'Congress Repeals Financial Disclosure Requirements For Senior U.S. Officials'

[Fedaykin]

Source: NPR News

"Joining the Senate, the House of Representatives approved a measure today that repeals a requirement that top government officials post financial disclosures on the Internet.

The House, like the Senate, acted quietly without a vote. Instead, they sent the measure to the president's desk by unanimous consent.

The provision was part of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (Stock), which became law in March of 2012. The act was intended to stop members of congress from profiting from nonpublic information..."
"...The Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for a more open government, called today's repeal an "epic failure..."




Read more: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/04/12/177063450/congress-repeals-financial-disclosure-requirements-for-senior-u-s-officials?ft=1&f=1001

---

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."-George Orwell

Also check out this link for more:
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/04/12/epic-failure-by-the-senate-on-transparency-provisions-in-stock-act/

[dipsydoodle]

1. Indeed

some are more equal than others.

[daleanime]

2. Well, since their not hiding the fact the they have been payed off....

all that's left to hide is how much and who.

[Unknown Beatle]

3. Crooks!

The lot of them.

[myrna minx]

4. That's disgusting. K&R

[midnight]

5. Must keep insider trading a secret....

[shivdansledos]

6. I am sure we can all count on the President to veto this legislation

seeing that he believes in transparency in Government right?

[djean111]

8. Right.

Not.
He should veto it, and if Congress overrides it, then we know where everyone stands.
Interesting - unanimous. Every single person, therefore, must be considered (by me) to be a sneak and a paid lackey.
Wow. What a legacy for everyone.
Like to see how Grayson and others like him justify this.

[shivdansledos]

11. Agree, have an open recorded vote let’s see who really is working for the people and who is not

[malthaussen]

38. Agreed

I would like to see how a few of our congresscritters justify this vote, myself. Especially since they had to know it would pass without challenge, so they could have easily made a token protest of a "nay" vote.

-- Mal

[Kelvin Mace]

41. This would be the most politcally astute move

It would draw a bright line around congressional corruption and put him squarely on the most popular side of the issue.

Which is why he won't do it.

[NorthCarolina]

44. LOL

It might happen. Yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt. ~ Wayne Campbell

[hrmjustin]

47. Welcome to DU shivdansledos!

[corkhead]

7. Happy to see they can all agree on something afterall

[KansDem]

9. "The House, like the Senate, acted quietly without a vote."

I'll bet!

Has there ever been a US Congress more corrupt than this one?

[Selatius]

10. I coin a new term: Bipartifucked. We've been bipartifucked by Dems and Repubs on this issue.

The only thing they haven't done is move the nation's capital to Wall Street and just be done with the charade of having a republic and just admit it's a one-party dictatorship called the Corporatist Party or perhaps the Business Party.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Bipartifucked

I like!

(I like the term, not being the recipient)

[elehhhhna]

31. Please make that an OP?!!

[GiveMeFreedom]

45. +1 I like it.

Bipartifucked indeed. Peace.

[JimDandy]

55. Yes indeed. n/t

[djean111]

12. Now let's find out - this just (for now) covers the internet.

Will someone be able to request the documents and then publish them on the internet?
Or will they get a visit from Homeland security or whatever.
Will publishing the information be considered whistle-blowing? because Obama hates whistle-blowers, it seems.

[Newest Reality]

13. I smell

privilege!

Well, we serve them as they serve special interest.

That's such a deal.

[mpcamb]

14. Will we be able to find out if Clarence Thomas is paying his taxes

after this passes?

[Owl]

15. That is indeed disgusting.

[AndyA]

16. A step in the wrong direction

Is it any wonder Congress has such low approval ratings? We all know they're crooks, and they've just admitted it. Transparency indeed! What a load of bull pucky!!

[onenote]

18. You think 28,000 career government employees are all crooks?

I thought it was the repubs that hated the "bureaucrats".

[AndyA]

37. Uh, no, I did not say that.

I responded to the original post regarding Congress repealing financial disclosure postings by top government officials on the internet.

Please do not accuse people of posting things they didn't post, it detracts from the OP and is disruptive to the thread.

[onenote]

61. I misunderstood: thought you were saying the government employees who were exempted

from online disclosure by the legislation were all crooks. If I correctly understand what you're saying it is everyone in Congress is a crook, and has admitted it by passing legislation that maintains online financial disclosure requirements on themselves (and on executive branch political appointees) but exempts several thousand non-political appointee positions from that obligation (a group that, notwithstanding what the article says, are not what most people would consider "top government officials&quot . I'm not sure I follow your logic.

[onenote]

17. I suppose that its too much to ask that people criticizing this

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 08:02 AM - Edit history (1)

actually read up on exactly what was repealed and why. Congress' action doesn't change the law as it relates to political appointees in the Executive branch, members of Congress, and candidates for office, whose financial disclosure info is and still will be available on line. But it rolls back an ill-advised provision that would have required 28,000 other career (non political appointee) government officials to have their info widely disseminated. Trying to figure out how to do that without creating a serious risk of identity theft has been a challenge. Which is why the roll back was recommended by the National Academy of Public Administration and endorsed by the Office of Government Ethics. And its why Congress, without objection (yes, including Alan Grayson) supported it.

[djean111]

19. Oh, I read it - it is the "not online" part I found interesting....and posted about.

"For instance, they note, the president, vice president, members of Congress, congressional candidates and individuals subject to Senate confirmation are still required to make their financial disclosures public. But the change in law now makes the posting of those disclosures on the Internet optional."

Let's see who still has their disclosure online, and let's see if that information can be obtained and put online with impunity.

[tammywammy]

51. Reading the bill it doesn't seem like it's optional

FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CANDIDATES.—Section 8(b) of the STOCK Act (5 U.S.C. App. 105 note) is amended—
....
‘‘(iii) notices of extensions, amendments, and blind trusts, with respect to financial disclosure reports described in clauses (i) and (ii),
pursuant to title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 101 et seq.), through databases that are maintained on the official websites of the House of Representatives and the Senate.’’;

(2) FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS.—Section 11(b) of the STOCK Act (5 U.S.C. App. 105 note) is amended—
....
‘‘(B) public access to— ‘‘(i) financial disclosure reports filed by the President, the Vice President, and any officer occupying a position listed in section 5312 or section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, having been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to that position, ‘‘(ii) reports filed by any individual described in clause (i) of a transaction disclosure required by section
103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, and ‘‘(iii) notices of extensions, amendments, and blind trusts, with respect to financial disclosure reports described in clauses (i) and (ii), pursuant to title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 101 et seq.), through databases that are maintained on the official website of the Office of Government Ethics.’’

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s716enr/pdf/BILLS-113s716enr.pdf

[onenote]

62. You are correct

The amendment doesn't make public disclosure and availability optional. It does change language relating to how those reports are filed. As originally passed, the law stated that filers "shall" submit their reports electronically once the mandated system for doing so is set up. As amended, it says that filers "shall be able to" submit their reports electronically once the mandated system for doing so is set up. But it doesn't change the requirement that reports, no matter how they are submitted, must be made publicly available on government websites.

[Bohunk68]

22. thanks for the insight on this.

[Fedaykin]

23. As I read it and I quote...

"...As my colleague Tom Lee noted, “This approach is known as ‘security through obscurity.’ Essentially, the idea is that rather than fixing a system's flaws, you can just make the system opaque or unusable or unpopular enough that those flaws never surface.” It doesn’t make anyone any safer. If a criminal wants the public information badly enough, he will jump through whatever hurdles are created in order to get it. That’s why last October we advocated that Congress take the months remaining before the bill was to go into effect to carve out exceptions for individuals in sensitive jobs. That would actually make them safer than hoping that no one would bother to look for the information if it is on paper instead of online.

Security through obscurity as a justification to repeal the transparency provisions of the STOCK Act starts us down a slippery slope where any government action or information could be taken offline in the name of safety. Campaign contributions made public on the FEC’s website? Take them offline. Lobbyist disclosure reports made public on the sites of the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate? Put them in file cabinets. Congressional hearings webcast by Committees? Take the cameras out of the room..."

Pretty much speaks for itself. I also see it as a possible slippery slope that can obscure rather than keep reasonably transparent what government is up to while doing the 'people's business.' I tend to agree with the Sunlight Foundation's conclusion found in the last two paragraphs here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/04/12/epic-failure-by-the-senate-on-transparency-provisions-in-stock-act/

[treestar]

63. So it is just another attempt to gin up an outrage

And your post won't do a thing to stop it, or, it will need to be posted over and over again, and will be ignored.

[sorefeet]

20. And we can't do a GOD DAMNED FUCKIN THING

[valerief]

21. Pigs at the trough. nt

[daybranch]

24. What did Obama do

Did he sign it yet?

[The Wizard]

25. And the Treasury looting continues (NT)

[City Lights]

26. How quaint!

They've created such a nice little club for themselves!

[fredamae]

27. The Bill Number is S. 716

Yes, it Weakens requirements set forth in the STOCK Act.

I called my Sen yesterday and it took a bit of time to find out about this--of course no answers to the most obvious question: Why weaken it Now if it was agreeable when the STOCK Act was orig passed? What do you feel the need to hide and why?

[fredamae]

33. S. 716 was introduced

on 4-11. Passed with unanimous consent (no debate/no vote record)
Passed the Senate on the 11th went to the House and passed yesterday. Bing, Bang, Boom---it is Done--Bi-Partisan....Self interest and perhaps a conflict of interest?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN00716:@@@R

[sorefeet]

28. When is the revolution

How many generations of wasted lives. I have 60 years of waiting and voting and waiting and waiting for something to happen. Votes mean absolutely nothing, it's a ruse to make you think you have a democracy. I'm ready for something, what are they going to do kill me??? They did that a long time ago.

[valerief]

30. So what do WE get for that? Oh, yeah. More nothing. nt

[NutmegYankee]

32. The problem is 28,000 non-appointed Civil Servants had to post their financial info online.

Like most regular people who don't have security details, they were concerned that the info could be used for criminal acts against them including Identity Theft. They still file disclosures, they just don't get put on the web.

[Fedaykin]

34. Yes and as per the Sunlight Foundation...

"...That’s why last October we advocated that Congress take the months remaining before the bill was to go into effect to carve out exceptions for individuals in sensitive jobs. That would actually make them safer than hoping that no one would bother to look for the information if it is on paper instead of online..."
Congress had many months to make the exceptions advocated for, but did nothing.

[NutmegYankee]

36. There was a lot of coverage on this in the Washington Post

Many CS folks were horrified that Congress (in a bill for them) had forced their financials to be posted online. As it works right now, the CS must files disclosures of any financial conflicts of interest. It was Congress that was previously exempt.

[840high]

35. Self-interest crooks.

[DhhD]

39. New Requirement from We the People to Lawmakers: At the announcement of your candidacy and every

every vote on the floor, you will post and update your voting record as a public internet report which is also a link so your decisions can be known. In order to form a more perfect union, your (the lawmaker's) public office service voting, will be up for decision as to whether you voted in the best interest of your constituents or yourself/ your donor.

Has Barack Obama made his donor's list public? Even though the Supreme Court decided to protect donors, the People should demand, "The See". Mitt Romney refused (Tax returns to) We the People. Now Congress is following that lead. I am mad as HELL about this! After this SS blunder, We the People should demand that Barack Obama set a president and come before the American People and explain himself in regards to his broken Campaign Promises.

If lawmakers refuse We the People, We need to keep in mind the idea of Democracy-Representation for, by and of the People.

[DhhD]

40. I am for voting out lawmakers that voted verbally/orally to hide from the People. Is there a list?

Edited to add verbally/orally

[GiveMeFreedom]

46. uH?

Unanimous consent, means they all voted for it. At some point the congresscritter has to tell someone that he agrees to the bill. If all of them do by consent, no debate, then it's a done deal. So, did any of them utter the word "Yes", in effect, they all did at once. Peace.

edit: grammar

[Eljo_Don]

42. Drops

Every day at least a drop of water like this one is dropped into the glass. Sooner or later the day will come when that drop will overfill the glass, and they will ask "Why do we have revolt? It was just a small thing we added." I just don't want to see "we the people" pissed off.

[M Kitt]

43. Campaign Finance Reform

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:15 PM - Edit history (2)

http://nationbuilders.thenation.com/profiles/blogs/decline-of-the-lobbyists-revisited-rejecting-legitimate-money-by?xg_source=activity

Fedaykin, like the Orwell quote

On a related topic, Posted Previously:

Money Saturates this Political Landscape.

The perception that "buying" a political office today is completely acceptable, that poorly regulated campaign money has no corruptive influence once a candidate takes office is an absurd but broadly implied concept, sold to the public with a conspiratorial wink and a nod across the political spectrum by those who benefit.

End

Related to corruption in politics, disclosure (transparency) is NEARLY the best control against political corruption.

With Campaign Finance Reform being the most effective option.

Thanks for the accurate post!

[hrmjustin]

48. Welcome to DU M Kitt

[M Kitt]

58. DU Thanks, appreciate that.

However, a reply to my post would have been more rewarding

More to come!

[hrmjustin]

59. I am the welcome wagon so I usually don't make responses on my welcomeposts.

I am glad you came aboard.

[DarkLink]

49. Coincidence? The FED just 'accidentally' sent them info with which they could insider trade

Fed Sends Insider Info to Goldman Sachs, Barclays, JP Morgan, CITI, HSBC, UBS and Congress!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-10/fed-releases-names-early-fomc-minutes-recipients-include-employees-goldman-barclays-

[hrmjustin]

50. Welcome to DU Darklink!

[DarkLink]

52. Thanks!

[hrmjustin]

53. Your welcome!

[jsr]

54. Stamp this on their foreheads

[WillyT]

56. K & R !!!

[lib2DaBone]

57. Well, of course they did.....

The Laws that they pass benefit the 1% who control everything.

If you thought that elected officials represent the people...you are in for a rude awakening.

Our form of goverment is corrupt from top to bottom.

As drones kill innocent women and children overseas, I see troops in the streets of America.

Our Tax Dollars are funding the most repressive, criminal , blood thirsty criminals we have ever seen.

[blkmusclmachine]

60. LIES you can beLIEve in

Hope for Change