Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

House ready to consider insider trading ban

Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:38 AM EST
business, politics, us, congress, trading, eric-cantor, insider-trading, insider
Larry Margasak, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 3 photos
<p>House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio listens at left as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., talks about jobs and the latest government report on unemployment, Friday, Feb. 3, 2012, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)</p>

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio listens at left as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., talks about jobs and the latest government report on unemployment, Friday, Feb. 3, 2012, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Legislation that would ban insider trading by lawmakers and thousands of executive branch officials headed for what could be a more contentious debate in the House after sailing through the Senate on a 96-3 vote.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., repeated Friday that he plans to take the measure to the House floor next week for debate and vote, adding that "we are currently reviewing the actions the Senate took on that bill and we intend to strengthen that bill."

Cantor said Friday it was the Republican intention to "get a bill to the president's desk as quickly as possible so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the people here that they can trust this institution and the members."

He dismissed Democratic requests that the House consider a similar longstanding Democratic measure, sponsored by Reps. Louise Slaughter of New York and Tim Walz of Minnesota, saying it would weaken the Senate bill.

Walz, in turn, said his bill had 282 sponsors and implored Cantor and Speaker John Boehner, "don't write something behind closed doors" and "don't do something that can't pass the Senate."

In a rare display of bipartisanship, the Senate rallied around the measure that both bans insider trading and takes a step toward restoring the tarnished image of lawmakers. It remains to be seen whether the House will do the same. President Barack Obama, who urged Congress to act on the legislation during his State of the Union addressed, repeated that he was ready to sign it immediately.

"No one should be able to trade stocks based on nonpublic information gleaned on Capitol Hill," the president said. "So I'm pleased the Senate took bipartisan action to pass the STOCK Act. I urge the House of Representatives to pass this bill, and I will sign it right away."

Obama said still more ethics restrictions were needed, "like prohibiting elected officials from owning stocks in industries they impact."

"With approval ratings of Congress at an all-time low, this bill represents an opportunity to build some trust with the American people," said Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., a chief sponsor of the bill. "The truth is, members of Congress have access to all kinds of sensitive information, and it has to be clear that the information is being used to serve our country, not to make a personal profit."

The legislation also requires that stock trades be posted online within 30 days. Several amendments were added to the bill before final passage.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., won an amendment to include the 28,000 government workers in the executive branch in the bill, saying it would create a level playing field with the requirements for Congress. But the same amendment included conflicting language by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., that would apply to only 2,000 top policymakers — including the president, vice president and members of the Federal Reserve Board. Lieberman disputed Shelby's numbers, saying 300,000 executive branch workers could be affected.

A House-Senate conference will have to reconcile the two versions.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, successfully added language that would require "political intelligence" operatives to register and disclose affiliations, the same as lobbyists. These individuals are hired by stock traders to obtain useful information from members of Congress and their staffs.

Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate's ethics committee, and senior committee Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia won an amendment that would force disclosure of all residential mortgages — by members of Congress, the president, the vice president and most Senate-confirmed appointees. Currently senators are not required to list all mortgages.

The Securities and Exchange Commission said laws prohibiting trading on inside, non-public information clearly cover members of Congress. In 2005, the SEC investigated then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee concerning his divestiture of stock in the family's hospital company days before its price fell on an analyst's forecast. Frist was not charged with wrongdoing.

To a large extent, Congress is reacting to a segment on CBS' "60 Minutes" that raised questions about stock trades by House Speaker John Boehner, the husband of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., chairman of the Financial Services Committee. All have denied wrongdoing and denounced the network's story.

Republicans insisted on including top government officials outside the Congress in the bill even though they also are covered by insider trading regulations and face tougher conflict-of-interest restrictions than members of Congress. In some cases, executive branch officials are required to divest themselves of stock holdings that pose a conflict. Lawmakers don't have to do that and the Senate bill would not require it.

In addition to the 30-day online reporting requirement, the Senate would have to join the House in posting members' annual financial disclosure statements online instead of making only paper copies available on request.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., proposed wiping out the entire bill and substituting a simple certification by senators each year that they did not participate in insider trading. It was defeated, with 37 senators voting "yes" and 61 opposed.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Larry Margasak's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (25)
Emmadadog

Again, sadly, while on the surface this looks good and says that what is good (or bad) for the rest of the nation should be good (or bad) for Congress, I will have to wait for final judgement.

I want to read the footnotes and the small print first. I've seen enough of the "ethics" of Congress to know that just because something looks good on the surface, well, that means squat to our elected officials. There always seems to be hidden ambiguity, a wink and a giggle.

  • 7 votes
Reply#1 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:19 AM EST
TPisFORtheBATHROOM101

I want to read the footnotes and the small print first. I've seen enough of the "ethics" of Congress to know that just because something looks good on the surface, well, that means squat to our elected officials.

Pssst,Emma. They're called loopholes. What they want to show is transparency. They said it before,yes. I think they're still waiting to hear back from their lawyers on the word definitions and how it would apply to them.

  • 4 votes
#1.1 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:50 PM EST
Emmadadog

TP-I was just trying to be cute-or-it was early in the morning for me and I couldn't find the right word in my brain because it hadn't kicked in yet. Probably the latter, but, it might be the former, nope definitely the latter.

Just tryin' to put a smile out there-there's so little to smile at anymore.

:)

  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 1:33 PM EST
Tink-2285193

FWIW, Emma...I agree with your thoughts, early morning or not. :-)

While Congress always like to act like they are playing by all the rules, they always leave themselves some wiggle room to circumvent, or outright ignore, the rules they make for others. I am very skeptical of this bill for being a true stop the insider trading law, with no loopholes or contingencies that will allow some to continue to take advantage of what the learn as lawmakers to line their own pockets or those of their big donors and/or master. They are just not capable, or willing, to truly play by the rules, and that has been proved time and again when they are allowed to try to police themselves and write their own bills.

I don't trust any of them at all, they given me no reason to, and until they do, I will be skeptical of every thing they do that is supposed to prevent them from duping and taking advantage of the taxpayers and their positions in government to pad their own pockets and/or those of their elite masters to make them even richer, by such unfair, immoral and/or illegal means as they have been doing for decades.

  • 1 vote
#1.3 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:24 PM EST
Emmadadog

Anytime any elected representative in Congress says anything, I sit back, hold my breath, and wait for the other shoe to drop.

I have yet run out of breath. Not only do the not play by the rules, but they make their own rules up and then change even them in the middle of the game.

I'd trust a carnival barker or an attorney before I'd trust a congressperson.

FR sent. I like the way you think.

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 5:50 PM EST
follow the money

for emmadog,

on insider trading:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/search-results?cx=012852851039939669615%3Ai48p-3mtx2s&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=insider+trading&sa=Go%21

peace*

    #1.5 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:10 PM EST
    Emmadadog

    Dear follow the money-I don't know if I should curse you or thank you. I had been having a good time on the vine today, nothing really upset me. It all seemed like a repeat of the same garbage from yesterday, the same ol' same ol' from the Palins, Gingrichs, the Kochsuckers, etc.

    And then I started reading citizens for ethics. Now my blood is boiling, my head is pounding and I am working myself up into a rant.

    THESE DOUBLE STANDARDS have to stop. How dare these idiots judge my life when they live their own in footnotes, loop holes and small print.

    And we elected these people? Where is our collective conscience that we cannot seem to find and elect representatives that will even pretend to be honest, ethical and moral.

    They all talk the talk but just can't seem to walk the walk.

    Thank you, follow the money, for the eye-opener, I think.

    FR humbly sent.

    • 1 vote
    #1.6 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:03 PM EST
    TPisFORtheBATHROOM101

    np Emma,I was doing the same thing,being cute. That's why I whispered,lol

    It's just that what I mentioned is what they proclaimed they would do before campaigning last year,as well as earmarks. It just reinforces what you stated. They talk the talk,but won't take the walk,wanting to appear as doing the morally correct when it's just words with no substance. Sorry,I overkilled my point :)

    These asswipes will say or do anything just to gain power/control,then recant on what they promised. When will their constituents get it? A: Never

    • 2 votes
    #1.7 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:26 PM EST
    GA Girl-718836

    Let's see how fast they can run this piece of legislation through their hallow halls. I am not holding my breath.

    • 2 votes
    #1.8 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:29 PM EST
    Emmadadog

    You know what TP, you are absolutely RIGHT.........RIGHT............RIGHT ON THE NOSE RIGHT..........

    And we keep electing these people who learned the three C's instead of the three R's-Cheating, corruption and collusion.

    And it's both sides of the aisle. They look us right in the eye and tell us the lies they think we need to hear, when they're trying to get our votes, and then wham, bam, thank ya mamm as they forget our names and faces. And then they laugh at us while they take OUR money to their banks.

    AND WE LET THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How stupid can we be? When will we ever learn? When will we ever wake up?

    I guess too many want to be ignorant instead of knowing the truth that the American people are getting screwed over without even a smile.

    Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.

    FR sent.

    • 1 vote
    #1.9 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:45 PM EST
    TPisFORtheBATHROOM101

    Emma please !!! You meant I was correct,NEVER right,because I sometimes post a signature ending.VVVVV

    Heilll rrrright!!! Dey vill alvays be rrright,but very rarely correct. (Yes,the German accent is intentional).

    Or,since they are homophobes...

    Bi,bi next year tpers.... You betcha' ;)

    • 1 vote
    #1.10 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:28 PM EST
    Tink-2285193

    Emmadadog - "FR sent. I like the way you think."

    Received and accepted. Thank you!! :-)

    • 1 vote
    #1.11 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:07 PM EST
    Wizeguy

    How and who will enforce this or any rules they come up with... you do realize they will get a straw buyer to make the trades. They will do what any crook would do when the jig is up go underground.

    I can see them testifing right now "I had no idea my uncle Willie was so great at picking stocks" or "I really don't have anything to do with my wife's/husbands finances she/he is just a savvy investor what can I say"...

      #1.12 - Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:54 AM EST
      Tink-2285193

      It should include spouses. Look at Clarence Thomas and his radical wife. He is a sitting SC judge, and she is engaged in all sorts of radical groups and activities that can, and obviously does, influence him in his decisions as SC judge. It is no different for a spouse to engage in insider trading based on what his/her spouse tells them than if the Rep/Sen does so themselves. So it is not enough to merely limit the ban to Reps/Sens alone, but, should include their spouses. I feel sure that kind of loophole is fully understood and the ban will include spouses and/or SO's during their term in office.

        #1.13 - Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:49 PM EST
        Reply
        digcreation

        no income other than their wage.

        no campaign finance other than individual donations of no more than $1000/ citizen.

        its not hard to end corruption, unless you don;t really want to.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#2 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:14 AM EST
        PattyNC

        So the Crooks are going to be policing themselves? That's sounds tricky, doesn't it!!!!

        Google these senators and their families and see what`s up with them .

        • 1 vote
        Reply#3 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:40 AM EST
        americandreamshattered

        they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them!

        hmmmmmmm seems to me that this is meaningless unless you have an actual unbiased oversite committee to oversee it, hmmmm how about We The People oversee it?

        • 1 vote
        Reply#4 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:51 AM EST
        digcreation

        the GAO is supposed to provide oversight, but it can only investigate when congress asks it to. perhaps there's an obvious solution here?

        • 2 votes
        Reply#5 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:52 AM EST
        ibfishin

        What a pathetic attempt to circumvent the obvious need for our entire congress and senates ousting. Why not focus on doing what the people want instead. Oh they only work for lobbyists

        • 1 vote
        Reply#6 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:35 PM EST
        follow the money

        Thanks. You folks take care.

        Peace to all*

        • 1 vote
        Reply#7 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:32 PM EST
        John Franklin Mason

        Congress is directed and empowered by the Constitution to police itself.

        Article 1, Section 5, in part states:

        Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for
        disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

        I thing Congress should be commended and encouraged, held to their commitment, judged afterward.

        • 2 votes
        Reply#8 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:47 PM EST
        WeldDem

        Having congress police themselves is like letting the fox guard the hen house.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#9 - Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:48 AM EST
        maria lyn

        Wow did you say Congress was having a Policing Party? Is anyone planning on attending they will provide Us I'm sure with millions of dollars in orderv's & alcohol & fine entertainment. Who thinks they will police themselves then!

          Reply#10 - Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:20 AM EST
          JBURNS-1894015

          Congress policing itself. That's a laugh. This Congress is jammed packed with deceitful liars, greedy self absorbed ego maniacs. Who doesn't know insider trading is a punishable crime? Certainly these "law makers" are fully aware of this fact. They just don't give a damn because they are superior to the rest of us mere mortals and laws that pertain to the majority of the citizens in this country certainly don't pertain to them.

          We demand prosecution and jailing of the bankers and Wall St canibalism, why should politicians treatment be any different.

          There should be an internal affairs department, similar to law enforcement, to ensure politicians keep their hands and noses clean. An independent, non=political oversight group. That's the only way we are ever going to stop the raping of Americans. I'd even volunteer to conduct this oversight free of charge.

            Reply#11 - Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:25 AM EST
            Lynn3765

            I am sure I echo the sentiment of how ridiculous the idea is that this even has come up. Last I looked, insider trading was ILLEGAL. I don't remember reading anything in the rules of public trading that members of congress (or elected officials) were exempt from that rule.

            Just ONCE I would like to see a politician, ANY politician, who could not only pass an IRS audit but who actually has some level of ethics to actually follow the rules they make for everyone else.

              Reply#12 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:19 AM EST
              Leave a Comment:
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
              Newsvine Privacy Statement
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
              FUN STUFF:
              • Leaderboard |
              • E-Mail Alerts |
              • Top of the Vine |
              • Newsvine Live |
              • Newsvine Archives |
              • The Greenhouse
              COMPANY STUFF:
              • Code of Honor |
              • Company Info |
              • Contact Us |
              • Jobs |
              • User Agreement |
              • Privacy Policy |
              • About our ads
              LEGAL STUFF:
              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com