Congressional lawmakers 47% pts better at picking stocks

Re:Congressional lawmakers 47% pts better at picking stocks by trimethylpurine on Wednesday December 03, 2025 @10:17AM (#46135456)

It's authored by a Republican congressman, and is a bipartisan flop, with only 100 total reps sponsoring. It's true that of those few who are sponsoring there are more Democrats, but overall most Democrats oppose which is also enough to block the bill, same as Republicans.

Source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5106

It also blocks stock trading entirely for congressmen, which is dramatically different from what gp was suggesting.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Congressional lawmakers 47% pts better at picking stocks by giancarlostoro on Wednesday December 03, 2025 @10:54AM (#46135936)

Blocking it outright is probably more than what I want. I think if they can only invest in things like S&P500 funds that would suffice for me. Force them to invest more broadly in a way that it cannot interfere with the market.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Congressional lawmakers 47% pts better at picking stocks by dangus on Wednesday December 03, 2025 @10:53AM (#46135924)

80 Democratic cosponsors out of 213 Democratic representatives.

The bill is sponsored by 37% of Democrats

22 Republican cosponsors out of 219 Republican representativs.

The bill is sponsored by 10% of Republicans.

I think you might be jumping to conclusions by calling it a bipartisan flop. Co-sponsorship is not the same as a vote, there may be people not on the sponsorship list who would vote for the bill.

The bill was introduced 3 months ago (43 days these last three months was a government shutdown) and not enough time has passed to determine whether the bill will be a "flop" or not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Congressional lawmakers 47% pts better at picking stocks by trimethylpurine on Saturday December 06, 2025 @03:49PM (#46176486)

It's not a flop without a vote. I can agree with that definition. It's then not a "blocked" bill without a vote either. Right?

I'm certainly not trying to seem like I'm jumping to any conclusions. But we should like to keep our definitions uniform throughout a given paragraph. Well, at least if we aspire to call ourselves rational.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Congressional lawmakers 47% pts better at picking stocks by burkaman on Wednesday December 03, 2025 @12:49PM (#46137576)

102 cosponsors is a lot, most bills have far fewer than that. Look through recent bills that have passed the House, you won't find any with that many cosponsors. This is true of both bipartisan unanimous bills (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr4423, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5348) and partisan controversial ones (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5107, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr1949).

[ Parent | on HN ]