Pelosi opens the door to stock trading ban for members of Congress

[Mysterian]

Source: NPR

Pelosi made it clear any new legislation would include provisions adding new rules for the Supreme Court. "When we go forward with anything let's take the Supreme Court with us to have disclosure," she said.

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074387320/pelosi-opens-the-door-to-stock-trading-ban

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. K & R

[MN2theMax]

2. That is good news

I was so disappointed when she said that members of congress had the "right to participate in the free market." Politicians buying and selling individual stocks is just wrong and corrupt. Good on Madam Speaker for rethinking her position on this. And by all means, take the Supreme Court along too!

[ripcord]

4. Even if they are completely honest it just looks bad

When you have lawmakers on committees overseeing industries they own stock in.

[Rebl2]

20. Yep!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. Can congress control behavior of SC justices?

Or is she tossing in a poison pill so the SC will declare the bill unconstitutional?

I'd bet the justices, and the speaker, want to handle their investments with as little oversight as possible.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

5. My immediate thought.

Speaker Pelosi is a force, but I don't understand why she doesn't see the issue.

[Grasswire2]

7. yes, very disappointing

She and many others in Congress are wealthy -- extremely wealthy. And they resist setting aside their assets in a blind trust while serving? Nonsense. One reason why rank and file people despise politicians.

[Earth-shine]

8. Maybe the issue is that she'd have a major bipartisan revolt to deal with.

Trading on privileged info is apparently a perk of being in Congress.

[OneCrazyDiamond]

9. 67% of Americans support it though

https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/1/22/majority-support-hr1-democracy-reforms

[Earth-shine]

10. I'll bet the percentage would be even higher if the question were phrased properly, such as ...

Do you support allowing politicians to trade on privileged info that the public does not have?

[OneCrazyDiamond]

12. Yep actually.

Respondents were then given arguments in favor of such a ban — including lawmakers' access to non-public information and the need to instill public trust — as well as against, including that such a ban could impact retirement accounts and is unnecessary as most lawmakers follow rules around trading. Support then jumped to 74%, while just 19% said they would oppose such a bill.

[Earth-shine]

6. Do members of the SC have insider info on which to make trades?

Members of congress often do.

[Mysterian]

11. The Supreme Court makes decisions that have great impact on major industries

Perhaps they should not be influenced by the stocks they hold.

[Earth-shine]

14. Very good point. It's not just trading, it's also what they already have.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. Does the bill ban insider trading? Or ALL trading?

A justice might know the outcome of a case before it's published, and a case might affect the value of a company's stock.

[Firestorm49]

15. Banning insider congressional stock trading was one of Obama's

goals, which obviously never came to fruition. I wish her luck and hope she can pull it off. We go to jail for the same acts.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Let them have 401K's, IRA's, and blind private wealth management like everyone else.

It's not like they don't have good options. So you serve in Congress 20 years and you get average, what's so bad about that public servant?

[Budi]

17. When we go forward with anything let's take the Supreme Court with us to have disclosure," she said.

Told ya, Pelosi is the feaking jedi.

Lets have full disclosure. She freaking knows what's in their wallets too.

All in or nothin. Lets have full disclosure K?

Well played, Madam Speaker.

[ecstatic]

18. Definitely. nt

[Rebl2]

19. 👍

[BadgerKid]

21. But Options, futures, bonds and warrants

Aren’t stocks. Will they be fair game?