E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The House overwhelmingly passed its version of a ban on congressional insider trading on Thursday, moving now to a process of resolving differences with a similar bill in the Senate.
The House voted 417-2 to pass the STOCK Act; two Republican lawmakers opposed it. The legislation now goes to the Senate, which can either decided to vote on it, or can convene a conference where they will meld the Senate and House's versions of the bill.
The bill is intended to strengthen the restrictions against members of Congress, their staffs and families, as well as members of the executive branch using information they've gathered in their jobs for insider trading.
While House Democrats had chastised Republicans for writing the bill behind "closed doors," as well as taking out some of the reforms the Senate bill had included, the bill passed with Democratic support, as it would reflect poorly to vote against a bill making it illegal for Congress to use information they gather for insider trading. Democrats are hoping that the bill will go to conference in order to re-introduce some of the reforms contained within the Senate bill.
The House GOP's version of the bill strengthened the restrictions and reporting requirements for the executive branch. It also took out an amendment that was included in the Senate bill that tighten restrictions on people who take information from Capitol Hill and sell it to financial institutions.
Leave a Comment:
Insider trading is ILLEGAL so an additional bill that pertains to members of congress engaging in this illegal activity should not be necessary as they are SUPPOSED to be bound by the same laws the rest of us are. Every politician who has participated in insider trading should be thrown in jail with the rest of the crooks. Oh right, who would be left to run the government if we did that?
Nancy Pelosi in prison stripes.
I love that visual.
Get a life Joe in Albany. Bashing Nancy Pelosi is so yesterday.
Evidently it would be a wise use of our time to write laws again for congressmen and senators that are already on the books for the rest of us. We will also need laws for senators about jaywalking and laws for representatives about littering and using turn signals. GET BACK TO WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And yet, the liberals continuely bring up Bush-bashing...the difference is...?
Bashing Nancy Pelosi is so yesterday.
__________________________________
Bashing Nancy Pelosi is always in season, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and next week, month, year, decade, and century.
And that's all Joe has to talk about. You'll never read anything positive as to how the economy is recovering and how as Americans we can work TOGETHER help it along or how he is supporting his country.
It is all about him, how very GOP/TP of him, very heartless, very cynical and of course, so very hypocritical.
You'll never read anything positive as to how the economy is recovering and how as Americans we can work TOGETHER help it along or how he is supporting his country.
_______________________________________________
Maybe that's because the slow-bama recovery is not very positive. It's coming up on the three year anniversary of the official end of the recession in June 2009 and the slow-bama economy is barely limping along. Last year's GDP growth was pathetically under 2%. The unemployment rate still stinks at over 8%. And the combined un- and under-employment rate is still in the mid-teens. It's only the Obamabots that are wearing the rose colored delusional glasses that makes them think Barry is doing a fine job with the economy.
Obviously off the topic of the immediate article, so forgive me, but this scenario just irks the heck out of me.
In general, what is ridiculous, though extremely funny, sad and all too typical, all GOP Candidates except Paul (I believe) want an amendment to the Constitution declaring marriage as being defined as a between 1 man and 1 woman. In other words, they want the Federal Government to infringe upon Religious institutions that support the notion/right what have you, of same sex couples as being ‘married’.
So again to clarify, the GOP will ‘fight’ to defend the Federal Government from allegedly “infringing” upon the beliefs of Catholic sponsored, public servicing institutions, by requiring them to provide contraception in their friggin benefit plans to the religious, non-religious, Catholic and non-Catholic people that they employ (while incidentally they have no issues with their moral compass about providing nice blue pills to males making their johnson’s stand at attention for 4 hour minimums), but have no issue with the Federal Government “infringing” upon religious institutions whose “moral conscious” tells them that same sex couples have the right to be married and that that relationship should be recognized by the State as a ‘marriage’ based on that institutions religious belief.
I’m all for political discourse and differing points of view on topics. But what I am sick of is the s**t that continue to comes out of the mouths of these politicians, tv personalities and especially those in the GOP when it is clear these folks don’t know what in the hell a mirror is and have even less of an ability to stop and look at the damn thing!
Allen-Omaha,
Agree with your post except I do think they look at a mirror. Much like the whicked witch did before she poisoned Snow White.
This is a tactic the Republicans have tried since the Reagan Adminstration to cram their narrow minded agenda down the throats of everyone else. They can't convince enough people to support cocamaimie ideas so they want to not just make a law but to sledgehammer it home with a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Fortunately the founding fathers were smart guys and foresaw such shenanigans by making the Constitution difficult to amend. They knew that it would be a huge unweildy document if we allowed for changes on the whim of some politician or current political trend. Because of their wisdom we have only goofed once in Amending the Constitution. It was called Prohibition. With that we should have learned that we cannot legislate morality. Prohibition caused more people to break the law and more people to consume alchohal than before and much of that alchohol was tainted with all sorts of nasty stuff. After organized crime got a good foothold and people were dead from consumption of bad booz we came to our senses and repealed the amendment. Do we really want to do this sort of thing again?
A huge majority of people must agree if we are going to amend the Constitution and I, frankly, don't believe the extremists on the right have the support of enough people in this country to cram their fascist wannabe agenda down our throats via Constitutional Amendments.
Well said Allen.. this is not about religious freedom, it is about power, power that brings with it control. That control extends to many aspects of our lives, it is control over women, control over the purse strings, and control over the political megaphone, which the media helps along.
The right is not concerned about the people and their needs, they are not concerned over the economy, or if people are homeless or children are hungry. No the only thing that matters is power . So people, when you go to the polls, know who your candidate is, know what they stand for and how will they work for you and most of all, know if they are capable of doing what is right for America, irrespective of ideology.
They sent Martha Stewart to jail for the same crime that people in our Congress commit. It is about time congress is bound by the laws that the rest of us have to abide by.
Now if only they had the same retirement as the rest of us. They would be strengthening social security instead of trying to kill it. If the congress had to depend on medicare and public health care instead of the special paid for by the public health care they have, I think the whole trying to kill health care would go out the window.
Right now the republicans are vowing to kill health care for others, just not for themselves.
Martha Stewart was sent to jail in order to cover up inaction by the SEC and the Justice Department on the boys who were doing much worse .She was a handy sacrificial lamb and made them look good to the blind. And dare I say it, a woman to boot.
Why, seriously, did the GOP take out some of the provisions of the Senate bill? The one that says you can't sell insider, Capitol Hill, info to finanacial institutions seems like a no brainer, to me.
Because they like being able to sell insider information to hedge funds.
Isn't Mrs. Eric Cantor a board member on some investment group?
A Bill without a loophole is not a Bill that can pass ... first rule governing, also known as the Rule of Mine.
I read in a history book, way back when, that either FDR or Truman once said of Stalin that he could find the tiniest loop hole in any agreement and drive a truck through it!
I'm sure when you read all the fine print, nothing will have changed. They have been busy inserting loopholes. How do think these "government workers" have gotten rich? When it comes to congress, what's good for the goose stays with the goose.
The 2010 TeaParty additions have apparently learned that hypocrisy pays.
And pays and pays and pays...........................
(Just ask Rick Scott!)
ideo,
When you speak of the Tea Party, are you referring to the newbies on Capital Hill or are you generalizing?
thetotus ... the newbies on the hill
So they can't use the information for themselves but they can sell it to others????
My money says IN Rep Dan Burton was 1 of the 2 that voted against (if he wasn't on another golf trip at the time).
The two that voted against it were John Campbell of California and Bob Woodall of Georgia, according to Politico. Both Republicans, as the article states, but I'm not sure why they voted against it.
No such bill is supported by Republicans without ample loopholes for business as usual. The Senate needs to mend the bill and amend it. Would Mitch McConnell launch another filibuster this close to elections? It's a good time for true reform, not reformness reform.
Perhaps Congress will actually have to work for their money. If so, appropriate resignations may follow and open up seats for real representatives.