In President Obama's state of the union, he promised to sign a bill that would put a stop to members of congress making a fortune by trading on insider information.
The STOCK act was actually introduced to the Senate back in November by Senator Brown from MA. It was read once and like almost all other important bills, Mr. Reid sent it to committee to die. Unfortunately, for Senator Reid, the president mentioned his willingness to sign such a bill in the State of The Union speech, so the bill will be re-introduced.
It is a very simple common sense bill that I doubt anyone would have a problem with (except for Pelosi, Reid, Bohner, or any other congress person that makes millions from insider trading).
Here is it's text: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1871is/pdf/BILLS-112s1871is.pdf
You may want to do what you can to educate your friends in other states who may have congress members with less scruples. The president is campaigning on this, the legislation is waiting, and the only thing that stands in the way is the Senate (as usual). Lets help our president by supporting this effort. Lets make sure that Congress sends this bill to his desk as requested.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 31, 2012, 09:15:28 AM
In President Obama's state of the union, he promised to sign a bill that would put a stop to members of congress making a fortune by trading on insider information.
The STOCK act was actually introduced to the Senate back in November by Senator Brown from MA. It was read once and like almost all other important bills, Mr. Reid sent it to committee to die. Unfortunately, for Senator Reid, the president mentioned his willingness to sign such a bill in the State of The Union speech, so the bill will be re-introduced.
It is a very simple common sense bill that I doubt anyone would have a problem with (except for Pelosi, Reid, Bohner, or any other congress person that makes millions from insider trading).
Here is it's text: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1871is/pdf/BILLS-112s1871is.pdf
While our Oklahoma Senators support this action, you may want to do what you can to educate your friends in other states who may have congress members with less scruples. The president is campaigning on this, the legislation is waiting, and the only thing that stands in the way is the Senate (as usual). Lets help our president by supporting this effort. Lets make sure that Congress sends this bill to his desk as requested.
Oh yeah, those do nothing Repugs are blocking it, I'm sure.
Statement Yesterday from Jay Carney:
Statement by the Press Secretary
In the State of the Union Address, the President laid out a blueprint for an economy built to last, where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules – especially those who have been sent here to serve the American people.
Last week, the President called on Congress to pass a bill that makes clear that Members of Congress may not engage in insider trading. No one should be able to trade stocks based on nonpublic information gleaned on Capitol Hill. So we are pleased the Senate is one step closer to passing the STOCK Act. While there's more work to be done to eliminate the corrosive influence of money in politics, this is an important step to repair the deficit of trust between Washington and the American people. We urge Congress to pass this bill, and the President will sign it right away.
Statement yesterday by Eric Cantor:
"Insider trading by members of Congress is unacceptable, and the public needs to know that the same rules apply to elected officials as everyone else. The STOCK Act rightfully attempts to ensure that members of Congress do not use insider information to profit personally, and it is imperative that people trust that Members of Congress aren't using public office for personal gain.
"I was pleased to see the Senate signal that it will take up an expanded version of the STOCK Act. While the current Senate bill is a step in the right direction, there are other areas where it can be strengthened such as applying disclosure requirements to the Executive Branch and their employees in a position to gain from insider information. We will closely monitor the Senate's progress as the measure is strengthened during the amendment process, and will ensure action on legislation that meets the underlying goals of the STOCK Act in the most timely manner possible."
Quote from: Conan71 on January 31, 2012, 09:44:28 AM
Oh yeah, those do nothing Repugs are blocking it, I'm sure.
Apparently my estimation of support was incorrect. Tom Coburn was one of only two that voted against bringing the bill up for debate. I'll try to find out why. Either way, the motion passed, and the bill will go to the floor.
7 Amendments have been tacked to it, but we won't know what they are until they are introduced for consideration.
1. S.AMDT.1470 to S.2038 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 1/30/2012) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 1/30/2012 Senate amendment submitted
2. S.AMDT.1471 to S.2038 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 1/30/2012) Cosponsors (7)
Latest Major Action: 1/30/2012 Senate amendment submitted
3. S.AMDT.1472 to S.2038 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Toomey, Pat [PA] (introduced 1/30/2012) Cosponsors (8)
Latest Major Action: 1/30/2012 Senate amendment submitted
4. S.AMDT.1473 to S.2038 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 1/30/2012) Cosponsors (5)
Latest Major Action: 1/30/2012 Senate amendment submitted
5. S.AMDT.1474 to S.2038 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 1/30/2012) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 1/30/2012 Senate amendment submitted
6. S.AMDT.1475 to S.2038 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 1/30/2012) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 1/30/2012 Senate amendment submitted
7. S.AMDT.1476 to S.2038 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (introduced 1/30/2012) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/30/2012 Senate amendment submitted
It looks like one of Coburn's amendments was to give the bill influence over the trading of spouses and children of congress members. That's smart. Cuts off Pelosi at the knees.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 31, 2012, 09:56:12 AM
It looks like one of Coburn's amendments was to give the bill influence over the trading of spouses and children of congress members. That's smart. Cuts off Pelosi at the knees.
She better hold her boobs up....!
Here was Coburn's initial objection. He did't think a law was necessary.
"There's nothing in current law preventing the Securities and Exchange Commission from enforcing other insider-trading laws against members of Congress." They just choose not to.
UH. . .therefore a law to require the SEC to enforce the law. While I'm not a fan of new laws, I disagree with Coburn.
This law is necessary if we want public servants instead of opportunists.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 31, 2012, 10:04:08 AM
Here was Coburn's initial objection. He did't think a law was necessary.
"There's nothing in current law preventing the Securities and Exchange Commission from enforcing other insider-trading laws against members of Congress." They just choose not to.
UH. . .therefore a law to require the SEC to enforce the law. While I'm not a fan of new laws, I disagree with Coburn.
This law is necessary if we want public servants instead of opportunists.
There went my get rich quick scheme.
That didn't take long. The Obama Campaign is already trying to spin this on the sheeple. They just sent out this campaign letter. I had to add the red text. Way to attempt to polarize a bi-partisan issue Mr. President.
Right now, members of Congress can make personal investment decisions based on confidential information they get in the course of regulating industries and doing their work.
It's kind of unbelievable that this isn't already illegal. President Obama wants to make it illegal once and for all — no one should profit from inside information about the very businesses they're supposed to be regulating.
Today, the Democratic leadership in the Senate voted to move forward on a bill introduced by the Republicans to extend to Congress the same strict rules that apply to anyone else whose job gives them access to sensitive information about businesses. This legislation is expected to pass the Senate with bipartisan support later this week.
But Republicans in the House have yet to move on it. . . .because it is still in the senate.
There aren't a lot of good reasons to disagree with this bill. So the question here isn't how many people we have to persuade, but simply how loudly we can speak up to prevent the House Republicans from dodging this issue. You have to pitch before someone can dodge.
Say you support the President on banning insider trading in Congress:
http://my.barackobama.com/Ban-Insider-Trading-in-Congress
Thanks, and stay tuned,
James
James Kvaal
National Policy Director
Obama for America
Good Lord! For once can't we just have some productive activity in Washington.
Yesterday Sen. Reid issued a statement concerning his cloture filing on the bill saying that "he had to do it or Republicans were going to filibuster the bill."
Republicans were in support of the bill, it was their GD bill, and they've tried to get Reid to move on it since the last session.
What an asshat!
Why don't you just re-introduce the last 26 energy and jobs bills you voted into committee and take credit for those too!
Here is an interesting history...
http://insidertrading.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002391
Also interesting how this act was introduced in Jan 26, 2009. By a couple of Democrats. And re-introduced last May by another Democrat.
Gaspar, you really ought to come visit reality just once in a while....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 31, 2012, 10:44:00 AM
Here is an interesting history...
http://insidertrading.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002391
Also interesting how this act was introduced in Jan 26, 2009. By a couple of Democrats. And re-introduced last May by another Democrat.
Gaspar, you really ought to come visit reality just once in a while....
And it still went nowhere with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate in '09, now did it?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 31, 2012, 10:51:00 AM
And it still went nowhere with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate in '09, now did it?
Quote"Members of Congress and their aides would be banned from making securities trades using information they gained through their jobs under legislation its sponsors say has taken on new urgency as the government spends billions bailing out companies.
The bill [STOCK Act] proposed by Democratic Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and Brian Baird of Washington would require lawmakers and their staff to disclose within 90 days the purchase or sale of stocks, bonds or commodity futures exceeding $1,000, except for transactions in blind trusts or mutual funds. Members of Congress currently must report their financial holdings and securities transactions in ranges of amounts once a year.
Slaughter and Baird testified on the proposal at a hearing (3.75 MB) Monday [July 13, 2009] of the House Financial Services subcommittee on oversight...
Prospects for the legislation, which the two lawmakers first proposed in 2006, are unclear."
[Editor's Note: The STOCK Act died in committee.]
Crazy how they "die in committee" isn't it?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 31, 2012, 10:51:00 AM
And it still went nowhere with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate in '09, now did it?
Yes. And now, in 2011 and 2012, it is back. Again, by Democrats.
Also, the lapse of the Bush tax cuts went no where with Democrat majorities due to obstructionism from guess who... And even Coburn is against it now, so everyone has an ox to be gored in this rodeo.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 31, 2012, 10:44:00 AM
Here is an interesting history...
http://insidertrading.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002391
Also interesting how this act was introduced in Jan 26, 2009. By a couple of Democrats. And re-introduced last May by another Democrat.
Gaspar, you really ought to come visit reality just once in a while....
Yeah, it was, but with a den majority led by the worst offender it died, and died.
This isn't a Dem v Rep issue. This is an issue with people on both sides worried about a good personal money maker suddenly going away. I bet some of them could give a crap what party they're affiliated with as long as they have enough followers to elect them and they can continue insider trading.
Quote from: Townsend on January 31, 2012, 11:08:02 AM
This isn't a Dem v Rep issue. This is an issue with people on both sides worried about a good personal money maker suddenly going away. I bet some of them could give a crap what party they're affiliated with as long as they have enough followers to elect them and they can continue insider trading.
Agreed! There should be no party bickering on this one.
I'm sure there will be lots of politics on both sides, but the bill needs to be passed and signed!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 31, 2012, 11:03:04 AM
Yes. And now, in 2011 and 2012, it is back. Again, by Democrats.
Also, the lapse of the Bush tax cuts went no where with Democrat majorities due to obstructionism from guess who... And even Coburn is against it now, so everyone has an ox to be gored in this rodeo.
Wait. When did Scott Brown become a Democrat? I'm sorry we aren't talking about Bush tax cuts, we are talking about the stock act.
Reid's amendment is to add a tax increase to make the whole bill unacceptable to Republicans. Republicans will be forced to take the blame for not passing the bill, everyone gets to keep their insider trading, and the Democrats come out smelling like a rose.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 31, 2012, 11:56:57 AM
Reid's amendment is to add a tax increase to make the whole bill unacceptable to Republicans. Republicans will be forced to take the blame for not passing the bill, everyone gets to keep their insider trading, and the Democrats come out smelling like a rose.
What's the amendment?
Quote from: Townsend on January 31, 2012, 11:58:39 AM
What's the amendment?
This one:
Quote
1. S.AMDT.1470 to S.2038 Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry [NV] (introduced 1/30/2012) Cosponsors (6)
Latest Major Action: 1/30/2012 Senate amendment submitted
Quote from: we vs us on January 31, 2012, 12:07:46 PM
What's the tax increase?
An increase in the taxes some Americans will pay.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 31, 2012, 12:06:11 PM
This one:
I googled it. I must be doing it wrong. It's got the wrong congress listed.
Can you be more specific?
Quote from: Townsend on January 31, 2012, 12:11:31 PM
I googled it. I must be doing it wrong. It's got the wrong congress listed.
Can you be more specific?
Yes, but then I would have to do something nasty to you.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 31, 2012, 12:13:02 PM
Yes, but then I would have to do something nasty to you.
I meant wrong year.
Anyway, I can't find the amendment you listed pertaining to the Stock Act. Are there specifics available?
Quote from: Townsend on January 31, 2012, 12:15:06 PM
I meant wrong year.
Anyway, I can't find the amendment you listed pertaining to the Stock Act. Are there specifics available?
No. We need to pass this pile first to find out all the details.
I thought stocking was already a crime..... ??? ??? ???
Quote from: Conan71 on January 31, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
No. We need to pass this pile first to find out all the details.
Where are you guys finding this?
I've looked at many congressional sites and there's no mention of the amendment.
Quote from: Townsend on January 31, 2012, 12:15:06 PM
I meant wrong year.
Anyway, I can't find the amendment you listed pertaining to the Stock Act. Are there specifics available?
All I can say for now is
QuotePurpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.
Quote from: Townsend on January 31, 2012, 12:17:24 PM
Where are you guys finding this?
I've looked at many congressional sites and there's no mention of the amendment.
T, it's right there in black and white
So is there a listed tax increase sponsored by Reid attached to the Stock Act that I can see or is it all hidden?
Quote from: Townsend on January 31, 2012, 12:23:52 PM
So is there a listed tax increase sponsored by Reid attached to the Stock Act that I can see or is it all hidden?
Must be a browser setting issue.
Just checking.
Quote from: Townsend on January 31, 2012, 12:23:52 PM
So is there a listed tax increase sponsored by Reid attached to the Stock Act that I can see or is it all hidden?
Are you on a PC or a Mac?
Several Senators led by McCain have added an amendment banning bonuses to Fanny and Freddy employees. They are also attaching the Earmark Elimination Act of 2011 (now to be called "2012").
Tom Coburn has attached an amendment preventing the funding of duplicate/overlapping government programs. He is also attaching an amendment requiring that all legislation be available for review 72 hours before a vote on the floor (to avoid another Obamacare pile). Coburn is adding yet another amendment calling for the "Permanent Prohibition on Congressional Earmarks.
That's how it stands so far. I don't see that Reid has attached his pile yet, and I am hopeful that it's not forthcoming.
I think Shortey's trying to get them to add in something about buying and selling dead fetus as a dietary supplement.
Coburn is going to make this thing un-passable. I doubt Reid and his peeps will stand for the elimination of earmarks or anything to limit Fanny and Freddy.
I hear they're anti-dead baby.
Not a pile yet, though Barbra Boxer tried a funny trick.
New amendments:
Sen Thune offers an amendment for Catholic school recognition day. ???
Sen DeMint offers an amendment establishing term limits for members of congress. :)
Sen Boxer offers an amendment that exempts "spouses" of Congress men and women. She tries to burry this by making reference to definition made in section 109 (12) of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. Of course this is an eye-roller. ::)
Sen Paul offers an amendment that eliminates all "credit for service" for any congress member who becomes a lobbyist.
Sen Shelby offers an amendment to extend the powers of the Ethics in Government act of 1978 to include the secondary individuals (spouses, employees and others specified in the bill).
Sen Tester offers an amendment that would exempt the trade of certain securities involved in the formation of small companies. This exemption would be limited to $50,000,000. Basically part of his Small Company Capital Formation Act. This would allow members of Congress to participate in new business formation ventures and be exempt from reporting. Another eye roller. ::)
Sen Grassley offers an amendment requiring the disclosure of lobbying activities and/or "political intelligence activities" and consultants.
Sen Heller offers an amendment that requires the passage of a timely budget in order for members of congress to get paid "No Budget, No Pay" :)
Sen Brown offers an amendment requiring members of congress to act in the people's interest before acting on their own behalf. "Putting The People First Act of 2012."
Sen Leahy offers an amendment adding the "Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2012" which in lots of pages increases the lengths of penalties under the US code section 18.
Sen Paul offers an amendment that requires certification by members of congress to the effect that they are required to state in every disclosure "I hereby certify that the financial transactions reflected in this disclosure form were not made on the basis of material, non-public information."
Sen Corker offers an amendment making it unlawful for the Federal Government to reduce the principal of any mortgage or provide bailouts to reckless borrowers. :)
Sen Paul offers an amendment extending this law to cover all members of the executive branch.
Sen Wyden offers an amendment that extends the law to any "nonmilitary appointee of the President" and establishes an online database for publication of the data.
So far, no tax increases, turtle tunnels, or solar bicycles.
Somebody put a flea collar on that bill!
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 02:35:24 PM
Somebody put a flea collar on that bill!
These are all relatively clean amendments. I think we will probably see this bill passed very soon.
Boxer's amendments are always worth a laugh. They remind me of my Father-in-law's scavenger hunts. She references a paragraph in another law, and when you look it up, it references another paragraph, and this goes on until you finally find the simple sentence or word that she is wanting to insert.
She's a hoot!
Quote from: Gaspar on February 01, 2012, 02:50:17 PM
These are all relatively clean amendments. I think we will probably see this bill passed very soon.
Nah, it will take a few weeks to get it up to 2000 pages so no one will read it before voting on it.
Wasn't this supposed to be about stopping insider trading by congress?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 01, 2012, 02:50:17 PM
These are all relatively clean amendments. I think we will probably see this bill passed very soon.
Boxer's amendments are always worth a laugh. They remind me of my Father-in-law's scavenger hunts. She references a paragraph in another law, and when you look it up, it references another paragraph, and this goes on until you finally find the simple sentence or word that she is wanting to insert.
She's a hoot!
I don't care how "clean" they are. Why should a bill to do something as simple as stopping insider trading in Congress go in as a ten page bill and come out of the chamber in a bucking wheel barrow with 1000 amendments attached to it?
Quote from: Gaspar on February 01, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
Not a pile yet, though Barbra Boxer tried a funny trick.
New amendments:
Sen Thune offers an amendment for Catholic school recognition day. ???
Sen DeMint offers an amendment establishing term limits for members of congress. :)
Sen Boxer offers an amendment that exempts "spouses" of Congress men and women. She tries to burry this by making reference to definition made in section 109 (12) of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. Of course this is an eye-roller. ::)
Sen Paul offers an amendment that eliminates all "credit for service" for any congress member who becomes a lobbyist.
Sen Shelby offers an amendment to extend the powers of the Ethics in Government act of 1978 to include the secondary individuals (spouses, employees and others specified in the bill).
Sen Tester offers an amendment that would exempt the trade of certain securities involved in the formation of small companies. This exemption would be limited to $50,000,000. Basically part of his Small Company Capital Formation Act. This would allow members of Congress to participate in new business formation ventures and be exempt from reporting. Another eye roller. ::)
Sen Grassley offers an amendment requiring the disclosure of lobbying activities and/or "political intelligence activities" and consultants.
Sen Heller offers an amendment that requires the passage of a timely budget in order for members of congress to get paid "No Budget, No Pay" :)
Sen Brown offers an amendment requiring members of congress to act in the people's interest before acting on their own behalf. "Putting The People First Act of 2012."
Sen Leahy offers an amendment adding the "Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2012" which in lots of pages increases the lengths of penalties under the US code section 18.
Sen Paul offers an amendment that requires certification by members of congress to the effect that they are required to state in every disclosure "I hereby certify that the financial transactions reflected in this disclosure form were not made on the basis of material, non-public information."
Sen Corker offers an amendment making it unlawful for the Federal Government to reduce the principal of any mortgage or provide bailouts to reckless borrowers. :)
Sen Paul offers an amendment extending this law to cover all members of the executive branch.
Sen Wyden offers an amendment that extends the law to any "nonmilitary appointee of the President" and establishes an online database for publication of the data.
So far, no tax increases, turtle tunnels, or solar bicycles.
Is there a full list of these somewhere?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 03:36:24 PM
I don't care how "clean" they are. Why should a bill to do something as simple as stopping insider trading in Congress go in as a ten page bill and come out of the chamber in a bucking wheel barrow with 1000 amendments attached to it?
Because, you need plenty of dirt to burry a turd, and Senators have desks filled with turds!
Well, you can tell who is in the pocket of the banks.
The one thing I see possibly holding this bill up is one of the amendments made by Sen. Paul. Basically what it would do is: If a member of congress retires and becomes a lobbyist, he/she will forfeit all retirement and medical benefits afforded to congress.
I think this is a fantastic idea, but most of our current thieves are looking forward to a lucrative career in lobbying after congress. In fact many companies court congressmen for years by promising them a cushy salary if they come to work for them selling access after they lose an election or retire. While I'm fairly sure this will be cleansed from the bill before a final vote, it does make wonderful fodder.
Can't wait to hear the debate on the floor by the detractors of this amendment.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 01, 2012, 04:02:49 PM
The one thing I see possibly holding this bill up is one of the amendments made by Sen. Paul. Basically what it would do is: If a member of congress retires and becomes a lobbyist, he/she will forfeit all retirement and medical benefits afforded to congress.
Define "becomes a lobbyist". If I were a Congressperson with a personal interest in cancer research, say, would I be running afoul of the rules if I were to go lobby Congress for more cancer research funding completely on my own, would I be a lobbyist? What if some 501(c)(3) paid for my hotel room or airfare, but didn't pay me for the actual lobbying?
Quote from: nathanm on February 01, 2012, 04:07:39 PM
Define "becomes a lobbyist". If I were a Congressperson with a personal interest in cancer research, say, would I be running afoul of the rules if I were to go lobby Congress for more cancer research funding completely on my own, would I be a lobbyist? What if some 501(c)(3) paid for my hotel room or airfare, but didn't pay me for the actual lobbying?
I like Senator Paul's amendment as I find it repugnant for the public to fund full federal benefits for someone who goes on to be paid millions for their insider knowledge of Congress. However I wish he would simply introduce his own bill, then it can stand alone on it's merits and members of the Senate or the House can explain to their constituents why they didn't think it was a good idea to put measures in place which limit corruption.
Nathan, if a retired congressperson makes an appearance and goes door-to-door in the Senate or Congressional office buildings of their own accord for an issue they are passionate about and are not being paid to represent an issue, that's one thing. I think it would also need to be without any sort of travel or lodging compensation from a non-profit. 100% pro-bono, IMO.
Going to work on K Street is entirely another issue and that is what I think Senator Paul is trying to address with his amendment not someone engaging in the sort of lobbying you are talking about. Any one of us is perfectly capable of doing that sort of lobbying and there's no harm to it.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 01, 2012, 04:15:45 PM
Going to work on K Street is entirely another issue and that is what I think Senator Paul is trying to address with his amendment not someone engaging in the sort of lobbying you are talking about. Any one of us is perfectly capable of doing that sort of lobbying and there's no harm to it.
I agree that the revolving door into highly paid lobbyist positions is reprehensible
at best. That said, I think any law needs to be carefully crafted to avoid free speech concerns, and even then the SC will probably piss in our cheerios on it even if it does become law.
I'm not sure that former Congresspeople ought not be able to lobby on behalf of 501(c)(3)s (not c4s!), so long as any pay is reasonably small. (and it has to be, under the IRC).
Quote from: nathanm on February 01, 2012, 04:20:44 PM
I agree that the revolving door into highly paid lobbyist positions is reprehensible at best. That said, I think any law needs to be carefully crafted to avoid free speech concerns, and even then the SC will probably piss in our cheerios on it even if it does become law.
I'm not sure that former Congresspeople ought not be able to lobby on behalf of 501(c)(3)s (not c4s!), so long as any pay is reasonably small. (and it has to be, under the IRC).
I appreciate the way you are envisioning a way to limit and monitor it. I'm simply afraid that's a Pandora's Box, and is rife for all sorts of in-kind corruption or getting a paid "executive director" position.
I never thought PACs would evolve into powerful "Super PACs" which are buying all sorts of media on behalf of candidates and essentially by-passing campaign finance laws.
Quote from: nathanm on February 01, 2012, 03:39:36 PM
Well, you can tell who is in the pocket of the banks.
There was ever a question??
As with everything in the Senate, looks like Reid has found his silver bullet. Just as I anticipated, he will not stand for any limitation on earmarks.
He has started his pontification:
"I've done earmarks all my career, and I'm happy I've done earmarks all my career. They've helped my state, and they've helped different projects around the country," an unapologetic Reid told reporters after the Democrats' weekly caucus lunch. He called senators' right to direct spending to pet projects in their home states is a "constitutional duty."
"And I repeat, I will not stand by and be driven down this path ... that I think is taking away from what the Founding Fathers wanted, three separate but equal branches of government," he added. "I don't believe that the White House has the authority to tell me how I should spend money in Nevada."
Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) introduced the permanent earmark ban as an amendment to a popular insider trading bill, known as the STOCK Act, that's now being debated on the Senate floor.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72241.html#ixzz1lEigQrVO
So, get rid of the earmark ban, so that the short-order pile chefs can continue to rob the many to serve the few, and pass the damn bill.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 02, 2012, 08:56:22 AM
As with everything in the Senate, looks like Reid has found his silver bullet. Just as I anticipated, he will not stand for any limitation on earmarks.
He has started his pontification:
"I've done earmarks all my career, and I'm happy I've done earmarks all my career. They've helped my state, and they've helped different projects around the country," an unapologetic Reid told reporters after the Democrats' weekly caucus lunch. He called senators' right to direct spending to pet projects in their home states is a "constitutional duty."
"And I repeat, I will not stand by and be driven down this path ... that I think is taking away from what the Founding Fathers wanted, three separate but equal branches of government," he added. "I don't believe that the White House has the authority to tell me how I should spend money in Nevada."
Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) introduced the permanent earmark ban as an amendment to a popular insider trading bill, known as the STOCK Act, that's now being debated on the Senate floor.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72241.html#ixzz1lEigQrVO
So, get rid of the earmark ban, so that the short-order pile chefs can continue to rob the many to serve the few, and pass the damn bill.
Hmm...ok if one side does it, but how about the other?
Quote from: Hoss on February 02, 2012, 08:57:45 AM
Hmm...ok if one side does it, but how about the other?
Easy. You don't get any money if you are a Red state when Blue rules congress and opposite. It's a good reason to split the House and Senate ruling political party.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 02, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
Easy. You don't get any money if you are a Red state when Blue rules congress and opposite.
That's not how it actually works. If it did, the donor/donee state list would have more than minor movement after each election cycle.
They have rejected the Earmark ban. SHOCKER!
STOCK Act passes Senate by vote of 96-3
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72391.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72391.html)
Yess!!!!!!!
. . .and it looks like they cleaned it up quite a bit. Most of the amendments were withdrawn.
Now the president needs to sign that puppy!
Quote from: Gaspar on February 03, 2012, 11:20:52 AM
Yess!!!!!!!
. . .and it looks like they cleaned it up quite a bit. Most of the amendments were withdrawn.
Now the president needs to sign that puppy!
Can the family still take the information and trade? I didn't see anything about that.
Quote from: Townsend on February 03, 2012, 11:25:36 AM
Can the family still take the information and trade? I didn't see anything about that.
Yes that falls under the section covering UNDISCLOSED SELF-DEALING. Covers spouses, children, business partners, etc.
They made it rather broad. That should keep them on their toes.
On the surface it looks like they actually did something right. Good!
Now let's see how they screwed it up so it's worse than before...
Quote from: Townsend on February 03, 2012, 11:25:36 AM
Can the family still take the information and trade? I didn't see anything about that.
I am a little confused on this. If I provide source selection information to a member of congress, like I am required to, they are required to protect that privaleged information, i.e. not disclose it to anyone. I would also assume that they are supposed to keep information received from other governmental workings protected as well. And I hope that they scrutinize all members of the family on this because if I cannot benefit from this information, the snot nosed spoiled brat of a kid (or wife/business partner) should not be benefiting from it.
Eric Cantor under fire for STOCK Act tweaks
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72624.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72624.html)
QuoteHouse Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has released his version of a congressional insider-trading ban, and it strips a provision that would require so-called political intelligence consultants to disclose their activities, like lobbyists already do. It also scraps a proposal that empowers federal prosecutors going after corruption by public officials.
That's stoked backlash from Democrats and even some Republicans, who are furious at Cantor and are accusing the Virginia Republican of watering down the popular legislation that easily passed Senate last week.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) slammed the House for deleting his amendment targeting the political intelligence industry, which tracks action on Capitol Hill and then sells the information to investors. Instead, the House bill requires just a study of the industry's activities within 12 months.
"It's astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street's wishes by killing this provision," Grassley said in a statement. "If Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it."
Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon said the provision was deleted because it was "extremely broad" and added that the "unintended consequences on the provision could have affected the first amendment rights of everyone participating in local rotaries to national media conglomerates."
Democrats weren't comforted by that explanation.
"The thing we greatly feared has come upon us," Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Wednesday. "It has been weakened, totally, as far as I'm concerned."
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who co-authored with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) an amendment to crack down on public corruption using a number of measures, said he was "deeply disappointed" his provision had disappeared from the House bill. Leahy noted that a similar measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee in December.
"If we are serious about restoring faith in government and addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have witnessed in recent years in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress must act now to enact serious anti-corruption legislation," Leahy said in a statement. "The House Republicans' version of the STOCK Act misses that opportunity."
For Cantor's part, the House's No. 2 Republican has added provisions that he says strengthens the STOCK Act, which explicitly bars lawmakers and their aides from using nonpublic information gained through their jobs to profit themselves.
The new version of the House's STOCK Act ensures that the bill's insider-trading ban and its disclosure requirements apply to the executive branch, and it also bans lawmakers convicted of a crime from collecting pensions.
In a shot at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Republicans also added a so-called "Pelosi provision" that imposes stricter rules on public officials who participate in initial public offerings. The California Democrat was targeted in a "60 Minutes" probe that reported Pelosi and her husband participated in Visa's IPO while a bill governing credit-card legislation was pending before Congress.
Pelosi has denied any conflict of interest or special access related to the Visa IPO.
Slaughter was peeved at the "Pelosi Provision" when asked about it on Wednesday.
"I think the fact that they put this in was strictly to cause grief to [Pelosi]," Slaughter said, "and I resent it."
Cantor said in a statement late Tuesday that he consulted "dozens of members" as he reworked the bill. But neither Slaughter nor Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), the primary sponsors of the STOCK Act, worked with Cantor on the new bill, the Democrats said.
Despite the partisan bickering, the legislation is expected to pass when it comes up for a vote Thursday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72624.html#ixzz1lp5X9mQk
I love Politico.
Now that's funny. The provision was originally stripped from the senate bill by Harry Reid who requested a year-long GAO study to see if the provision would cause any long term problems. The provision was then re-introduced to the bill during the amendment process by at the opposition of the Democratic leadership.
Cantor's version calls for the same GAO study before adding that provision. The reason behind Reid and Cantor's caution is the interpretation of "analyst" and "intelligence" is so broad that it could produce regulations too cumbersome to enforce, and introduce the possibility of constitutional challenge. This could threaten the legislation.
"There are many concerns about the political intelligence provision from members on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, news organizations and community groups," Brad Dayspring, deputy chief of staff and communications director for the majority leader, said in an email.
"The unintended consequences on the provision could have affected the First Amendment rights of everyone participating in local rotaries to national media conglomerates. For example, members of the media who report on federal and congressional issues to a paid subscriber list might have to register as a political intelligence consultants for their reporting under the [Senate's] provision."
From the Right Wing http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/democrats-reluctantly-support-stock-act-scold-gop-for-weakening-bill/
So are you agreeing with their actions?
I'm glad you like Politico...
Quote from: Townsend on February 08, 2012, 03:08:08 PM
So are you agreeing with their actions?
I'm glad you like Politico...
I don't know. I think that there may be some wisdom in Reid and Cantor's position. We have certainly seen enough problems caused by legislation with loose language. I would hate to see this bill scrapped or sent back because it can't withstand constitutional analysis or challenge. Much like what happened in the Senate, I think we will see this re-introduced, hopefully with more precise vocabulary.
At this point, it seems that both parties are wrestling for control over bragging rights for this bill. We will have to watch this play out.
The "Pelosi Amendment":
QuoteHouse Republicans plan to include in their inside trading legislation a so-called "Pelosi provision" to strengthen rules that govern lawmakers' participation in initial public offerings.
The plan will be part of a package of amendments to the Stock Act expected to be released Tuesday evening. The Senate passed its own version of the ethics legislation last week.
The idea is a shot across the bow at Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The public uproar for Congress to tighten restrictions on lawmaker stock trading came after a CBS "60 Minutes" report, which said the wealthy Pelosi and her husband Paul participated in Visa's initial public offering while credit card regulation legislation was pending before Congress.
http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/02/07/republicans-poke-directly-at-pelosi-with-new-amendment-to-the-stock-act/
Much better explanation of this on CBS news this morning. It was hilarious to watch Pelosi stammer through why it was perfectly okay that her husband bought 5000 shares of the VISA IPO when she was SOTH and was shepherding credit card friendly legislation. She's a hoot!
Quote from: Gaspar on February 08, 2012, 03:17:33 PM
At this point, it seems that both parties are wrestling for control over bragging rights for this bill. We will have to watch this play out.
Ah yes, so each side can claim to be responsible to the people for once.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 08, 2012, 03:17:33 PM
At this point, it seems that both parties are wrestling for control over bragging rights for this bill. We will have to watch this play out.
Until it's shown to be unable to enforce anything due to changes in the bill I'd guess. "look at us. We're attempting."
The only person that stands to come out smelling like a rose on this bill will be the president. With all the jockeying for credit and blame, this congress has no redeemable qualities.
If I were the president, I would make my desire for quick passage of this bill even more prominent. It's a major campaign feather that could show some capacity for leadership. Time to shake that finger!
(http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/images/61667.jpg?1266832351)
Quote from: Gaspar on February 08, 2012, 03:55:23 PM
If I were the president, I would make my desire for quick passage of this bill even more prominent.
He already has pushed hard for it. May be why all the changes. To hold it up for as long as possible.
Well that, and they want to do as much insider trading as possible before they can't do it overtly.
It has now been 6 days since the STOCK act was overwhelmingly passed by the House by a vote of 417 to 2. On the 9th after the bill passed the house "as amended" it was sent to Senator Reid's desk to present to the President.
Still no action by the president. Understandable, I'm sure he wants to read the bill and have time to analyze it, I'm also sure/hopeful he is waiting for the right political opportunity to make an announcement that will be advantageous to his campaigning.
The media has all but stopped reporting on this bill, but I have and RSS set up to watch it.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll047.xml
Two weeks since it passed congress, it still sits on Reid's desk awaiting delivery to the president.
SOTU is long forgotten. The media has lost interest. The president has changed the subject.
It sits there with all of the other bills that the president would rather not address.
"Send me a Bill that bans insider trading by Congress I will sign it tomorrow."
Contact the president and request that he act on this bill immediately. I have done so, as have most of the members of my family.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments/old2
Mr. President
I request that you sign the STOCK Act, as you promised you would do in your state of the union address earlier this year. It has now been two weeks since the bill was overwhelmingly approved in both houses, and delivered to Senator Reid's desk for delivery to yours. Your signature on this bill represents an extremely popular act of bipartisan leadership that will no doubt benefit your 2012 bid to retain your position as our President.
While the act of signing this bill into law may only take a few seconds of your time, the result of this legislation will represent the most powerful action taken during your presidency against unethical behavior within both the legislative and executive branches of government. Your signature on the STOCK Act will be the a historical success attributed to your leadership and your time as the 44th president of The Untied States.
As many Americans turn their attentions toward economic issues and impending increases in the cost of living due to higher energy prices and a contracting labor force, your public action on this bill will help to reassure many that you intend to keep your word, and continue your tireless fight for an America that gives every citizen a the same advantage, without granting special consideration to a select few.
I humbly request that you sign this bill today so that it may become law immediately.
I thank you for your service and your sacrifice as President.
Respectfully,
Scott Gaspar
Quote from: Gaspar on February 23, 2012, 01:05:10 PM
Two weeks since it passed congress, it still sits on Reid's desk awaiting delivery to the president.
SOTU is long forgotten. The media has lost interest. The president has changed the subject.
It sits there with all of the other bills that the president would rather not address.
You've still got a bit. Not on Reid's desk yet.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/212107-sec-head-signs-off-on-stock-act (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/212107-sec-head-signs-off-on-stock-act)
QuoteBoth the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed versions of the STOCK Act earlier this month, and a conference committee likely will be established to rectify differences between the two.
Quote from: Townsend on February 23, 2012, 01:59:57 PM
You've still got a bit. Not on Reid's desk yet.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/212107-sec-head-signs-off-on-stock-act (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/212107-sec-head-signs-off-on-stock-act)
Are you saying Gas didn't research where the bill was yet? Say it isn't so!
Quote from: Hoss on February 23, 2012, 02:25:05 PM
Are you saying Gas didn't research where the bill was yet? Say it isn't so!
I imagine there was a Fox News opinion piece.
No, these are all things that can happen, and have happened in less than a day.
Next we will hear that the bill is being re-printed and bound, then gift-wrapped. Then it will go to the office of labeling and engraving so that the pens can be engraved with the name of the bill. . .
Quote from: Gaspar on February 23, 2012, 03:12:26 PM
No, these are all things that can happen, and have happened in less than a day.
Next we will hear that the bill is being re-printed and bound, then gift-wrapped. Then it will go to the office of labeling and engraving so that the pens can be engraved with the name of the bill. . .
Oooohhhhhhhhh, ok
I don't trust any of them either but I don't trust any of them equally.
The bill still sits awaiting signature. According to GovTrack, it has not moved since Feb, 9th.
Feb 9, 2012: Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
The CBO Reporting is complete, and the bill could be wrapped up and passed today.
Funny how we have to pass 2,000 page bills overnight without reading them, but simple useful bi-partisan legislation is allowed to rot.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/6/stock-act-remains-stalled-in-senate-a-month-after-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/6/stock-act-remains-stalled-in-senate-a-month-after-/)
QuoteHe said he is struggling to gather enough support for a conference committee to hash out differences with the House bill after Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, stripped out provisions expanding the definition of who qualifies as a lobbyist and granting new tools to prosecute criminal conduct by public officials.
So one side is saying "It's sitting on his desk" and the other side is saying "they stripped it of any meaning and we're waiting to meet with them to fix it".
I have a feeling it won't mean a thing when it's passed.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/214531-slaughter-worries-as-stock-act-loses-steam (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/214531-slaughter-worries-as-stock-act-loses-steam)
Slaughter worries as STOCK Act loses steam
QuoteRep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) is worried that her legislation curbing insider trading may be losing steam and that a weaker version of the bill could become law.
The original backer of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act wrote to House and Senate leaders Tuesday, begging them to establish a conference committee where backers of provisions trimmed from the existing bill have a "fair chance" to protect them.
Slaughter's plea came amidst reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was mulling just taking up the House version of the bill. She said there was "growing concern" among backers of the bill that legislation had screeched to a halt, and that it is a "foregone conclusion" that the weaker House version of the bill would move forward.
"I urge you in the strongest possible terms to convene a conference committee and look forward to working with you to pass the STOCK Act into law," she wrote.
Following reports suggesting members of Congress were using private information obtained in their work to personally profit, both chambers were eager to pass the STOCK Act in a bid to clear their names with the American people. President Obama joined the push in his State of the Union address, calling on Congress to send him the bill. Both chambers did pass the measure overwhelmingly, but differed on two key provisions, which were stripped out of the Senate-passed measure by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).
One provision would require so-called "political intelligence" firms that seek out private congressional information to sell to financial traders to register in a similar way to lobbyists, while another would have made it easier for prosecutors to pursue public corruption. Slaughter in particular has loudly called for the return of the political intelligence provision, which Cantor had criticized as having overbroad language.
Since the House passed the measure at the beginning of February, the bill has not moved an inch. Slaughter and other backers of the original measure, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have called for a conference committee to be established, but there has been no action on that front. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has also backed a conference committee, as he proposed the Senate amendment including the political intelligence provision originally. Reid voted against it.
Good news!
The STOCK ACT was placed squarely on President Obama's desk, right between the Post-It notes and Farside calendar on Thursday afternoon.
I expect a quick signature and press conference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/politics/insider-trading-ban-for-lawmakers-clears-congress.html
While everyone was distracted, the STOCK act was quietly gutted by the white house.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/stock-act-gets-gutted-why-care-173159298.html
Shhhhhhh.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 29, 2013, 11:07:24 AM
While everyone was distracted, the STOCK act was quietly gutted by the white house.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/stock-act-gets-gutted-why-care-173159298.html
Shhhhhhh.
You mean the bill the House and Senate both passed before he could sign it....
You didn't really think that would stand anyway, did you??
I wonder how Inhofe voted on that? I'm betting he voted for it.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 29, 2013, 05:46:39 PM
You mean the bill the House and Senate both passed before he could sign it....
You didn't really think that would stand anyway, did you??
I wonder how Inhofe voted on that? I'm betting he voted for it.
I don't think you understand what happened. The STOCK act was passed by the house and the senate and put on the president's desk over a year ago! It was a good bill. It sat there for OVER A YEAR with no consideration by the president. The only good bill to come out of this administration, the STOCK act had overwhelming public support and would end much of the privilege at the root of government corruption.
Then a couple of weeks ago Senate Bill 716 was introduced by Harry Ried, passed by unanimous consent in both houses, and quickly signed by the president on a day when the media was pre-occupied with other things. It neutered the STOCK act. In over a year, the president couldn't find a pen to sign the STOCK act, yet in under 3 days, durring a terrorist attack, he found time to sign the bill that killed it. OUTSTANDING!
WE ARE CHUMPS
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2013, 08:25:50 AM
I don't think you understand what happened. The STOCK act was passed by the house and the senate and put on the president's desk over a year ago! It was a good bill. It sat there for OVER A YEAR with no consideration by the president. T
You need to check your facts, a bill can't stay unsigned by the president for a year, or even two weeks. He has ten days:
Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution:
Quote
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.
Quote from: swake on April 30, 2013, 08:41:47 AM
You need to check your facts, a bill can't stay unsigned by the president for a year, or even two weeks. He has ten days:
Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution:
Cautious semantics. Reid never sent it to the president's desk. Even though the president knew of its passing and his pending signature. Sure he could have requested it, but the limbo of Harry Reid's chambers offered a good hiding place. The STOCK act was a good bill, but those corrupted by their corporate overlords never intended to allow it to go any further. It's passage in the House and Senate was a PR stunt. It's destruction was perfectly timed. What a bunch of Sh!tbags!
Perhaps there should be a bill introduced stating that when both houses of congress pass legislation it must be sent to the president's desk within 10 days?
(http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/harry-reid-evil-mongers.jpg)
Remember the face of corruption. When you are frustrated because government works against you instead of for you, remember this face.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2013, 08:58:11 AM
Cautious semantics. Reid never sent it to the president's desk. Even though the president knew of its passing and his pending signature. Sure he could have requested it, but the limbo of Harry Reid's chambers offered a good hiding place. The STOCK act was a good bill, but those corrupted by their corporate overlords never intended to allow it to go any further. It's passage in the House and Senate was a PR stunt. It's destruction was perfectly timed. What a bunch of Sh!tbags!
Perhaps there should be a bill introduced stating that when both houses of congress pass legislation it must be sent to the president's desk within 10 days?
(http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/harry-reid-evil-mongers.jpg)
Remember the face of corruption. When you are frustrated because government works against you instead of for you, remember this face.
Make up your mind. First it was the presidents fault (by default), then it was the presidents fault because he didn't request it from a separate powerful segment of government (legislative branch), then it was both houses who deceptively passed it as a PR stunt, then finally you rest it all on the face of Harry Reid.
The elephant is in the front room. Our government is owned by business interests who are the real deal makers and thus has it always been so.
Quote from: AquaMan on April 30, 2013, 09:35:06 AM
Make up your mind. First it was the presidents fault (by default), then it was the presidents fault because he didn't request it from a separate powerful segment of government (legislative branch), then it was both houses who deceptively passed it as a PR stunt, then finally you rest it all on the face of Harry Reid.
The elephant is in the front room. Our government is owned by business interests who are the real deal makers and thus has it always been so.
They are all big balls of crap, with the bigger turds at the top.
Washington seems to be selectively enforcing their obligations to the electorate, Swake. Something about budgets comes to mind, in particular.
I looked it up. The STOCK act was passed on April 4th, 2012.
It didn't sit on anyone's desk, it was passed over a year ago and then amended this month. Gasp is again misinformed. I wonder how that keeps happening.
Anyway, the changes got through congress by consent, so there's no laying blame for this crap ball on one side or the other, everybody agreed. Everybody.
I think we need more understanding about why the whole Congress and the White House felt that the changes were needed. On the surface it seems bad, really bad.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2013, 08:25:50 AM
I don't think you understand what happened. The STOCK act was passed by the house and the senate and put on the president's desk over a year ago! It was a good bill. It sat there for OVER A YEAR with no consideration by the president. The only good bill to come out of this administration, the STOCK act had overwhelming public support and would end much of the privilege at the root of government corruption.
Then a couple of weeks ago Senate Bill 716 was introduced by Harry Ried, passed by unanimous consent in both houses, and quickly signed by the president on a day when the media was pre-occupied with other things. It neutered the STOCK act. In over a year, the president couldn't find a pen to sign the STOCK act, yet in under 3 days, durring a terrorist attack, he found time to sign the bill that killed it. OUTSTANDING!
Come ONNNNN.....!!!! You know how to use Google!! So, USE it!! He signed the original law on 4 Apr 2012. (Final passage of reconciled bill by Senate on 22 Mar, 2012.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 30, 2013, 12:16:45 PM
Come ONNNNN.....!!!! You know how to use Google!! So, USE it!! He signed the original law on 4 Apr 2012. (Final passage of reconciled bill by Senate on 22 Mar, 2012.)
You're right. . .but. . .there was not Rose Garden ceremony. I would have never known about it. Looks like only Huffpoo reported on it. He even called it "embodiment of the fundamental American value of fair play to ensure everyone plays by the same rules."
So, why the reversal?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 30, 2013, 12:25:47 PM
You're right. . .but. . .there was not Rose Garden ceremony. I would have never known about it. Looks like only Huffpoo reported on it. He even called it "embodiment of the fundamental American value of fair play to ensure everyone plays by the same rules."
So, why the reversal?
Because they are all d-bags.... and should ALL be voted against at every opportunity!!
And because they have the power! They have been bought and paid for by Capitalist Monopolism structure in this country! And will ALWAYS vote against YOUR best interest, no matter what if it doesn't coincide with their owner's best interest! Simple.
The bad news is everyone is right... Congress is bought and paid for and it is certainly getting worse, not better. Since corporations are people and corporations have much more funds available to contribute to politicians, ads, and the like - you pander to the Corporate interests and not the people. That isn't hard to figure out. You can either fight for one $100,000 donation from super-mega company or fight for 1000 donations of $100 from individuals (who all wants something different). Add to that the fact that most corporations have a narrow range of interests that are congruent - they can focus their efforts on a particular item or a select group. In addition to buying influence overtly, they can afford to "education" politicians with lobbyists, seminars, and outside ad campaigns.
The politician with the most money usually wins. The best way to get money is to pander to large organizations with lots of money. Therefore, most winning politicians are the ones who pander.
Finally, they have the potential of future employment or "consultant" gigs for politicians in the future.
All as a "business expense."
Now, as a response, it will be said that the people own the corporations. But those that own a large enough stake in the corporation to have influence have their interest aligned with the corporations. And those are the people who probably have the funds to additionally aid campaigns. Joe Main Street with a 401K doesn't really have a voice either personally or through his investments.
/not a conspiracy, just reality.
Now the good news is, looking back it has been this way for a very long time and the pendulum does tend to swing back and the Country does seem to just keep moving forward in spite of it.
/down with political parties
//cap political expenditures on a per capita basis ($10 per perspective vote... or whatever)
///regulate third party groups
/// require clear disclosures of backers