The STOCK Act is supposed to prevent this. But the same politicians who passed the law and had the media cover it as much as possible, then later quietly passed another that the law would not be enforced.

Do you have a reference to the specific legal code which includes the amendment?

Thanks for coming through on this ask. I'm having a hard time finding it, and it's a point of contention I plan on raising with Virginia legislators if any of them voted in favor.

Here you go. Happened in 2013 under Obama:

But on Monday, when the president signed a bill reversing big pieces of the law, the emailed announcement was one sentence long. There was no fanfare last week either, when the Senate and then the House passed the bill in largely empty chambers using a fast-track procedure known as unanimous consent.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749...

Thanks, this is helpful.

It's exceptionally unlikely that I'll be able to spur meaningful change, but I'll try to have an update in December. (Posting for accountability)

why make it partisan by mentioning obama like he had anything to do with it as this was passed unanimously by both the senate and the house.

just like when someone says "bill clinton repealed glass stegal" no he signed it when it was passed through by veto proof margins with only 2 people dissenting in the senate... he just happened to be the president at the time.

Because he could veto it.

you understand vetos are something congress can override right?

Vetoing the bill would have at least made the passage more notable, and likely required there to have been more than thirty seconds of debate on the topic. Making them override a veto has some value.

again it's not a partisan issue... literally both parties are passing these bills almost unanimously. it's a class issue i'll give you but not a partisan one.

Vetoing sends a message and as others have said would at least force the media to talk about it.

Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment

I've often wondered about this. It's mind boggling that this is allowed. A congressman can short oil stocks and the very next day propose a large tax on oil producers then promptly cash out, and be completely within the bounds of the law.

I don't think it's mindboggling at all. It makes perfect sense that lawmakers would not make laws that negatively affect lawmakers.

I also think that the amount of nonpublic information that congresscritters have access to is substantially overblown. The fact that they can pass laws affecting the industries is a bigger lever, in my view.

I guess what surprises me is how nakedly unethical it is. I'm not shocked that people in positions of significant power would use that power to enrich themselves unfairly. I am shocked at how little effort they make to hide it.

Because we’ve seen so many times that there are no consequences for this. Some people might get a bit mad, but it’s not like there are huge protests demanding change or cohorts voting out politicians who partake. If all politicians across the political spectrum also support it, what choice do people have at the polls?

Isn't "inside knowledge of upcoming new laws" a kind of non public information?

... but it's a pretty big lever. And they don't even have to pass the laws; a person in position of authority can shock a market with a credible threat to take an action.

Such a tool was actually used to disrupt a rice panic once. Without releasing any surplus, an announced joint intent to release surplus drove speculators out of the market. https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/11/04/142016962/the-...

I remember Hillary Clinton doing that in 2016 with a single sabre-rattling tweet about the pharma industry.

Obama made some suggestions about normalizing relations with Iran and all the defense stocks went crazy though nothing ever came of it

Politicians suggesting things impacts the market all the time.

One feeds the other. Their position of power is the reason people tell them so much. Given their returns, either members of The Congress are more brilliant than any Wall Street fund manager, or they're cheating.

Because they are also the person that would write the rule that they aren't allowed to trade.

That's obviously the point of pointing out how "lucky" her investments are.

Because when they pass laws prohibiting certain types of activities, they almost always exclude themselves.

Anyone with enough power and influence can impact stock options, and everyone has some information not available to the public. For example, Kanye West could buy calls on Uggs, then go out to lunch wearing some Uggs, then sell the calls after it hits the tabloids. Laws applying only to politicians would not stop anyone else from influencing stocks, and would only restrict the types of people choosing to become politicians, reducing the quality of politicians by causing people with better options not to bother.

My sense is that this is one of those feel-good things, like setting politician salaries to a low level, which doesn't actually do anything to improve the quality of government.

A single celebrity attempting to manipulate the stocks they own via public perception is a fundamentally different thing than a bunch of politicians using their legal power to manipulate the stocks they own for their own personal gain.

I guess this can sort of flow two ways, though. A politician might know a law is coming up, and so buy a stock that is going to benefit from it: your argument is convincing there. But they might also hold a stock, and because of that they might feel more strongly one way or the other about a particular law: that feels like a problem to me.

Unfortunately there is bleed through between these, and no good way to distinguish the two except ok a case by case basis, which seems to me like a credible argument for forbidding all trading.

She's the Speaker of the House. The House that passes legislation that allows to do it. You have to start somewhere.

No idea why you're getting downvoted when this is literally what they did. They had laws and then quickly bypassed it.

Bias

I think that is what they are implying with this information.

Because these people are corrupt and want to make money. Its basically as simple as that.

Both questions are valid.

Not all representatives enrich themselves like this.

Because her husband makes the trades lol.

Pretty much none of the political/self-dealing/disqualified person financial laws apply to spouses. (This is distinct from private sector insider trading laws)

It's super easy, barely an inconvenience!