2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCongress Quietly Repeals Congressional Insider Trading Ban
this may have already been reported...but for those who haven't seen it yet....pretty disgusting
http://legalpronews.findlaw.com/article/06bo7x2chf5GJ?q=U.S.+Congress
amazing what they can agree on when it affects their pockets
http://nyulocal.com/national/2013/04/15/congress-quietly-repeals-congressional-insider-trading-ban/ (edit to add new link)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)Slit Skirt
(1,789 posts)gateley
(62,683 posts)Slit Skirt
(1,789 posts)While Congress might be stuck in a deadlock on just about every issue imaginable, theres one piece of legislation that both Democrats and Republicans hate unanimously: the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a law passed last year designed to prevent insider trading among lawmakers and government officials by requiring them to post disclosures of their financial transactions online.
Both parties and both houses of Congress hated the disclosure portion of the law so much that it was repealed on Friday without debatethe measure was sent to the president by unanimous consent. The ordeal took about 10 seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House, according to official records.
UPDATE: White House spokesperson Jay Carney announced that Obama has signed the repeal of the internet disclosure portion of the STOCK Act.
http://nyulocal.com/national/2013/04/15/congress-quietly-repeals-congressional-insider-trading-ban/
Lasher
(27,581 posts)Shame on them all.
gateley
(62,683 posts)a right to privacy. But this information HAS to be available to those who are monitoring this. Like an Elizabeth Warren.
Slit Skirt
(1,789 posts)it is important to know if our elected officials have a "conflict of interest" This is where all the trouble starts..get real
If everything was transparent otherwise it would be different. I don't trust ANYONE in congress to monitor congress.... that's another problem. I really like Elizabeth Warren...but she is one person, and can't monitor everyone.
This privacy notion is a cover.
gateley
(62,683 posts)EDIT: Maybe a compromise. Not easily Googled, let's say, but easily accessible if you contact "the office" or whatever. You make a request, they respond immediately and e-mail/fax it to you or something like that.
Don't know why I'm banging my head about this -- it will keep marching toward total "confidentiality". And I think THAT is wrong. I think Romney's tax records should have been accessible (since he wasn't willing to cough them up) since he wanted to become POTUS.
aandegoons
(473 posts)The hits just keep coming.
onenote
(42,700 posts)It did not repeal the Congressional insider trading ban. It did the following. It limited the financial disclosure provisions so that they apply to members of Congress, congressional candidates, the President, the VP and certain political appointees, but do not apply thousands of career civil servants (whose inclusion in the legislation was opposed by the unions representing those workers). It also eliminated a requirement that the financial and transactional disclosures members of Congress, congressional candidates, the President, the VP and certain political appointees the financial and transactional disclosures have to be posted on line in a searchable form (but left in place the requirement that such disclosures have to be made and have to be posted online.)
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)After reading your post I looked at the comments on the article and a few people also noted that the author got it wrong. I think the only objectionable thing, to me, is removing the searchability of the records.
Slit Skirt
(1,789 posts)limits makes it sound somehow more benign...truth is, they repealed a part of this act to help cover their insider trading deals and make conflicts of interest less noticeable. And they passed it in record time!
In a sweeping unanimous vote, members of Congress voted to overturn parts of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act that previously banned 28,000 federal employees, including members of Congress, from engaging in insider trading, requiring them to make financial disclosures publicly online. The bill passed into law April 2012 after lengthy debate, but took less than one minute to repeal in both the Senate and the House last week President Barack Obama has since signed the newly-repealed bill into law.
Government officials will still have to file disclosures of securities trades more than $1,000 within 45 days, but they no longer have to file them in a searchable database that is readily available to the public. Despite robust support for STOCK last year, President Obama signed the repeal into law Tuesday.
Look how fast they got this one passed:
According to official records, no Republican or Democrat objected in the unanimous repeal, consuming just 10 seconds worth of time in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House, according to official records. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) was one of the leading proponents of the repeal basing his decision on the a recommendation made by the National Academy of Public Administration. This was their recommendation and the House and Senate agreed it was the best course of action, he said.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/congress-repeals-disclosure-of-financial-transactions-critics-decry-insider-trading/
...and they justified it based on security....sound familiar? there will be no more searchable database for people like you and I to discover what our elected representatives are into and where their pockets might be affected.
Spokespeople for Sunlight (foundation) believe that the repeal could open the door for illegal trades. [The repeal] sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent suggesting that any risks stem not from information being public but from public information being online, said Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation.
onenote
(42,700 posts)If by "their" you are referring to the members of Congrss that voted for the bill and the President who signed it, the only real impact that this bill has on "their" insider trading deals is that the database on which their financial and transactional disclosures have to be made available doesn't have to be "searchable". The portions of the law that made insider trading by members of Congress etc. illegal is not impacted by this. That, more than anything, was the motivation for passing the STOCK Act, not creating a searchable data base of the financial data of thousands of career civil servants. The other aspect of the amended version of the legislation is that it relieves thousands of career government employees of having their financial information posted publicly. They still have to report their information, but its not put out on the web.
There is a reason why President Obama asked in his SOTU speech in 2012 that Congress send him a a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress" not "a bill that makes financial disclosures by thousands of career civil servants searchable on line".
As for the claim that this was done with no consideration: The issue of the posting and searchability requirements of the STOCK Act has been under discussion for months. Congress specifically directed a non-partisan, non-profit entity, the National Academy of Public Administration to study and report back with recommendations with respect to the posting and searchability provisions. They produced a detailed, highly sourced report that made a number of recommendations, most (but not all) of which are reflected in the legislation that Congress just passed to modify those provisions of the STOCK Act. Folks may agree or disagree with some or all of the reports findings and conclusions, but if you haven't read it, that you are in no position to comment on the substance of the changes in the law that Congress made.
Any single member of the House or Senate could have stopped this amendment. None did. Why? Becuase despite the misinformation being spewed around, on balance the amendment did more good than harm.
Yesterday the president spoke of how the NRA uses intentional lies to scare people. Well, in their own way, that's what the folks responsible for this article are doing -- making it sound like the provisions on searchability repealed were the be all and end all of the STOCK Act when they were very much the tail of the legsilation, not the dog... the dog (and much of the tail) remain intact even after these changes. Its also intentional distortion when those responsible for this article make it sound like the entire bill and/or the obligation to disclose information by members of Congress and Executive branch officials has been repealed.
I used to think that folks here stood with career civil servants and union members. Its beginning to appear that has changed.
Slit Skirt
(1,789 posts)andsee nothing that you have referenced. They have not allowed the details to be made public yet. Call me crazy, but I don't trust them, and feel that this is reopening pandoras box. The details should be searchable...period.
onenote
(42,700 posts)and yet accuse me of being wrong.
Truly ridiculous. Truly.
You want references:
Here's the original Stock Act: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ105/pdf/PLAW-112publ105.pdf
Here's the amendment that just was enacted: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s716cps/pdf/BILLS-113s716cps.pdf
And here's the NAPA report. http://www.napawash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/STOCKactFinal1.pdf
And since you seem to be under the mistaken impression that "they" haven't allowed the detail to be made available yet (even thought I just posted links), you may want to check out this one:
http://searchengineland.com/guide/how-to-use-google-to-search
Slit Skirt
(1,789 posts)I don't have time right now to look at them but wanted to say thank you.
I still think the doings of congress must be searchable...period
beaglelover
(3,469 posts)nt
hepkat
(143 posts)I'd scrub all political activities from my consciousness.
With a few exceptions they really are scum.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)beaglelover
(3,469 posts)Did ANY news organization? This needs to get out there. These congresspeople are pure scum. Why should they be able to trade stocks on insider trading, but I cannot? ASSHOLES!
onenote
(42,700 posts)Maybe because MSNBC is a responsible news organization that tries to get its facts straight before claiming things.
The ban on insider trading by members of Congress that President Obama asked Congress to pass last year is unaffected by this amendment. The requirement certain financial and transactional information that Congress members (and the Pres, VP, and certain presidential appointees ) be posted online also remains in effect. What has changed is that the requirement that the online information be "searchable" and "sortable" has been eliminated and the imposition of online disclosure requirements on thousands of non-political career civil servants has been eliminated (although they remain subject to insider trading prohibitions and non on-line disclosure requirements.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)BethanyQuartz
(193 posts)The National Academy of Public Administration said STOCK is an, unwarranted risk to national security and law enforcement, as well as threaten agency missions..."
I wonder what agency missions, national security activities, and law enforcement activities necessitate the secret buying and selling of stocks by public officials?