STOCK Act advances in the Senate

STOCK Act advances in the Senate

www.cbsnews.com

In a move aimed at improving transparency and voter confidence in Congress, the Senate on Monday voted to advance a bill to stop so-called "congressional insider trading."

By a vote of 93 to 2, the Senate agreed to proceed with debate on the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge, or STOCK Act. The legislation specifically prohibits federal lawmakers from trading stocks based on nonpublic information they have obtained in the course of their congressional work.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.washingtontimes.com
www.nytimes.com
www.huffingtonpost.com

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. It appears to be passing quite quickly with little to no discussion. I may be wrong, but if this passes, could this be protective retroactively for all members of Congress?

It's an election season coming up, perhaps they are looking to change their image? I'm not to sure, but something about this doesn't sit quite right.

www.cbsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It doesn't sit right with me either. That would be like a union voting to lower wages.

I wonder what else is in this piece of legislature that might not be obvious. You know how they like to bundle stuff...

So who enforces this law?

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Interesting, thanks.

I don't understand why they need a law to prohibits something that they are not suppose to do, unless they were doing it.

I also wonder....What if they give the information to another person out of senate?.....Didn't do that before?

reply to post by Trueman


Because there is nothing really prohibiting them from doing it. While distasteful to the taxpayer and unethical to many it is legal. One thing I have learned in all my years is when you have a set of rules, someone will come along and find a way to use them to their advantage that wasn't really intended. And let us be honest here the only reason this is being addressed is because they know the people have had their fill of the Washington shenanigans and paying a little bit more attention to whats going on.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


All that happened today was a vote to move it to the floor where it can be discussed and amended.

Since when congress follow the laws they pass?

I mean, they pass drug laws, I'm sure most of them take drugs.

They pass laws against bribery, they get bribes every single days.

They say an oath to preserve the constitution, every single bill they pass violates it.

Sorry but unless the FBI/Cops do their FREAKING JOBS AND ENFORCE THE LAWS nothing will change.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Do not trust the whores in congress on this one, they have been getting a pay out for decades from big interest money, without this pay out they could no win elections.

So this bill sounds like a deal for the American people, but is nothing than a gesture, is not a law and never will become one, this is just to make people feel good and cozy about transparency, this will be forgotten once elections are over this year.

It was funny when Obama brought it up in the SOTU address. The legislature didn't seem to know to stand or sit or clap or scowl.

I don't trust anything they do - I'd have to read it.

reply to post by litterbaux


I know of unions who have voted for pay freezes in order to keep members employed.
I can't cite you the locals now. Most are public employees.

Originally posted by Ghost375
So who enforces this law?

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Does it just get put on the books to look good, but be ignored?

Kind of hard to enforce something like this when we haven't even jailed a big banker yet.

reply to post by the owlbear


Ford employees also took some pretty sizable reductions, just a couple years ago. Unions are quite capable of taking concessions and cuts when it is in their best interests to do so. Usually it is the Police, Fire and Teachers unions that vote to lose jobs over across the board cuts.

President asked for this bill to be sent to his desk and he would sign it immediately, but I thought he said it knowing there is no way in Hades that it would ever make it to his desk..

This news makes it a distinct possibility, especially with the 98-2 approval..

On to the House... I wonder who will stand up opposed to making sure that member's of Congress fall under "insider trading" laws they legislate for the rest of us? Election year tells me that if you hear of any, they will most likely be ones that aren't seeking reelection?..

Wonder if there is any built in loopholes within this one? I doubt that there will be any retroactive deal, this will be going forward (if passed and signed into law).


Thanks to 60 Minutes for bringing this once again to the folks attention, they sure acted quickly in reaction..

Now if they would only pass a budget! it's going on what? 3+ years? Perhaps a bill stating that until Congress passes the year's budget, they receive ZERO pay.. and they do not receive back pay once they do..

reply to post by JacKatMtn

Wonder if there is any built in loopholes within this one? I doubt that there will be any retroactive deal, this will be going forward (if passed and signed into law).

If passed, it can't be retroactive. It's not allowed.

And although this is a step in the right direction....Politicians shouldn't be allowed to own ANY STOCKS....period. I think the salary they are making from the people of this country is quite enough to get by on...especially with the top notch healthcare they receive....courtesy of us....ya know...the same kind of healthcare they don't want us to have.

Who were the 3 to vote against it is my question?

reply to post by FreedomXisntXFree


2 Repubs voted against it...don't remember the names.

In my excitement that this passed 93-2, I overlooked that ...

the Senate agreed to proceed with debate on the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge, or STOCK Act. The legislation specifically prohibits federal lawmakers from trading stocks based on nonpublic information they have obtained in the course of their congressional work.

Guess this means that it will now be part of their next legislative session?

House plans..

A House Republican leadership aide told CBS News that lawmakers will take up their version of the STOCK Act by the end of February. House Republicans plan to expand the legislation beyond the Senate bill to include non-stock investments and also include executive branch officials and employees.

** both quotes from OP sourced article..


Still good news, though not as good as I originally thought, still time for Congress to do their magic shell trick and leave this on the table..

While this is something that needs to come to an end, this is the least of my worries. Why not end congressional lobbying, for a start, and get our politicians out of the wallets of big-business? IMHO we should do away with all politicians, and replace them with philosophers, because philosophers actually understand the concepts that are involved in government, as well as know the occurrences of the past. Our congressmen don't even know what they are signing most of the time, so does anyone think that they are doing anything close to pondering the essence of our problems? I don't.

Since when was insider trader ever legal to begin with?