So it's kind of on the honour system - your broker probably won't ask you for payslips proving you don't work in the industry - but a lot of people are incentivized not to let it happen.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/insider-transactions/
When the public was angry, Congress passed the STOCK act. After the news cycle was over, they repealed disclosure unanimously.
Also, it's mandated 45 days after trades - not in advance as many here are calling for.
"The amendment also eliminated the requirement for the creation of searchable, sortable database of information in reports, and the requirement that reports be done in electronic format, rather than on paper."
Obviously there would be complications, but are you advocating society shouldn't strive to clearly separate governance of the public from private, conflicting pecuniary interests? I can't tell if you're dismissing the problem or saying there's a better solution ...
Eradicating politicians doing insider trading is a much longer slog that we are mostly just hoping "those with the power" will enact against their own self interests.
Anyway, that obviously isn’t legal advice. And I agree that people should expect legislators to act with high integrity, but that’s not really how they vote.
That more analogous to the politician trading. They do have inside information, but it's not from inside the company they're trading.
I agree in principle, but a lot of these people literally serve until they drop dead, which is a different problem with congress. Might be a bit much to tell someone not to invest for 40+ years.
It is why I like the fact that they just have to announce their stock trades ahead of time, it still allows them autonomy, but also there is no sense in front running them if they are not trading on insider knowledge. Their performance should essentially be in line with the market, not like Mr. Gottheimer that seems to have tripled his net worth in FY2020.
Of course, if they held widely diversified Index funds there would be fewer conflicts - but not zero as evidenced by legislators trading around COVID briefings.
Politicians already long on certain stocks can also profit from legislation that they are passing. Being privy to insider info which leads to continuing to stay long a stock is an advantage that wouldn't be detected by just sharing recent trades.
In addition to trying to eradicate insider trading - just shedding light on existing holdings by US office holders will have a huge cleansing effect that will go a long way to showing potential biases/conflicts of interest.
In any case, the Trump movement's whole response to this kind of thing was a combination of denial and "lol everyone does it", and it seems like that was enough for many in that camp.
>> For sure there are many factors that influence someone's vote. I think you're right - its more likely to cause leadership rotation within the parties where the rest of the factors are more similar (i.e. stance on gun rights, etc.). The challenge today is that incumbent politicians within their own party tend to have great name recognition among voters - but are more likely to be in the pockets of corporations. This would enable challengers within the party to potentially have an issue they can highlight.
"lol everyone does it"
>> And perhaps articles prove in a data science-y way that perhaps this is true - many politicians are doing it.
The only practical solution is having less centralisation of power, so no-one can easily manipulate the market.
It's not just Nancy Pelosi, most people in her position would do that. The position of power corrupts people.
Trades could be scrutinized for insider trading by both the SEC and independent traders/firms, just as there are independent services scrutinizing the crypto blockchains.
Insider trading could then even plausibly be legalized by eliminating the advantage of insider trading (it'd have to be based on a lot of study of the data). If we (or other funds) can setup triggers to act on the trades of insiders as soon as they hit the wire, the market will move against them, and we can also share arguably the same advantage by doing so.
No need for foreign government -- the whole world can do it.
People should not be able to make bets on matters over which they secretly control the outcome.
That means any federal official should have their investments behind a blind trust of some sort, no exceptions.
Are federal representatives immune?
I think people should give up all of their right to privacy (when it comes to business, finances, travel, and even conversations) when they acquire a large amount of power. In my head, a US senator would have that much power and that little privacy, whereas a US representative in the House would not.
Maybe we should use sortition then instead of elections? What could be more democratic than random average people (meeting some criteria) taking a turn at the wheel?
Granted, neither do a significant percentage of the currently serving congress if current policy is anything to go by.
I think they understand just fine, most of the time, but are more interested in enriching themselves and their cronies than looking out for their constituents or the health of the system as a whole.
unfortunately, this is also true of our elected officials
Take the existing system and have the house and Senate argue every official act to the sortition for a vote. How would this be worse than the current crony capitalism we suffer under?
I realize that just saying that may cause some consternation among some, but it is objectively the best selection system one could possibly devise, for any people anywhere, regardless of whether people like it or not.
It's not even a selection system that is not used all over the place from choices within your family where there are certain prerequisites like being an adult or a parent or having to be a member of the union in order to vote on union matters, or having achieved certain certifications and qualifications before you can make decisions about building a highway bridge.
It is and has not been a net benefit to any of us that "democracy" was first imposed and then expanded when the founders of the USA were very explicit about the fact that democracy was a recipe for disaster and would invariably cause destruction … as it has. Personally, I would very much have been ok with benefitting from properly qualified people making decision for me that I have no competent capacity to make for myself, rather than having lived in a society where everyone thinks they are equally smart and competent and my vote counts the same as some fool who does not know that a week is seven days (something I heard someone in her early 20s say yesterday. She thought the week excludes the weekend)
Your determination of objectivity seems a little... subjective.
Maybe this was objectively best at the time but at minimum the race part seems to no longer be true.
> I realize that just saying that may cause some consternation among some, but it is objectively the best selection system one could possibly devise
Combining these two statements suggests that you would advocate for white supremacy. Is that a correct deduction of mine? I would rather ask than just jump to conclusions.
The career politicians, intelligencia, and c-suite technocrats have been running shit for the past half century or more - you see where it's gotten us, to the ruin you describe.
It's kind of the same reasoning I use for extending the vote to children. In a country of 330 million, each individual vote is nearly meaningless on it's own so I figure the risk is much lower than the benefit of getting people involved at a younger age in a future that they should care deeply about. HN did not collectively appreciate this suggestion when I made it, however :).
Some people actually care.
I don't like this corruption, but there are many worse things our rulers could do.
This article isn't even about self-serving decisions that may benefit politicians down the road...it's about politicians who are actively using politician-privy inside information for short term profit at the expense of their constituents. But hey let's keep crying about orange man bad!
This is getting tired. If you are interested in his cronies’ self dealings just look it up. They did all of these things and more but also did them more explicitly. Which is a bit more honest in a way I guess?
But the worst part about 2017-2020 was the way he cozied up to enemies of democracy, undermined democracy himself and made a point of sowing and igniting division.
Back to the article, this behaviour is despicable and should be punished for everyone, D or R.
Can you provide a single example with a source that proves this? And please provide an example of how he "undermined democracy". Sounds like you watch a lot of CNN.
I agree it should be punished equally not depending on D or R.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/10/us/trump-prop...
This is a closed system, and most are not allowed anywhere near the control room.
It, including these trades, is working as intended.
You can view the US in a lot of cynical ways but it was not created as a vehicle to allow the wealthy to continue to gain wealth at the expense of the poor. Insider trading between congressmen using their posts to fleece the public was never an intent of the government.
"...our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered"
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-004...
I mean the American revolution was spearheaded by wealthy land and slave owners who were tired of taxes.
That would surely be a problem for some individuals. But I don't think it's a systemic problem. We only need to find 0.00013% of the US population to fill the Senate and House together; surely there are that many people who are both competent and willing to put the public interest ahead of their own.