Congress Declares Itself Immune to Illegal Insider Trading

[MachineGhost]

  Send a message to these scum buckets.

[quote=https://represent.us/action/insider-trading-list/]In 2011, a CBS investigation blew the lid off of one of Washington’s most poorly-kept secrets: members of Congress were routinely exploiting legal loopholes to engage in insider trading and line their own pockets — a criminal offense for regular citizens. In the ensuing public outrage, Congress passed a law called the STOCK Act, and took a loud victory lap for supposedly putting an end to their own unscrupulous behavior.

Now that they think nobody’s watching, Congress has gutted a key disclosure provision of the STOCK Act. Worse still, the House Counsel’s Office, led by Speaker John Boehner’s handpicked lawyer, is actively stonewalling the first ever investigation into Congressional insider trading by claiming “immunity” from the very law they bragged about passing just a few years earlier.

The only reason the STOCK Act passed in the first place was due to a massive public outcry. Unless there’s another wave of public outrage, Congress will continue to flout the rules and make it near-impossible to enforce the laws that are already in place.[/quote]

[clacy]

This has been a hot button issue for me for years now.  They need to pass a bill that limits Congress to index fund investing only, IMO.  That includes opting out of all the shady business deals they are involved in. 

I suppose it would be difficult to impose that on their family members who seem to profit grossly from their insider knowledge and power, but ALL immediate family members business dealings should be disclosed for the public.

[dualstow]

This has been a hot button issue for me for years now.  They need to pass a bill that limits Congress to index fund investing only, IMO.

+1

[Libertarian666]

One of the many problems with the notion of government is how to hold them to their own supposed rules.

By definition, there is no way to do this, because any entity that could do that would in fact be a more powerful government.

Thus my skepticism of government.

[MachineGhost]

One of the many problems with the notion of government is how to hold them to their own supposed rules.

By definition, there is no way to do this, because any entity that could do that would in fact be a more powerful government.

Thus my skepticism of government.

You need direct democracy instead of career politicians.  We need to do away with the latter.  The trick then becomes how do you prevent the direct democracy from becoming tyrannical?  But I think that is a lesser evil.

[Libertarian666]

One of the many problems with the notion of government is how to hold them to their own supposed rules.

By definition, there is no way to do this, because any entity that could do that would in fact be a more powerful government.

Thus my skepticism of government.

You need direct democracy instead of career politicians.  We need to do away with the latter.  The trick then becomes how do you prevent the direct democracy from becoming tyrannical?  But I think that is a lesser evil.

The most direct democracy is called "the market". Each person gets what he "votes" for with his money.

That's the plan I support.