Lawmakers could vote for infrastructure bill, then buy stock in a concrete firm.
Could? You mean do?
They have it backwards too. They’ll buy stock, then vote on the bill that’ll raise stock prices (or vice versa with shorts)
If they haven’t yet voted, then the bill might not pass.
In any case, upcoming bills are public knowledge. If you think a bill will pass, you too can buy the stock before the vote.
Does the bill specify who they’re going to be paying the money to, though? Because an infrastructure bill saying we’re going to spend a certain amount of money on these projects can predict changes in certain industries, but being on a committee and saying, “We’re going to hire this specific company with this huge government contract to do this work,” can tell you exactly what company is about to have a huge boost to their value.
Usually the committee gives the executive branch a sum of money and tells them to find someone to do the job.
Occasionally a specific company is designated by legislators. But this wouldn’t be a secret, the committee meetings themselves are open to the public. And likewise when everyone votes on the bill, the name of the company would be public.
part of the public service aspect of these positions should *absolutely disclude government officials in positions of legislative power, from investing any new funds at all during tenure.
I don’t care if you go broke in office. That’s part of the job if so.
If you go broke on a minimum of $174k/y, you’re spending too much on luxuries and/or hush money anyway.
Admittedly, there is no government housing for politicians, which means either buying renting in washington DC (not cheap) in addition to your home in your own state, or moving entirely to Washington DC for a position you may lose in 4 years.
The entire job seems to be closed out to everyone but millionaires.
Frankly we should get rid of career politicians. Serving in public office should be more like jury duty. Civil servants do the real legwork.
I’d go even further, and say that we don’t need “representatives” anymore. We all own devices that allow us to communicate across the world instantly, we all could potentially have our say directly in matters that concern us. The issues with this are ultimately only technical, and thus could be overcome.
Media has slagged off direct democracy many times (eg the Jack Black episode of the Mandalorian) but I truly believe that is what a real democracy would be. Yes, things like Brexit can happen when people get the chance to vote, but that only happened because of a sustained disinformation campaign - one that could not be maintained indefinitely for every issue under vote. If people had a chance to vote on how things are implemented and whether or not it was actually working these problems could be mitigated, and overall we would end up with a more functional and progressively better system for society.
Yeah were not getting any movement on this until people like Pelosi are far removed from any role in the democrat party. They’re just gonna keep pointing and screaming at the big orange distraction because it’s a lot easier than making peoples lives better.
When it comes to making people’s lives better, Democrats did more last year alone then Republicans have in the last twenty years put together.
I agree with you. But it’s important to still point out and want to fix problems even in the “better party.” We can’t simply be accepting of “be less bad.” We need to always strive to improve. And weakening the connections between Wall Street and Washington is a big progressive goal that the old guard of Democrats have directly opposed.
Fair enough!
What did they do?
Just the top three from last year:
- prescription drug price controls, including insulin copay capped @ $35/month
- health care subsidy for 13 million lower income Americans
- 100K jobs in clean energy
Public service doesn’t mean much in America.
Nothing happens in this country without someone getting paid.
You could buy that stock too.
Not at the price they did.
If they vote for an infrastructure bill and then buy a stock, then you might even buy the stock before they do.
Removed by mod
Removed. Keep it civil.
Both and/or arguing in bad faith.
Problem is, we don’t get any forewarning about how they’re gonna vote.
The example was about someone who votes for an infrastructure bill and then buys a stock. Votes are public, so you could buy the stock at the same time they do.
The problem there is that automated traders have the same idea - and are a shit ton faster than you. So by the time you’ve so much as heard of it, the price is already up 25%
Maybe, but then legislators would have the same problem buying that stock.
No they don’t. They can buy the stock before the vote, knowing which way the vote is gonna go.
Senators do communicate with each other on these things, even exchange votes (eg: I’ll vote for this if you vote for that). That’s before we get into the matter of party whips pressing members to vote certain ways. None of that is public record.
They can buy the stock before the vote, knowing which way the vote is gonna go.
Well that would seemingly be against the “STOCK” act. I’m sure the SEC would have something to say about that…
lol :(
The example was someone who bought after voting. So at least that doesn’t seem to present a problem.
If someone knows a bill is coming up that is likely to pass, they too can buy the stock before the vote.
If nobody knows whether it will pass besides the legislator, then yeah that’s totally insider trading. Which is already illegal.
But frankly that’s a pretty rare situation. Legislators usually telegraph well in advance how they are going to vote for upcoming bills. And when the outcome is a surprise, it usually surprises the legislators too.
If nobody knows whether it will pass besides the legislator, then yeah that’s totally insider trading. Which is already illegal.
Correct. The problem is that it’s not enforced on senator’s as they don’t want to indict their fellow congressperson
Insider trading is not illegal for legislators. They specifically made it legal for themselves.
You’re confusing the series of events.
