illegal....and that should be across the board...congressional standing or not.
No one should be above the law.
Fire them all...............corruption is like a cancer....
these people who participated and continue to do so are never to be trusted now or again....and have no business pretending to represent the 99%...............
we the people should get to vote on this since congress seems to be totally self serving...
talk about conflict of interest.
Corruption running ramped and free and unfettered and totally out in the open.............
time to stop this and start sending people to jail...
we are going to need to build a lot more jails.
This is a waste of Congress' time and a blatant attempt by two freshman senators to manipulate the people in order to gain attention and votes.
Insider trading by anyone is already illegal. While the truly brain-dead occasionally get caught, the law is unenforceable and always will be.
What people don't realize is that insider trading isn't the slam-dunk one would assume. Certainly there are situations where a stock, for example, is revalued and never looks back, but in most cases it's a matter of short-term market response. Which means you still have to get in and out effectively. And that's the rub for every trader -- regardless of who he works for, or how sophisticated his black box, or where his information came from.
Besides, it's impossible to enforce -- always was and always will be. The market runs on rumor, innuendo, and insider information. Without it, liquidity would dry up within hours.
There's nothing to see here except a couple of newbies who are eager to play the game of manipulating their constituents into believing they are serving them, when, in fact, they are just wasting more time and money. Grin and vote these guys out of office.
I will be totally impressed if our elected do anything that will effect their gaining any money from anywhere or from anyone. I want to hear how they all explain the huge increase in their own wealth while in office through stocks and other issues when NO ONE else is doing anywhere near that grand. Thoser in congress are suppose to work for the voters of this country...ALL OF THEM, not the wealthy few with lots of money to throw at them. ANd be sure folks,,,all of them take that money...in one from or the other.seriouslynow-4227937....how is it a waste of time to get cogress to do what they are paid by us voters to do to begin with?
JS in SD - You are exactly correct. "If it is enacted as a rule then all Congress will do is censure the offender, but they will still get to keep the ill gotten gains from the trades." And that is exactly why Congress will NEVER pass such a law.
Liberman is just trying to generate some good will from the electorate before the election. He's counting on the fact that his fellow law breakers, er, ah... I mean law makers, will never put a rule like this on themselves, let alone a law. And if the people stand up and shout lod enough, long enough, they may pass the rule so they know they will never have to face a real penalty, like surrendering thier ill gotten gains.
I would trust the Mafia before I would trust ANYONE in congress. They are all liars, cheats, thieves and murderers, and they are still more trustworthy than anyone called "congerssperson".
For all the occupy folks, try something new you dumb a@@es! You want to sit out where no one cares a RATS A@@ about you, Wall Street!!!!!!!!!!, universities or college campuses!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry universities are just a tool of propaganda in today’s economy!!!
Try occupying the following stadiums, NBA, NFL, NHL, and NASCAR, businesses P&G, McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Target, and the list goes on. THE BANKSTERS local locations and then you might impress me, the UPPER 1% runs or own all of that!
The country I once knew and loved is gone, I just might join you then if you go after their BALLS…………………………….
AND BOTH PARTIES HEADQUARTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The problem would be better solved by making congress answerable to ALL US LAWS. Rather than the piecemeal approach of changing the rules every time they get caught abusing their immunity. There never was a valid reason to make congress immune to it's own legislation and it should end once and for all.
Who is willing to fire the first shot?
More proof that our elected official are corrupt.. No stock trading and no lobbying...
And put something like a $250 cap on campaign "donations".
Yes, and, while we are at it...Let's get the SC to repeal the law that makes corporations persons. What a crock decision that was.
If a reasonalble cap was placed on campaign donations, these people would not be able to run around the country on your dime while taking along their cast of thousands!
Freedom of Speech is not limited to a certain dollar amount.
The PEOPLE that make up Corporations do not get muzzled just because they joined the organization.
Corporations are organizations of people just like Unions, Churches, Associations (like AARP), Political Parties, and Clubs.
You can no more limit Corporate Donations than Union donations.
Would you tell the AARP that they have no speech rights? That they cannot lobby Congress?
And claiming Political Parties cannot engage in advertising for candidates is ridiculous.
There is no Constitutional basis for any limitation on Campaign spending.
I'd love to see where the Federal Gov't is granted the power to regulate political spending. I've read the US Constitution a few times and it's not in there. And the only powers given to the Federal Gov't are enumerated.
And even if the states try to regulate it, there is a serious question about how you give up your free speech rights simply because you incorporate your business. Does a sole proprietor give up their rights? What about two partners? What about 4 partners?
The campaign finance laws we have now are all Un-Constitutional. You have a right to publish a pamphlet as Thomas Paine did. You can spend your own money to publish it, or show it (ala TV ad).
The only limitation is directly paying Congresspeople. And there is Constitutional Authority given to Gov't to do that.
Ryan,
That is what amendments are...ways to amend The Constitution; it's been changed a lot since it was first written and amending it to prevent moneyed interests from corrupting our current system would be a good thing.
Ryan, you are off base on several of your points. Specifically, your contention that people who "join" corporations lose their rights to free speech. Let's be clear, every individual has the right to free speech. Individuals who invest in a corporation (shareholders) and people who work for corporations (employees) can still participate in elections and free speech. The issue is whether an association of individuals (corporation) who are engaged in for profit activities can use the cash of the cash of the corporation for political purposes. There are several problems with this. First, a corporation does not get unanimous consent from it's shareholders on each political position (shareholder's are not 100% Republican, for instance). Second, a corporation does not get unanimous consent from it's shareholders to use the cash for polical purposes rather than, let's say, a dividend. Third, and this is really important, corporations are not constituted with 100% US shareholders. Thus, foreign shareholders are investing in companies that then take political positions in US elections. No one wants foreign money influencing US elections.
Nothing is preventing the CEO of GE from his right of free speech, from his right to endorse a specific candidate or to donate funds to a candidate. The problem is allowing GE to spend an unlimited amount of money doing those activities.
Ryan from Texas,
Yes, and as soon as those corporation go non-profit like the churches, unions, etc. you mentioned, you will have a point.
Meanwhile, we have institutions organized strictly for profit, that have all the citizenship rights of living breathing human beings, none of the limitations such as illness or the need to sleep, but with one big advantage, THEY ARE IMORTAL!
The balance should be: More profit should mean LESS access to government employees. Those employees should be beholden to human citizens only; not comglomerates, or robots, or some secret interplanetary consortium of amoebas, like they appear to be working for now.
BfromD - You won't get 100% shareholder agreement on anything.
So by your logic, they couldn't even hire a janitor unless they got 100% agreement.
That's crazy. The shareholders elect the board. The board hires the leadership, and the leadership makes decisions.
It's just like our Gov't. You would never say: they can't do anything unless they have 100% approval from the voters.
As for coporations being made of people, what do you think they are made of? Robots? Martians?
As long as we tax Corprorations and regulate Corporations, they have a valid interest in politics. Surely you remember "No taxation without representation"?
Again, if you can find somewhere in the US Constitution that says people making up non-profits have a right to free speech, but people making up for profits don't - I'd love to see it.
And like I mentioned, what about a sole proprietor? Can a regular business owner use business funds to support a party? Of course they can.
And a partnership? 5 person partnership?
Of course.
So where is the magic line that says a corproation can't?
It's not currently in the US Constitution.
You are right that you can amend it.
Go for it.
But I'd think we should have a balanced budget amendment first. About half the states have that amendment.
Ryan, you are correct that corporations do elect boards and boards hire management. In any listing of board of director candidates, do they list the political party of the candidates for the board? Do they list the postions that the Board of Director candidates have on things like the environment, foreign policy, freedom of choice, etc.? The answer is NO. And that is because directors are elected to run a business for the profit of shareholders. Corporations are not organized to influence politics.
You continue to make an incorrect leap assumption that a partnership or a sole proprietorship is somehow imbuded with powers beyond that of a corporation. A partnership of 5 has 5 voices that can express their individual views. A proprietor can do likewise with his/her voice. And, corporate shareholders can do the same with each of their individual voices. Somehow, you believe that a partnership (not the partners) can do things that a corporation can not. That is simply not the case.
Once corporations (as distinct from individual shareholders) are entitled to influence campaigns, we move toward the literal definition of fascism. You further try to lump corporations with non-profits without recognizing their differences. Corporations are meant to operate for no other reason than to generate profit. Their very nature should ignore the plight of citizens, while heeding the needs of shareholders. Non-profits, on the other hand, are organized purely for altruistic reasons, concerned only with a specific cause or faith. (IMO, Non-profits should not be allowed to engage in political activities either.)
Finally, it is your trump card to say "find it in the Constitution". Well, the Constitution and, more importantly, the founding document of our nation, namely the Declaration of Independence, is concerned with the rights of man. I am sure you are well versed with the phrase, "all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights ...". It does not say all men and corporations.
And thanks for ignoring the pertinent point regarding foreign ownership.
Ryan,
You are correct on alot of points. However, I would tell AARP and any other PAC that their institutions are not citizens. As individuals they have a vote and should be allowed to lobby (without money) any politician they want. As an organization, they are not a registered voter.
BfromD - So basically you are admitting that there is no Constitutional authority given to the Federal Gov't to regulate campaign contributions.
Ok, good luck with an amendment.
As for foreign ownership, the Federal Gov't is given the authority to regulate international commerce.
So they can have rules on what and how money comes in.
But just because a few shares of a company are owned by foreigners doesn't mean the US company loses the ability to lobby Gov't or participate in politics.
So your big concern is that companies will be able to participate in the political process?
So who is going to represent their interests if they can't? They can't vote. It's only fair to let them voice their concerns.
Anybody who thinks Congress is going to pass a rule that prohibits them from doing something that makes them money is living in Fantasyland. Sadly, this country at the present time has the most corrupt congress since the Jackson era.
Like this one has a snowballs chance in h*ll of passing. Our elected officials seem to think it their right to have an unfair advantage over the rest of us. Considering in 2012 Congress only plans on being seated 122 days and on the campaign trail at taxpayer expense the rest of the time. How can we realistically expect them to police their own house if they are never there?
Retired...You are right. They haven't and they won't. Politicians are store bought off the rack these days. The mentality of Public Servant no longer exists. It is all about the $$ and who has the most, wins.
This I agree with. But, and until, the TRUE silent majority gets off their duffs, and acts, by eliminating EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of congress, by voting them out, absolutely nothing will change. I am seriously afraid this OWS is only the tip of the iceberg. And, as anyone with any schooling at all knows, an iceberg is mostly unseen, and that part is a lot MORE dangerous than the visible sign of that obstruction.
Trouble is brewing, and I'm afraid, even as old as I am, (also an old, retired soldier,) I can almost feel it in the air. The party is coming to an end, and a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt because of these corrupt governmental people.
Frosty, thank you for your service to our country. I agree, Sir, "something wicked this way comes..."
Retired...well said - it's the old Fox watching the Hen House mentality...Pun intended!!! I'm also uncomfortable with unlimited funds by coroporations and unions influencing politics. Many of our largest corporations have foreign investors and now they are allowed to invest and influence our politics with the SCOTUS' Citizens United decision. Corruption breeds contempt!
You mean that they don't have to abide by the existing insider trading laws that everyone else does? Does this give Martha Stewart cause for appeal?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, it always should have been illegal for the washington scum to practice insider trading, they are NOT above us......
Yet, they are above the LAW! Remember that actions against your Senator or Representative are capped by LAWS that they and their predecessors wrote. They are IMMURED against certain laws that could be applied against you and I
Just goes to show you how disconnected the Government really is from its people that they have to issue additional bans inside congress to enforce laws that are already in place and should apply to congressional members as well. The article even says that it is difficult to prosecute the people that are controlling the strings of the would be prosecutors. Amazing!!!
Blind trust is the only way to go. It's no wonder almost all members of congress are millionaires.
The issue with Blind Trusts, as you will learn if you've read up on recent books about this subject is that they are not that 'Blind'.
Magically those managers still get the information, and then that money manager once he has the information can either do nothing and take the loss, or do the move and get paid. Generally they do the move and get paid. Because the Congressional 'tip' is not 'insider information' since the Congressman or Senator has no Fiduciary Responsibility, or connection to what he's tipping on. That's the loophole in the existing structure that allows these guys to get away with murder.
Darth...I know no pun was intended, but it is ironic that "blind trust" is what got us here in the first place.
How about we just ban the practice and make the minimum penalty expulsion from any and all public office or federal position, and a maximum penalty of beheading. That and all gains, including original principle are confiscated by the treasury regardless of the physical penalty, plus a fine.
I think that would have enough of a 'chilling' effect that maybe both House and Senate members would steer clear of this type of activity.
I'm with you Cniht, well except for the beheading...that comment made me laugh, though...lol
END ALL CORRUPTION !!! If the activity has even the appearance of impropriety, then it should be banned for ALL of our elected officials. Why is it it takes rules and regulations to take care of stuff that should be no-brainers? Because politicians are corrupt to the core. They should have no advantage due to their jobs nor take no meetings with any lobbyists. The buying and selling of access and influence is what is wrong with this country. If our politicians actually represented the American people, we would ALL do better instead of a select few.
Go figure! already giving you a millions reason why it would be so hard to do. Like they would police thier own. Please!
Don't we already have laws on the books that ban this obviously crooked behavior???
What the debate should be about is why we don't hold these thieves in D.C. to a higher standard.
This country has gone from equal rights to the one who has the most money makes the rules. Its disgusting and pathetic. All of these guys, and the CEOs of the companies which capitalize on this BS, should be charged with treason, as they are betraying the majority of the country. Hanging is too good for them, and they should be thrown into a dark, dank hole that makes GITMO look like a f'n resort!
This would be a fine first step. Next we should go down the list of all the laws congress has passed from which they are exempt. Let's start with sexual harrassment...wouldn't that be fun.
And then move on to voting themselves raises and life time pensions with free health care. The Pensions for Perverts plan needs to go.
Congress/House has integrity?
Since when?
Jimbo...Good question. I haven't seen any lying around lately....They must have left it in their other pants.
thomas jefferson said "tyranny is when what is legal for the government is illegal for the citizens" it's time these tyrants were all put out of office, every gdamn last one of them.....
I am starting to understand some of the things OWS is complaining about. It this is one of them then they have every right to be upset and so should the rest of us. I wonder how it is that the existing laws governing insider trading do not apply to congress? Cniht: I agree any politician convicted of insider trading should be barred from holding any office in the future. I think if the laws governing insider trading were applied today to congress the house would be nearly empty.
On the plus side think of the jobs this would create building a new federal prison to house them all.
The funny thing about that SFC is that some of the people you would expect to be the biggest profit takers are actually not.
Example: Ron Paul invests like his phlosophy in Gold and Silver mines etc. Needless to say he's made a killing over the last decade with some investments increasing 1000%. (no that's not a typo) You would only expect him to profit because he knows and sees Fed reports we do not and cannot. But he just stays out of it all together and invests his money with his beliefs.
Congressman Issa from California a very wealthy man and very involved in the stock market has come up completely clean, and actually supports this move. He steers clear of investments that he hears anything about intentionally on principle.
Of course you have your classic bad actors, most of which are democrats but there are a LOT of republicans as well.
Kerry: Pharmacutical companies when he had access to what drugs would be approved and not approved.
Max Baucus: Similar thing.
I want to name a republican congressman that literally did millions of trades at the time of the financial collapse and made a ton of money, but I cannot think of his name. He was regularly in meetings with Paulson and Benanke and knew exactly how bad everything was.
Don't worry. They will go to a "Club Med" not Ft. Leavenworth which is exactly the place for them.
Throw them out! They have made themselves rich off of taxpayers, they consider themselves above the law, they have made themselves in the 1%.
We are being represented by the 1% who care nothing about us.
Our representatives should live as the country they represent , the other 99%. Same pay, same benefits, they then would fight for "We The People"!
Corruption is worse than prostitution. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual, the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire country.
Karl Kraus
Economic Collapse is a direct result of Democracy becoming synonymous with the One Percent!
Seriously. How does one get 4000 shares of VISA at the IPO price, and not be an employee of Visa? Easy. Just be Speaker of the House.
Its almost impossible for normal folks to get IPO shares, let alone 4000 shares. And most of the time, the company employees and employees of the stockbrokers have to wait 30 days before they can sell their stock (30 days after the IPO and company becomes public).
So, Nancy Peolosi accepted 4000 shares of VISA IPO, sells it 1 week later, because she's such a nice person?
GET REAL!!! THROW THESE BUMS OUT!!!
The problem: Can we REALLY trust the lawmakers to police themselves? I don't REALLY think so! They do REALLY too much behind closed doors!
Gizmo...No we can't. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. They haven't. They don't. They won't.
Gizmo,
What do you expect?!?!? Every year we hold elections in the land of the free, do it the same way, over and over and over again while expecting change for the better. That is truly insanity.
It's like putting kids in a chocolate store and telling them not to get into any of the chocolate while staying there for many many years. It's just not the Federal level! You have the same pi$$ pour service on the local and state levels also!! Might as well be consistant.
No you cant trust a corrupt government to police themselves. That's like saying ok prisoners we are getting rid of all the guards and you all will need to police yourselves.
Wagonmaster, I do believe you are the first truly small government conservative that I've seen or heard. You are the first one who sees that government is government, be it state, local or federal.
Even Ron Paul rails against the Fed. without a peep about state and local governments.
Thank you for the breath of consistancy that uplifts the conservative philosophy from the dead weight of disembling hypocracy of the two-faced states righters, who like their governments to be small only for themselves, not for everybody else - small enough that they have more control over it for their own benefit.
why are these congressional buffoons not required to keep their assets in a blind trust. as it is it is real easy to funnel taxpayer $ to corpaorations that said congree person ha s a financial stake in.
Remarkable! All of the things that need to be done to get this country upright again, and these jokers have to spend time making laws about themselves that may or may not work.
They put Martha Steward in prison for the same damm thing. I believe there's room ( or we should make room) for all of the crooked SOB's AGAIN all one can say is ONLY IN AMERICA. Now we are trading USD for a deflated Euro . Way to go Ben. They ( your Rep. ) are NOT going to do a damm thing about it. or anything else for that matter. Everything will get kicked down the road past the elections. They damm sure don't want you to know what they think about anything. We are all online now we need a progam to vote online & let our voice be heard & we sure wouldn't need those greedy bastards
You would think that with their approval rating at about the lowest it can get, our elected officials would unanimously vote for this with no hesitation. I am sure it won't happen.