STOCK Act

So, the STOCK Act has passed through the Senate with a resounding 96-3. This law would essentially prevent Congress from exploiting bills and laws with Insider Trading.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57370812-503544/stock-act-passes-in-the-senate/

I'm a bit surprised to learn that such a law didn't exist before hand. Honestly though, I'm more curious about who the hell the three who voted against the bill were...

Can you drop some more info about the bill and its context into the OP? I don't know what that bill does, and why it should've been around long ago, as you say.

When you provide a link in the OP, it's considered polite to also summarise it in your post for people who don't at the moment have the time to read your link. It makes it easier for people to participate. An OP with nothing more than a link and a couple of statements is usually not opened (we have a rule against "link-discuss" threads, as we call them.) All that this OP needs is a summary of the link and perhaps some definitions.

I am incredibly surprised that a bill endorsed by President Obama has so much Republican support.

My guess is that in that three are a one Senator who didn't think that the bill went far enough, one Senator who flipped his shit because his own amendment didn't get in and one Senator who's insider trading.

What I see in that article is a description of what sounds like healthy bipartisan and even..bi-chambership(?) with negotiations involving the house majority leader too. Some clever ideas came from the other side, not just concessions (nice catch on the Executive branch there Cantor). But what is this...

Oh, are we going to actually see the bill pass through quickly in its current form and end up getting signed by the end of February? Wanna bet $10,000?

edited 3rd Feb '12 4:41:30 AM by SomeSortOfTroper

Translation>: the house will defang the fuck out of it on purpose

This might just be the behaviour of politicians who are actually becoming sick of having legislation dictated to them by corporate executives. Either that, or they've realized that Obama is running against Congress this November and don't want to hand him the perfect rope to hang them with.

This was a hot topic on an episode of Sixty Minutes about a month ago, which I think really set the tone for action.

Basically, and this is to explain the background for those who want the Cliffs-Notes version, is that most executives are banned from insider trading - the practice of using privileged information (such as financial information which has not been released to the public or proprietary information, or perhaps rumors that someone influential is stepping up or down) as the basis of stock trades. It's a crime to knowingly profit off such information, so much care has to be taken for executives to buy stock in their own company, and many use blind trusts or other such mechanisms to protect themselves.

One notable segment of the population who is exempt from this restriction are the 535 members of the House and Senate, all of whom get access to a great deal of inside information such as whether notable bills (for example, a bill to cut Medicare spending or one to increase defense spending) are likely to pass or be defeated, the consequences of which would have a huge impact on related companies. The proposed legislation seeks to strip Congress of this exemption and subject them to similar restrictions as corporate managers.

Oh, man, I keep forgetting that US congressmen are allowed to hold stocks.

Even if it passes, they'll still get around it. Insider trading still happens all the time—mostly unnoticed and unpunished—and when it's the people who make the damn laws, you can rest assured they'll write them in such a way so as to easily circumvent them.

Well, I appreciate any attempt to separate money and politics. It's a step in the right direction. Though really, upping the number of congressmen we have would probably work better. The more people you have to bribe, the more it cuts into the corporate profits. And the more likely an honest person can sneak in. XD

But yeah, I think this is in part a response to Obama's challenging the Congress and the fact that his chances of reelection are looking pretty good. Any attempt to change real quick this year is going to be at least partly so they can go "hey, look, we're doing this and this and this to cut out corruption. What's he doing?". And it is also partly because Obama has put Republicans and Congress as a whole on the spot.