If Dems can't even use their majority for this no-brainer, what's the point of having it?

[Mysterian]

Congress recessed Friday until after Election Day with several major Democratic goals unmet. Some won’t be met in this Congress (voting rights reform), while others remain up in the air (codifying same-sex marriage). But no unfulfilled priority is more baffling — both for its common sense and its broad public support — than the proposed ban on trading of individual stocks by members of Congress. ... But in the 10 years since the STOCK Act’s passage, the law has been only modestly effective at transparency and entirely ineffective at stopping sketchy trades. An Insider investigation found that “dozens of federal lawmakers and at least 182 top staffers” violated the STOCK Act. The New York Times similarly determined that “97 lawmakers or their family members bought or sold financial assets over a three-year span in industries that could be affected by their legislative committee work.” Even when caught, those lawmakers and staffers faced “minimal and inconsistently applied penalties,” Insider reported. “A significant number of late or missing filings has defeated the purpose of real-time notice of potentially improper conduct,” writes Danielle Caputo of the Campaign Legal Center.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/democrats-botched-stock-trading-ban-huge-missed-chance-n1299215

[BlueTsunami2018]

1. They don't want to ban it.

They ALL make or made fortunes off of it. Insider trading is legal for them for all intents and purposes if not in fact, which it was and still may be.

If you had access to a money spigot and had the option to get rid of it, would you? No sane person would.

Of course this isn’t going anywhere.

[Mr.Bill]

3. That's why people spend 7-8 figures

to get a job that pays six.

[BlueTsunami2018]

4. Yep.

Even idiots like Boebert and Margie three toes are worth $40 million now. They had next to nothing when they were elected.

[MLAA]

2. I am disappointed in this as well. It's the only time I remember being disappointed in Nancy Pelosi

[global1]

5. I Don't Think Nancy Has The Votes.....nt

[Wounded Bear]

13. I don't think Nancy wants the votes...this isn't the first time this stalled in Congress...

[Celerity]

6. Ethically righteous and politically effective -- sounds like a no-brainer, right? Not so for

Democratic leaders. As recently as December, Pelosi still opposed a trading ban altogether. “We’re a free-market economy,” she said, Representatives “should be able to participate in that.” A month later, when asked whether he supported a stock trading ban, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ducked. “I don't own any stocks, and I think that's the right thing to do,” he told reporters — a laudable position, but hardly a committal one.

Pelosi and Schumer quickly reversed course, but their handling of the issue has been curious, to say the least. Usually in Washington, when there’s a choice between a bill with just Democratic support and a bill supported by members of both parties, Democratic leaders will opt for the latter. On this issue, Pelosi and Schumer could have thrown their weight behind several bipartisan bills, such as one from Roy and Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., or another from Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Steve Daines, R-Mont. Instead, in February, Pelosi asked her close ally Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., to draft her own bill. At the time, the speaker predicted the bill’s text would be released “pretty soon,” but Lofgren released her proposal only last week.

Pelosi’s move angered Republicans like Roy and even miffed Democrats, with Spanberger saying she was “ghosted” by Democratic leadership. Schumer, meanwhile, tapped Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., to lead a working group to reach a consensus on a new plan from several being floated in the Senate. Though Merkley and many other members support a ban, the working group has moved as speedily as any working group does — which is to say we still don’t have its proposal. So, unlike in 2012, when Obama signed the STOCK Act less than three months after he called for its passage, Democrats have wasted almost a year dawdling.

Worse, Lofgren’s bill has its flaws. For example, Walter Shaub, a former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, writes that the bill would create a category of blind trusts that is less strictly controlled than current regulations — “fake blind trusts, like the one former President Donald Trump invented for himself in 2017.”

snip

[Hortensis]

7. Virtually everything I just don't understand becomes both understandable

and at least justifiable, whether I like it or not, when I know more. That goes for why road crews don't fix roads with the equipment parked there to do it for weeks. Everything's always more complex than imagined, problems more numerous, intractable and fluid at the same time, etc.

The OP's question itself admits we don't have critical information. If we did, would we want the bill passed in its current form, want it rewritten, be glad they decided to wait, be really grateful it's not our decision,...what?

[Mysterian]

8. We know there is rampant corruption in the halls of Congress

and the American people want something done about it. Maybe it's too difficult a problem for Democrats to tackle. Or perhaps there is no will to get something done.

[Hortensis]

9. Imo, someone who makes a blanket statement like that

doesn't even know that. I don't see reality in that statement as made.

I don't believe for a second that corruption is rampant among Democrats. By any rational and realistic, and ethical, definition. Democrats are the people we're talking about.

The ideals and ethics of representative government and desire to fulfill the duties of their offices are far stronger in our Democratic caucuses than Republican, where they're currently virtually nonexistent. Democrats believe in the value of government, conservatives despise it. But Democrats have to fight for every achievement in a congress with a rampantly corrupted and now even traitorous RW Party. And against various other opponents.

[Mysterian]

11. Democrats are the people we're talking about

to hopefully get something done.

[betsuni]

16. Thank you.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. Lol because the no-brainer is not what you think it is.

[Autumn]

12. It's a money maker for elected officials. ON both sides. Nothing will be done about this.

“We’re a free-market economy,”.

[Emile]

14. Nothing will ever be done about this.

We live in a Predatory Capitalist economy.

[Mysterian]

15. Jimmy Carter said the USA is a plutocracy

and he is correct.

[W_HAMILTON]

17. To make the lives of everyday Americans better.

This particular bill does nothing to advance that.

[Mysterian]

18. Eliminating corruption in government does not improve our lives?

Interesting statement.

[W_HAMILTON]

20. A factual statement.

Like it or not, this bill will not have a measurable impact on the lives of your everyday American.

And if you think it will eliminate corruption in government...

But Republicans thank you for your service in getting outraged at Democrats over this. Mission accomplished in their """bipartisan efforts""" at working on a bill for this, only to withdraw their support when it actually gets near passage and have Democrats point fingers at Democrats because of it.

[Mysterian]

22. So, our government does not affect our lives?

Improving transparency and reducing corruption in our government will have as much impact on our everyday lives as much or more than any other legislation. No one is claiming this measure will eliminate all corruption in government, just a significant piece of it. Much more needs to be done, including the repeal of the Citizens United decision. The fact that Citizens United has greatly increased the impact of unfettered spending on elections makes it that much more important to do what we can to eliminate the impact of money on the passage of legislation.

Outrage? Why do you think I'm outraged? I wish Democrats would take action or make a good effort on this initiative. Is that outrage in your mind? Weird.

[W_HAMILTON]

24. No, it won't.

And at this point, it sounds like you are trying to convince yourself more than you are trying to convince me or anyone else. Passing this bill would be one of the least impactful things this House has done this session. And, if you are so quick to belittle all the progress that has actually been made through legislation that the Democrats HAVE passed and seen signed into law and actually has positively impacted the daily lives of millions and millions of Americans to the point that you would dare ask "what's the point of Democrats controlling the House?," my guess is once this particular bill passes, you will forget about it pretty quick and move on to the next item you can find to criticize Democrats about.

And no one said that they won't make good on it. All the disingenuous complaints right now are just that it's not getting passed in the week before the House recesses for the midterm elections. So what? There is time after the elections to get it passed, if it is truly such a "no-brainer" and such a "bipartisan effort" (rather than Republicans playing Lucy with the football just to cause Democratic in-fighting, which posts like yours indicate they were successful at doing) as so many want to claim.

[Mysterian]

25. Tell me where and how I belittled anything

I'll be standing by for the information.

[W_HAMILTON]

28. "If Dems can't even use their majority for this no-brainer, what's the point of having it?"

That part.

In asking that ridiculous question, you are belittling all the significant accomplishments that Democrats have achieved during this session while being in the majority.

[Mysterian]

32. Well, first of all, I didn't write the article

Second, the writer states support for the stock trading ban and it's a real stretch to read that as belittling legislation that has been passed. The writer places great importance on cleaning up government with a stock trading ban and I happen to agree with him, as does 70 percent of the American public.

https://truthout.org/articles/70-percent-of-voters-want-to-ban-congress-from-trading-stocks/

So please don't accuse me again of things I have not done.

[W_HAMILTON]

35. And you were the one that thought it useful to post it here.

If you completely disavow the author's take, which, yes, does belittle Democratic accomplishments due to its (and your) title -- once again, "If Dems can't even use their majority for this no-brainer, what's the point of having it?" -- feel free to say so now.

[ismnotwasm]

19. That is an opinion piece.

With 3 seconds of googling. I found another
Unintended consequences plague bill to bar Congress from insider trading

For one, it might limit the pool of people who are willing to run for office. A trading ban might require people to upend their financial plans while serving terms as short as two years. This can have significant tax consequences, including capital gains taxes to be paid on earnings, unless lawmakers are afforded special tax treatment.

And there’s no guarantee officeholders can rebuild desired portfolios after serving; for example, a lawmaker who had stock holdings from a previous job might no longer be able to acquire a similar investment. It’s not just investment portfolios, either. For spouses who make their livings investing, restricting family members’ trading could require employment changes.

A trading ban wouldn’t affect just those who are already wealthy. Recent innovations in market access have made retail investing easier for many people. This has brought a broader segment of the U.S. population into the markets, including those who are less wealthy, younger and more racially diverse. Banning trading might limit the interest of some of these new investors in running for office or cause them to choose to no longer invest — neither of which is a good outcome.

Similar problems can be found with including cryptocurrencies in the trading ban, as the proposed bill would. Investment in cryptocurrencies has been disproportionately popular with underrepresented populations, and there is no clear investment substitute for crypto.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/congress-breaks-midterm-elections-stock-trading-bill-doubt-good-rcna50541

I fully admit I don’t understand stock trading, but the Democrats in Disarray or BoTh SiDeS are the same crap is crap.

[Mysterian]

23. Democrats in disarray?

WTF are you talking about? Some people support this legislation and some don't. Where in the article is there any claim that Democrats are in disarray?

[ismnotwasm]

30. Please don't be disingenuous

“If Dems can't even use their majority for this no-brainer, what's the point of having it?”

[Mysterian]

33. How can anyone read that as "Democrats in disarray?"

Is this some pre-mid-term election paranoia, perhaps?

[JustAnotherGen]

21. The GOP - Never intended to vote for The STOCK Act

Also - Remember the John Lewis VRA?

Sinema and Manchin wouldn't set aside the filibuster.

[W_HAMILTON]

26. Or codifying same-sex marriage, etc.

You can go on and on about the list of things that Republicans claim to be in favor of, yet won't actually vote for.

Shame on any Democrats -- including elected Democrats -- that are shitting on other good Democrats because they were fooled by Republicans into actually thinking they would support these bills.

[JustAnotherGen]

31. This

The GOP's platform is obstruction and tearing apart our democracy. They are not for the people - at all.

[Elessar Zappa]

27. 'What's the point of having it?"

You ask that after everything that Biden and the Dems have accomplished?

[Mysterian]

34. Do you see my name on the byline?

I didn't think so. The writer places great importance on the stock trading legislation. I would not have written that headline, but I'm not getting my shorts in a knot because of it.

[Ligyron]

29. This would scare too many good people out of running for office.

The practice is a bit unsavory but this type of bill would be too complex and encumbering for family members, wouldn't have any meaningful effect anyway and is hardly one of the most pressing issues of our times.

Outlawing lobbying would be a more worthwhile goal, for instance.

[former9thward]

36. Outlawing lobbying would be a violation of the First amendment.

Far harder to pas that than the Stock Act.