Senators introduce bipartisan ban on stock ownership for executive and legislative branch office holders and their families | CNN Politics ( edition.cnn.com )

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley are introducing bipartisan legislation that would prevent members of the executive and legislative branches — as well as their spouses and children — from trading individual company stocks.

JustZ ,
@JustZ@lemmy.world avatar

The only thing bipartisan about this is the knowledge that such a bill will never pass. That’s why these psychos introduce it every so often. Just a publicity stunt.

Chrisosaur ,

Psychos? I’m sure the publicity doesn’t hurt, but it’s a good policy. There’s been enough shady insider shit to warrant shutting this down.

e_t_ Admin ,

It is a good policy, but if it's only introduced with the certain knowledge it'll never pass, it's purely performative.

And thus I clothe my naked villany
With old odd ends stolen out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.

thor_the_fox_sin ,

Great, hope it goes through. But why isn’t the judicial branch included?

QHC ,
@QHC@kbin.social avatar

I agree, but if we can clean up some of the blatant corruption in Congress then maybe the corruption in the SC and elsewhere can also be addressed.

czech ,
@czech@no.faux.moe avatar

I assume if the judicial branch were included it would be found "unconstitutional". Maybe this has a shot of getting through the supreme court and then we can go from there.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

IMO every other issue in congress stems from blatant conflict of interest like this, and like donations. To a point where even if youre a single issue voter for something like healthcare, or budget, etc, this is still the first step to resolving your concern. How are drug and health insurance prices ever going to be regulated in favor of those that need it, if representatives financially benefit from doing the opposite?

People elected to federal government are already entitled to salaries they can comfortably live on. And they should really be living on that exclusively while serving.

stanleytweedle ,

People elected to federal government are already entitled to salaries they can comfortably live on. And they should really be living on that exclusively while serving.

It’s amazing to me how passionately people I’ve known personally will defend politicians ‘right’ to effectively profit from their service far beyond their salaries. Arguments like “If we don’t let them earn more money talented people won’t enter politics” and “It’s not fair to punish them for being successful”. It’s just insane to me.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

just one of those symptoms of the belief that only money=success.

e_t_ Admin ,

“If we don’t let them earn more money talented people won’t enter politics”

Yeah, that's why talented people never enter teaching or the sciences. Though, to be fair, I'd be a bit wary of giving power to someone whose passion in life was politics.

Alto ,
@Alto@kbin.social avatar

Hawley doing something not awful? Has hell frozen over?

Unaware7013 ,

He knows the bill is dead in the water. No way he'd support something sensible that had a chance of ever seeing bidens desk

henfredemars ,

They’re not going to vote against their own interests.

NotTheOnlyGamer ,
@NotTheOnlyGamer@kbin.social avatar

Oh, finally! I'm certain it's going to fall completely on its face, but at least they're finally acknowledging that the issue exists.

Rottcodd ,
@Rottcodd@kbin.social avatar

I'll be mildly curious to see how it will fail to pass.

That it will fail to pass is guaranteed.

Uprise42 ,

Can’t fail if it doesn’t hit the floor. It will get caught in limbo. This will be the last we hear of this

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •