E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
President Obama signed into law new legislation prohibiting insider trading for members of Congress and their staff in a ceremony attended by lawmakers in both parties.
Obama called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which makes it illegal for members of Congress to make decisions in the stock market based on non-public information they receive in the course of their work on Capitol Hill, a “good and necessary thing.”
He added that public servants “were sent here to serve the American people and look out for their interests, not look out for our own interests.”
Striking a populist tone, Obama said that, like corporations, politicians should also be barred from having an unfair advantage over ordinary Americans.
“The powerful shouldn't get to create one set of rules for themselves and one set of rules for everyone else. If we expect to apply that to our most powerful corporations it should definitely apply to our elected officials.”
Obama also alluded to the looming general election fight, a preview of which he offered yesterday during a speech against the Republican budget put forward by Rep. Paul Ryan which he said represented a “radical vision for America.”
“In the months to come we are going to have plenty of debates over competing visions for this country that we all love,” Obama said. “Those are all debates that I'm looking forward to having but today I want to thank all the members of congress who came together and worked to get this done."
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) praised the bipartisan nature of the bill, releasing a statement that said in part: “Rather than letting our differences divide us, as so often happens in Washington, this bipartisan bill shows that we can come together and deliver results for the American people."
The bipartisan delegation that attended the bill signing consisted of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL) Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Rep. John Larson (D-CT), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN).
Obama noted that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) who originally introduced the bill in 2006 was supposed to be in attendance but was tending to a broken leg.
Leave a Comment:
I am still puzzled as to why Congress needed a law on top of law we already have. Matha Stewart knows all about it. Do those in Congress need a special set of laws? All they need to do is follow the laws already on the books.
Gee whiz....
no mention of Scott Brown who initiated the whole idea. I wonder why there's no mention of his name.
That a law like this is needed at all is ridiculous.
What they really need is the opposite - that congress can't dump our money into crap 'investments' like Solyndra, when they know, because they were told before they did it, that the money would be lost.
Course that wouldn't leave our man Chu with anything to do.
Now I know you all heard about the $1billion we lost last week when yet another solar company under BK.
oops my bad....
evidently msnbc had to list his name as he was at the signing.
I couldn't agree more, Wayne!....
Talk about closing the barn door after all the animals have run off. Guess they just can't do it anymore but keep the stocks they already have in 'blind trusts'.
Spanky, "W" made some crap "investments" himself. What we need is non-profit defence contractors world wide. Let's see how many wars are started. Have a nice holiday.
Spanky, I wish you were right about the billion.
Unfortunately, Solar 1's bankruptcy is actually going to cost us THREE billion bucks.
But, hey- they are part of the Dollars to Donors program, so it's all good for Obama.
Sucks for us, however.
Window Dressing:
"The powerful shouldn't get to create one set of rules for themselves and one set of rules for everyone else. If we expect to apply that to our most powerful corporations it should definitely apply to our elected officials." So says the President.
Strange that the congress and the executive branch could be bought on the cheap for years! Wall Street got a great return on its investment. The repeal of Glass Steagle that was directly responsible for the mortgage meltdown by creating new financial instruments like CDO's and CDS's. (THE DIRECT CAUSE OF THE RECESSION) And then to add insult to injury we bail these people out while the manufacturing sector goes into the sewer.
Stranger yet is how we became a country that valued paper pushers on Wall Street as opposed to innovators and inventors. I'll take an engineer over a wall street banker/broker any day!
Go Figure!
Thanks Chilled,
What some Congressional types need to do is take a course in logic. Then they should take part in behavior mod therapy.
Straight up Wayne - which is why the government ought to stop playing social capitalist.
But do tell us Wayne - you have any examples like Solyndra? You know, where the Dept of. Energy was told, before they gave any money that Solyndra would go BK, to the very month?
I know No Jo - this whole green energy thing really has not panned out. Oh well, at least now it is out there for all to see just how crappy it is.
Take Reno - they spent millions on a windmill that saves them $4 bucks per month.
Spanky, why don't you look at the difference between 500 million and the over a trillion spent on Iraq? Sooner or later we need alternate energy sources. If we do, we may remain happy on a livable planet with no more blood exchanged for oil. If we don't, we will be riding on a doomed planet with too much heat, not enough food, and too many wars. I think that makes Solyndra look pretty insignificant.
Wayne, The television show 60 minutes were the first to call attention to congressional insider trading. At that time it was not illegal. So once again the public has been well served by the media.
I am aware of that spot they did, and they were right to do it, and in the end it is a good law. Logically speaking though, it is unnecessary. All of us need to follow one set of laws.
This just goes to show you how pathetic and corrupt our government is.
It's about time that Congress was told by a president that this needs to stop.
Congrats to President Obama for signing this into law and to Slaughter for constructing the bill.
So, how about Congress telling Obama the same thing? He tried, desperately, to get LightSquared rammed through, despite interference with GPS systems that affected consumers, the mi,Italy, and airlines. On that one, not only was he good buddies with the major investor- who just happened to be one of his big dollar donors- he was a ground floor investor himself.
Stood to make billions if it went through.
Not sure why Obama signing this would warrants a Congrats. He had nothing to do with it's progress through Congress, and it would have been political suicide for him to have veto'd it considering how much media attention this political abuse has received over the years. The Congrats needs to go to Slaughter who originally introduced it (when it was first shot down), and Scott Brown for reintroducing it. Truly a partisan effort to get it through, though I think people should scrutinize those in Congress that voted against this issue.
I am pleased they finally stopped this insider trading. Congress should not be able to profit from the laws they are writing.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74801.html
So Obama's budget last year went down 0 - 97 in the senate.
This year Obama's budget goes down in the house 0 - 414.
Now it looks like Harry Reid's hand is being forced and the senate is going to have to vote on Obama's budget.
Tell me can Obama amass total votes against his budgets of say 0 to 611?
This failure should not even be allowed to collect a check for his remaining days.
His incompetence is monumental!
Get your facts in order. The 0-414 was an alternative budget proposal based on President Obama's 2013 budget plan, put out by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C. So, the amendment was not, in fact, President Obama's entire budget proposal. However, it’s just another GOP stunt.
stunt?
Has Obama called Reid and asked him to put his budget on the floor? Why hasn't that happened?
Democrats have more than 51 of the votes needed to pass it? What's the hold up?
OH YEAH THE DEMOCRAT SENATE AND OBAMA ARE GUTLESS COWARDS.
Yeah Job 1 last year's 97-0 was a 'stunt' as well, right?
Dude, just face it - Obama just is not very good at the whole budget thing-y.
Spending money is a whole different story.
Do you honestly believe a budget proposed by Senate Democrats would ever come to a vote?
"Knock-knock!"
"Who's there?"
"Fil!"
"Fil who?"
"Filibuster!"
Oh, noid. Too bad. You just showed everybody how much you don't know.
Budgets are EXEMPT from filibuster, as per Senate rules. So, yes, a budget only needs 51 votes to pass- despite how often Axelrod lies about it.
Factcheck, Politifact, and the WaPo have all exposed that lie. In fact, I'm pretty sure I linked to those articles a couple months ago when that particular lie started making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows.
Where we're you when that happened?
Here is a link for you
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/13/jack-lew/white-house-chief-staff-jack-lew-says-budget-requi/
So, please, noid- let's stop spreading untruths, okay?
[So, please, noid- let's stop spreading untruths, okay?]
Oh Lord...now that's rich!
Yeah, NoJo...lets...starting with you, perhaps? I'd say that's a fine place to start...
A law is one thing, enforcement is another.
I expect a number of Congressional types from both parties to keep the likes of Randy "Duke" Cunningham company.
Wow, the Right-Wing ignorance on this blog is staggering. They have 51 Democratic votes in the Senate to pass it??? Haven't been paying much attention to the Republican coup of requiring every bill to need 60 votes, huh? Or do you just not understand that kind of detail, as evidenced by the 0-414 claptrap on the "Obama Budget" vote in the House? Thank God Romney is such a terrible campaigner, or we might be in real trouble based on this sample of the electorate!
Uh Nick, Budget votes only require 51 votes to pass in the Senate. Looking like your the ignorant one.
Maybe they only need 51 votes to pass, but it requires 60 votes to get it to the point where the bill can be considered in the Senate.
But keep spinning your partisan view of the budget process and ignore the record number of filibusters put forth by the Senate Republicans since 2010.
Here's your link:http://nationaljournal.com/daily/majority-does-not-rule-in-filibuster-filled-111th-congress-20101216
Thank you for adding the correction for nick, Rocco.
sayitain'tso - For your information the budget is not a bill. It only takes 51 votes to approve and unlike a bill the budget CANNOT BE FILIBUSTERED.
They are a pretty dumb bunch.
You only need a majority to pass the budget in the Senate. However, to enact spending bills to implement the budget bill, you do need 60 votes in the Senate.
Its about time, but you do remember, this is Congress and they are lawyers writing the laws. Do you really trust this congress to do the right thing? I doubt very much if this new law that was signed today will stop congress from insider trading 100%. Believe me, they are still looking after themselves and the hell with the rest of us.
I just hope we replace all the incumbents and vote on new representation as we need new blood and new ideas to run this great country of ours
Now Nancy Pelosi may have to fly coach...
"And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports,and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform;robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans; a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies." --Barack Obama (The most two-faced, hypocritical, flip-flopping, and divisive president in American history)
Of course you wouldn't put your beloved repub run congress out there. They are the ones that hold the purse strings. What a buffoon!
Today's Republican party has heroes like Gov Mitt Romney and Gov Scott Walker.
Governor Romney was so good at job creation that he was in the 10% of the worst Governors at creating jobs. Governor Romney even wanted the American auto industry to go out of business. Governor Romney "likes to fire people". Governor Romney loves America so much he even had a Swiss bank account.
Governor Walker is such a good Governor that he ranks dead last in job creation during his time in office. Walker is such a good leader, that he claims to not have known what his staff (located less than 50 feet from his desk) were doing when they violated campaign laws. It comes as no surprise, that Walker keeps saying it's not his fault that he can't keep up with ANY of the other Republican or Democrat Governors.
Oh, so now the house leader Eric Cant-nor wants to show us how they can get along? Why now? After the last three years of NO, now they want us to believe they want to work with the President? Hhmmm? I smell a big fat rat! The repubs are worried to death of losing their jobs come elction year. The reps could lose their's faster. And the senate too. So, why now, i ask you? Yep, thats what i thought too, they are running SCARED!!! Vote these obstructionists out as fast as we can! They are NOT fooling America! We have been watching them for three years now. They wasn't thinking long term back then, was they? Now they are scared for their very lives in office. And they should be! What were they thinking, that by holding back the economy, jobs, what have you, that we wouldn't notice? Wrong! Pack your bags, you're out of there!!! OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 Hillary 2016
Now it is time to ban the bribes that are called by the misnomer campaign contributions. Most other nations consider such activity as criminal.
Absolutely.. ban unions from contributing to campaigns.... especially corrupt public employee unions...