For once, a good first step idea for financial regulation from, of all places, CNBC..

[WCGreen]

We all know that Congressional members are allowed to continue investing after they are elected. And of course, they probably all invest in their favorite investment vehicles before they officially enter the "public" sector...

The only real stipulation is that they "report", I use that term very lightly, all their investments in an annual ethics report. This report requires each congressional member and high-ranking staff to mark down the names of the stock they hold but only in general value.

By this I mean you put down on the report, for instance, that Mrs. WCGreen and I own between 500,000 and 1,000,000 dollars worth of Chevron Stock.(Wishfull thinking to set realistic stakes.)

I am not sure if the brackets have changed but that was the amount window I had to fill in when running for the Ohio Senate. The Ohio requirements mirrored the federal at that time which was 1996.

The problem these wacky ethicists are trying to get at is to stop members or highly placed staffers from trying to manipulate the value of their investments by pushing through say lax regulation for drilling. The looser the regulations, conventional wisdom dictates the less cost involved and so greater profits are almost assured.

What is gaining steam in DC is that the members of committees and their staffers would be prohibited from owning individual stocks and would have to rearrange their portfolio accordingly. They would, however, be able to purchase index funds that come under the jurisdiction of their committee.

This, those who are pushing this reform claim, would cause the committee members and their high-ranking staff to be more concerned about the health of say the agricultural sector instead of focusing on Monsanto.

To me this seems like a very good idea. Too often, we get riders or earmarks injected into bills that are clearly slanted toward one company. Often times the congressional member or the highly ranked staff would reply that the contributions of that company are insignificant to the congresspersons over all campaign budget.

What is never really examined is how those votes affect the value of the portfolio of members or highly ranked staffers.

By no means is it a cure all but with more open information at the fingertips of voters and voter watchdog agencies, at least the people would better informed. They can still say he is a crook but he is my crook. But then again, that is up to those who vote to decide.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Maybe we don't examine closely the holdings of those folks...

But you can bet your bottom dollar the congresscritters sure as hell do...

They know where their bread is buttered.

And who gives them those oh-so-valuable campaign funds...

I think those wacky ethicists are onto something...

[WCGreen]

2. You Betcha