Just in case you thought the 1% were bound by the same laws as the 99%....

[geckosfeet]

OK - the part of the 1% that serve in the congress.

Apparently this was on 60 minutes - but I don't watch so I missed out.

Is Congress picking stocks with insider information?

"It's not illegal, but I think it's highly unethical, I think it's highly offensive and wrong."
That’s Peter Schweizer, a researcher at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, talking about the ability of members of Congress to make trades in the stock market based on inside information they’ve gleaned from their positions on Capitol Hill.

It hits a wide swath of lawmakers, from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Perhaps the most egregious example: Rep. Spencer Bauchus (R-Ala.). Bauchus, who now chairs the House Financial Services Committee, was sitting in meetings with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson during the early stirrings of the financial crisis and then making big bets that the stock market would tank.

Isn't this already illegal? Amazingly, no, say sponsors of the STOCK Act, a bill that would make it illegal for members of Congress to trade on such information. Here's what a 2006 fact sheet from one of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) says:

MYTH: Even if congressional insider trading is not covered by current insider trading laws, congressional insider trading is illegal under other laws

Is Congress picking stocks with insider information?

[NYC_SKP]

1. Maybe we can get Congress to pass a Law about this conflict of interest...

...or, wait, oh hell.

Fuck it, just fuck it.

x(

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[valerief]

3. the most important thing in the world is to make rich people richer

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. They're not just using inside information

In cases like Bauchus, they're betting against America and then making sure America loses.

[SkyDaddy7]

5. Had Obama been shown to be

profiting off legislation like Pelosi DU would have exploded in fury!! But like I have said many times here there is a double standard that MOST Obama bashers are very guilty of!

It does not even have to be true & they would used it to bash Obama...Pelosi? HELL NO!


I love Nancy but there is a double standard here on DU!!

[unblock]

6. "insider information" generally relates to company-specific information

so there's no such thing as insider information when it comes to futures trading for instance, because the price of metals or grain is an industry-wide statistic, not specific to any one company. even though news at any one company (discovery of a new find or a metal, e.g.) would certainly have an impact on prices, it's not considered insider information.

same goes for legislative outcomes. it's not company-specific, so it's not considered insider information, even though the outcome of legislation clearly has an impact on prices.


it OUGHT to be illegal, but to my lay understanding, it is not considered illegal.

[jberryhill]

7. Pending legislation is not "insider information" anyway.

It's all public information.

[unblock]

9. it's *treated* as public information, but it's not.

congresscritters are privy to private conversations and whip counts and lobbying activities and negotiations in far greater detail than the general public is aware. sure, the public might be aware of a pending bill, but a congresscritter will know far better how likely it is to pass or what the final language is likely to be, or if a lobbyist is looking likely to insert some loophole favoring a few specific companies.

they're in a position to negotiate the outcome behind closed doors and trade on it before announcing to the public that a deal has been struck.

[fasttense]

8. In January 2006 Senate Majority Leader Frist, RepubliCON from Tenn

was accused (so was Delay) of having day traders working from inside their DC offices placing bets, I mean trades, on behalf of the Senators using insider information. In particular information involving asbestos regulations.

And NOW 60 minutes decides to investigate? Why? What's different?

Their timing is very suspicious.