Congress Passes Law Allowing Itself Insider Trading

Darth Cheney wrote:It's "for the children":

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-13/congress-exempts-most-federal-workers-key-insider-trading-reporting-requirement

Darth Cheney wrote:It's "for the children":

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-13/congress-exempts-most-federal-workers-key-insider-trading-reporting-requirement

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:It's "for the children":

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-13/congress-exempts-most-federal-workers-key-insider-trading-reporting-requirement

Hey Darth, what are you trying to say here? Do you support or oppose the original Bill or the recent changes? I don't see how either has anything to do with any children. If you opened this thread for discussion, you'll have to give your opinion on it.

"With this change those federal workers would still have to report any securities trades over the law's $1,000 threshold within 45 days. While these reports would be publicly available, they would no longer be posted online in a format that anyone can search or download."

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Looks like Darth has lost it completely. That Rand Paul clip was nothing about this Bill.
Hey Darth, you started an interesting topic here. When they passed that Bill a year ago, it was finally a good move by congress. Then they stalled. Now they are messing with it.
Why did you bother to start the thread if you've got nothing to say or discuss on it? Don't you know anything about it? Jeezz man, just read your own link to find out something about it.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Looks like Darth has lost it completely. That Rand Paul clip was nothing about this Bill.
Hey Darth, you started an interesting topic here. When they passed that Bill a year ago, it was finally a good move by congress. Then they stalled. Now they are messing with it.
Why did you bother to start the thread if you've got nothing to say or discuss on it? Don't you know anything about it? Jeezz man, just read your own link to find out something about it.

Surely this explains why the bill was rushed and voted in the matter of hours: one can't have a debate over matters of "national security" especially if the financial well-being of Congress is at risk. As Washington Times recaps, "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, introduced the bill on Thursday and had the chamber vote on it late that evening. The House took the bill up on Friday afternoon and passed it by unanimous consent, with no members objecting. Republican leaders did not give lawmakers the traditional three days to read the bill before holding a vote. One GOP aide told The Washington Times the three-day rule did not apply to Friday’s action because the bill came from the Senate, while another said the House moved quickly because of a Monday deadline for the new disclosure mandates to take effect."

In other words, while the STOCK Act passed nearly unanimously in 2012 just to show how "honest" congress is, the follow up legislation that effectively undoes the key reporting requirement of said anti-inside trading law passed just as unanimously, allowing congress to have its shady dealings cake, and eat its non-inside trading reputation too.

That both democrats and republicans rushed to pass this provision shows just how truly engrained the unwillingness for true transparency in Congress is.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Jeeezz people. It's less than 2 pages long. After a little research online, I learned that it doesn't even affect the Pres., VP, or Congress members or even the candidates for congress. They still have to comply. The rush was because of the Monday start date. Security could have been a factor. Did any of you really think that this shouldn't have been done? The writer of that first story in the link, really jumped the gun on this, and missed the important info on it. He shouldn't have listened to the GOP aide, and the transparency of congress wasn't even affected. That blogger really didn't do his homework on the topic at all.

Read it online. It takes about 2 minutes.
S.716 -- To modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms. (Considered and Passed Senate - CPS)
I thought most of you guys here were conservatives. Good grief.

The bill enacted last year would require already public financial disclosures of senior congressional and executive branch officials to be put online in order to prevent or root out insider trading. There were concerns that some provisions of the bill were overbroad and would put some government employees at risk. Rather than craft narrow exemptions, or even delay implementation until proper protections could be created, the Senate decided instead to exclude legislative and executive staffers from the online disclosure requirements.

The sweeping exemption goes even farther than critics of the disclosure requirements requested. For those to whom online disclosure would still apply (the president, vice president, members of Congress, congressional candidates and individuals subject to Senate confirmation) the Senate bill made electronic filing of the information optional and struck the requirement that online information be searchable, sortable and downloadable, making even the disclosures that remain in the bill tepid and relatively unusable.

Not only does the change undermine the intent of the original bill to ensure government insiders are not profiting from non-public information (if anyone thinks high level congressional staffers don’t have as much or more insider information than their bosses, they should spend some time on Capitol Hill) but it sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent suggesting that any risks stem not from information being public but from public information being online.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Jeeezz people. It's less than 2 pages long. After a little research online, I learned that it doesn't even affect the Pres., VP, or Congress members or even the candidates for congress. They still have to comply. The rush was because of the Monday start date. Security could have been a factor. Did any of you really think that this shouldn't have been done? The writer of that first story in the link, really jumped the gun on this, and missed the important info on it. He shouldn't have listened to the GOP aide, and the transparency of congress wasn't even affected. That blogger really didn't do his homework on the topic at all.

Read it online. It takes about 2 minutes.
S.716 -- To modify the requirements under the STOCK Act regarding online access to certain financial disclosure statements and related forms. (Considered and Passed Senate - CPS)
I thought most of you guys here were conservatives. Good grief.

Lisa Rosenberg at the Sunlight Foundation says otherwise.

The bill enacted last year would require already public financial disclosures of senior congressional and executive branch officials to be put online in order to prevent or root out insider trading. There were concerns that some provisions of the bill were overbroad and would put some government employees at risk. Rather than craft narrow exemptions, or even delay implementation until proper protections could be created, the Senate decided instead to exclude legislative and executive staffers from the online disclosure requirements.

The sweeping exemption goes even farther than critics of the disclosure requirements requested. For those to whom online disclosure would still apply (the president, vice president, members of Congress, congressional candidates and individuals subject to Senate confirmation) the Senate bill made electronic filing of the information optional and struck the requirement that online information be searchable, sortable and downloadable, making even the disclosures that remain in the bill tepid and relatively unusable.

Not only does the change undermine the intent of the original bill to ensure government insiders are not profiting from non-public information (if anyone thinks high level congressional staffers don’t have as much or more insider information than their bosses, they should spend some time on Capitol Hill) but it sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent suggesting that any risks stem not from information being public but from public information being online.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/04/12/epic-failure-by-the-senate-on-transparency-provisions-in-stock-act/