Pelosi rejects stock-trading ban for members of Congress

[WarGamer]

https://www.businessinsider.com/we-are-free-market-economy-pelosi-rejects-stock-ban-congress-2021-12

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday rejected the idea of banning members of Congress and their spouses from holding and trading individual stocks while in office.

"This is a free market, and people — we are a free market economy. They should be able to participate in that," Pelosi said when asked by Insider at her weekly press conference.

Insider also asked Pelosi about "Conflicted Congress," a 5-month-long investigation by Insider that found 49 members of Congress and 182 senior congressional staffers have violated the STOCK Act, a law to prevent Insider trading.






Wow.

Discuss?

Related story:

https://www.npr.org/2021/09/21/1039313011/tiktokers-are-trading-stocks-by-watching-what-members-of-congress-do

Among a certain community of individual investors on TikTok, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's stock trading disclosures are a treasure trove. "Shouts out to Nancy Pelosi, the stock market's biggest whale," said user 'ceowatchlist.' Another said, "I've come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi is a psychic," while adding that she is the "queen of investing."

"She knew," declared Chris Josephs, analyzing a particular trade in Pelosi's financial disclosures. "And you would have known if you had followed her portfolio."

Last year, Josephs noticed that the trades, actually made by Pelosi's investor husband and merely disclosed by the speaker, were performing well.

Josephs is the co-founder of a company called Iris, which shows other people's stock trades. In the past year and a half, he has been taking advantage of a law called the Stock Act, which requires lawmakers to disclose stock trades and those of their spouses within 45 days.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. Lol.

[Autumn]

4. "This is a free market and a free market economy". Right... and it's rigged for politicians

But not for the lower classes amirite?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. It's a club, and we're not in it.

[Autumn]

6. That's become loud and clear.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

10. Always has been.

[HAB911]

8. This

[BlackSkimmer]

28. This. This right here. nt

[BComplex]

2. Well THAT sucks!

[Wounded Bear]

3. Disappointing...nt

[BlueIdaho]

7. Not a good look for Democrats.

It goes along with the seeming ease of ignoring the filibuster when it’s suits all our politicians. I know there is no filibuster in the House, but Senators have the same sort of flexible morals when it comes to legislation in their body. Pay the bills? Fine and dandy - ignore the filibuster. Protect the votings rights of all Americans - suddenly the filibuster is sacred.

This shit makes Democrats look like hypocrites.

[WarGamer]

12. Read yesterday...

Some Members who sit on the Defense Committees hold stock in Defense contractors...

[BlueIdaho]

36. Man...

I know this kind of corruption shouldn’t surprise me but - I’m really disappointed in our elected officials.

[demmiblue]

9. I disagree with her on this. Ridiculous. n/t

[jimfields33]

16. It doesn't surprise me at all

She’s heavily invested in stocks through her husband. I do believe she’s mainly hands off for obvious reasons.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. That is a fantastically stupid statement (n/t)

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. Go girlboss qween!11!1!!!!!!11!!!!!

[PTWB]

14. She should have come up with a better line of reasoning.

Insider trading is insider trading. I’m disappointed with Nancy Pelosi and that is a very rare occurrence. We can do better. We must do better.

[WarGamer]

15. there is NOTHING wrong with AOC's logic...

Congress members, their staff and spouses can only own Mutual Funds and ETF's... not individual company stock.

Remember when "Appearance of Impropriety" was a thing?

The appearance of impropriety is a phrase referring to a situation which to a layperson without knowledge of the specific circumstances might seem to raise ethics questions. For instance, although a person might regularly and reliably collect money for her employer in her personal wallet and later give it to her employer, her putting it in her personal wallet may appear improper and give rise to suspicion, etc. It is common practice in the business and legal communities to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

[Kingofalldems]

29. Where did she endorse insider trading?

[PTWB]

32. What do you call it?

I didn’t say she endorsed it. But she’s definitely not prohibiting it, which is the entire point.

Congress people have inside knowledge AND the ability to appropriate money that goes to companies they personally own stock in. It doesn’t get more ‘insider’ than that.

[Maine Abu El Banat]

17. Your wrong Madame Speaker

But I still love you. Please rethink this.

[WarGamer]

18. This is NOT a topic to play political football with...

How do you respond if McCarthy offers to propose similar legislation to AOC... possibly even asks DEMS to co-sponsor it...

Just to force Pelosi to publicly stop it from a vote?

Bad BAD optics.


P.S. Yes we all know McCarthy and the GOP don't want this to become law. But they SURE want to use it politically.

[onecaliberal]

19. we should be better than this.

[WarGamer]

20. Just to repeat...

There are House members sitting on the Armed Services sub-Committee that own Boeing, Raytheon and Grumman stock...

[onecaliberal]

34. Just MY opinion. This shouldn't be allowed.

[bearsfootball516]

21. Bizarrely bad decision from someone who usually is very careful.

[SledDriver]

22. No, members of congress shouldn't be able to participate in that

[WarGamer]

23. sadly... quite accurate.

[crickets]

30. Yep. Nancy got this one wrong, sadly.

I agree with those who say we can do better, and we should.

[gratuitous]

38. Oh, that cartoon is just ridiculous!

Members can sit at their desks and do online trades without having to take a recess. It's called multi-tasking, Brenda!

[leftstreet]

24. How can she not acknowledge the insider trading issue here?

What a horrible Marie Antoinette response from her

[superpatriotman]

25. Unacceptable

Free markets do not have political fingers on the scales.

[Celerity]

26. surprised she said this, as it is a not a good look IMHO, and she is normally 100% on point

[JudyM]

27. Follow up question: are members of Congress inherently less prone to conflicts of interest than

the rest of the public, who are subject to COI laws such as insider trading?

And: aren’t corporate executives who would like to buy or sell their company’s stock also operating in a free market economy?

Disappointing, hollow double standard. I wonder if her position is primarily for herself or to help her congressional colleagues?

[MichMan]

31. How else are they going to become filthy rich before leaving office ?

[BannonsLiver]

33. The first 4-5 responses make me support her.

[Mariana]

40. So Speaker Pelosi's actual decision and statement are irrelevant to you?

Must be the case, if your support depends upon the posts of some randos on an internet message board, rather than on the merits of Speaker Pelosi's position.

[Kingofalldems]

35. Wow my foot.

I say wow to the last paragraph which is a full blown attack on Nancy Pelosi with zero evidence presented.

[Torchlight]

37. Things have been looking pretty bad for the GOP this week.

So I'm not too surprised this sort of thing would show up.

[Kingofalldems]

39. You got that right.

[MichMan]

43. That stance isn't going to be very popular with voters

"Polling shows that there is wide support for enacting this prohibition. According to a survey done this year by Data for Progress, 67% of Americans believe federal lawmakers should not own individual stocks."

[Torchlight]

45. Has this stance measurable affected any national elections recently?

Be some fun data to crunch if the numbers are available.

[BeckyDem]

44. That doesn't make sense: President Barack Obama signed the STOCK Act in 2012

President Barack Obama signed the STOCK Act in 2012 to increase transparency of lawmakers' trades. The enforcement system is a mess.

Congress and top Capitol Hill staff have violated the STOCK Act hundreds of times. But the consequences are minimal, inconsistent, and not recorded publicly.
https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-penalties-consequences-2021-12?utmSource=twitter&utmContent=referral&utmTerm=topbar&referrer=twitter

[pecosbob]

46. Girondin or sans-cullotte

[WarGamer]

47. Paragraphs could be written about your 4 word response.

Well done! Props to anyone who adds historical flavor to a topic of the day!!

[WarGamer]

48. Update: Progressives not thrilled with Pelosi's stance...

Walter Shaub, the Ethics Czar under Obama commented:

Link to tweet

?s