Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Congresspeople owning corporate stock: "We're a free market economy"

[lpetrich]

Jon Ossoff could snub Nancy Pelosi with ban on Congress stock trades

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff is looking to introduce a bill that would ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks — a practice that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has defended as her husband rakes in millions of dollars trading shares of tech companies, The Post has learned.

The Ossoff ethics bill, which the Democratic freshman Senator plans to introduce once he finds a Republican co-sponsor, would crack down on conflicts of interest by making it illegal for lawmakers and their families to trade stocks while in office, a Washington, D.C. source close to the situation said.

It would also likely require lawmakers put their assets in blind trusts — a step that the 34-year-old Ossoff completed himself months after being elected in January 2021.

H.R.1579 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Ban Conflicted Trading Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Rep. Krishnamoorthi, Raja [D-IL-8] (Introduced 03/03/2021) - 22 cosponsors, 14 original, mostly Democrats, like AOC, but also some Republicans, like Matt Gaetz

Its companion:
S.564 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Ban Conflicted Trading Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR] (Introduced 03/03/2021) - 3 cosponsors, all original, all Democrats

But the Ban Conflicted Trading Act would only ban trades by members of Congress and their senior staff — not spouses or families — so Paul Pelosi’s stock-picking would remain legal.

Ossoff’s forthcoming bill would be stricter by closing the spouse loophole, the source said. That would put the new bill more in line with a bipartisan House proposal called the TRUST In Congress Act, which would ban close family members from trading and is supported by Democrats including Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) and Karen Bass (D-Calif.), as well as Republicans like Roy, Cloud, Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Fred Keller (R-Pa.).

H.R.336 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): TRUST in Congress Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
"Transparent Representation Upholding Service and Trust in Congress Act or the TRUST in Congress Act"
A recursive acronym

Rep. Spanberger, Abigail Davis [D-VA-7] (Introduced 01/15/2021) - 15 cosponsors, 8 original

 

[lpetrich]

New York Post on Twitter: "Jon Ossoff expected to snub Pelosi by pushing ban on Congress stock trades (links)" / Twitter

Jen Perelman on Twitter: "This stock trading ban bill must include friends, family & staff otherwise it’s all for show." / Twitter


Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Can confirm that Ossoff has indeed written this bill to ban Congress from trading stocks and is preparing to introduce it" / Twitter

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Can also confirm he’s hunting for a Republican cosponsor to launch it" / Twitter

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "It appears that search so far has only resulted in the bill being leaked to the Post" / Twitter

 

[funinspace]

laughing dog is right that any investment, including not investing, could be seen as a conflict of interest. AOC is right that holding individual stocks (or the ability to buy individual stocks) creates insider knowledge opportunities. But her solution doesn't seem right either - an index/industry fund is less specialised, but also open to insider trading opportunities.

Restrict it to general index funds, not sector stuff. The only insider knowledge is things that will make the market go up or down. I would also subject them to the normal insider trade rules in most circumstances. Insiders are required to schedule their trades well in advance.

Personally, I think that just restricting the Congressional Critters to not owning individual stocks would be sufficient enough restriction to minimize the level of game playing that could possibly favor their investments very much. Beyond that I think it would devolve into pretty silly stuff. Even with very focused ETF's, the impact of any legislation towards one company within that fund would be diminished significantly.

 

[Elixir]

laughing dog is right that any investment, including not investing, could be seen as a conflict of interest. AOC is right that holding individual stocks (or the ability to buy individual stocks) creates insider knowledge opportunities. But her solution doesn't seem right either - an index/industry fund is less specialised, but also open to insider trading opportunities.

Restrict it to general index funds, not sector stuff. The only insider knowledge is things that will make the market go up or down. I would also subject them to the normal insider trade rules in most circumstances. Insiders are required to schedule their trades well in advance.

Personally, I think that just restricting the Congressional Critters to not owning individual stocks would be sufficient enough restriction to minimize the level of game playing that could possibly favor their investments very much. Beyond that I think it would devolve into pretty silly stuff. Even with very focused ETF's, the impact of any legislation towards one company within that fund would be diminished significantly.

Federal laws can effect entire sectors...

 

[Jarhyn]

New York Post on Twitter: "Jon Ossoff expected to snub Pelosi by pushing ban on Congress stock trades (links)" / Twitter

Jen Perelman on Twitter: "This stock trading ban bill must include friends, family & staff otherwise it’s all for show." / Twitter


Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Can confirm that Ossoff has indeed written this bill to ban Congress from trading stocks and is preparing to introduce it" / Twitter

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "Can also confirm he’s hunting for a Republican cosponsor to launch it" / Twitter

Ryan Grim on Twitter: "It appears that search so far has only resulted in the bill being leaked to the Post" / Twitter

It's a great, and something I've been arguing for since the early 2010's.

Now watch as both parties kill it, and use Sinema and Manchin as their lightning rods.

If Manchin, Sinema, Toomey and Collins dropped dead tomorrow from a lightning strike, and so rendering the lightning rods for such decisions inoperable the day before a vote on such a bill, two new Democrats would spring from the weeds so as to stick a rod between their own spokes every time it looks like they could otherwise get somewhere

 

[lpetrich]

If Manchin, Sinema, Toomey and Collins dropped dead tomorrow from a lightning strike, and so rendering the lightning rods for such decisions inoperable the day before a vote on such a bill, two new Democrats would spring from the weeds so as to stick a rod between their own spokes every time it looks like they could otherwise get somewhere

Seems like a case of Urban Dictionary: rotating villain

 

[funinspace]

Need a fact check on aisle 5. Is this real?

Holy shit that story has the fridge priced at $24,000. What an insult to Pelosi for me to misremember her refrigeration rig as some poverty-class $16k clanker not fit to store the food of the domestics.

Why in the world do you care? Pelosi's net worth is just under $50 million, even at a 5% rate of average investment return, she would add another $2.5 million a year prior to taxes to her net worth. A $24,000 fridge is less that 1% of one years income. Why can't she spend some of it on what she enjoys? Trump used to fly around in huge $100 million jet he owns (now rusting away), and wears Brioni suites that start at $7,000. Did you hate on him for his lavish habits?

 

[funinspace]

laughing dog is right that any investment, including not investing, could be seen as a conflict of interest. AOC is right that holding individual stocks (or the ability to buy individual stocks) creates insider knowledge opportunities. But her solution doesn't seem right either - an index/industry fund is less specialised, but also open to insider trading opportunities.

Restrict it to general index funds, not sector stuff. The only insider knowledge is things that will make the market go up or down. I would also subject them to the normal insider trade rules in most circumstances. Insiders are required to schedule their trades well in advance.

Personally, I think that just restricting the Congressional Critters to not owning individual stocks would be sufficient enough restriction to minimize the level of game playing that could possibly favor their investments very much. Beyond that I think it would devolve into pretty silly stuff. Even with very focused ETF's, the impact of any legislation towards one company within that fund would be diminished significantly.

Federal laws can effect entire sectors...

Of course. But like I said, the impact is still greatly diminished. I would find a limit on individual company stocks to be sufficient, even if not perfect. Consider it like recreational drug decriminalization. It doesn't make drug abuse go away, it just makes it less bad, and a better balance of trade offs (IMPOV of course).

 

[Jarhyn]

Need a fact check on aisle 5. Is this real?

Holy shit that story has the fridge priced at $24,000. What an insult to Pelosi for me to misremember her refrigeration rig as some poverty-class $16k clanker not fit to store the food of the domestics.

Why in the world do you care? Pelosi's net worth is just under $50 million, even at a 5% rate of average investment return, she would add another $2.5 million a year prior to taxes to her net worth. A $24,000 fridge is less that 1% of one years income. Why can't she spend some of it on what she enjoys? Trump used to fly around in huge $100 million jet he owns (now rusting away), and wears Brioni suites that start at $7,000. Did you hate on him for his lavish habits?

She could very well spend some money on what she enjoys. She could very well do it while not being a senator.

If I were a senator, I would expect and even demand that I divest from the means to live that life, because it is a conflict of interest, my sworn interests thus being the wellbeing of my constituency over my own, as a result of and cost to accepting "power over".

"Even at an unattended rate of return". You do realize that ethically, that means she is necessarily "doing nothing for that money", and using her leverage to get more leverage parasitically?

I hate on all of them equally for their lavishness.

Being a senator should mean accepting a lifetime vow of poverty.

 

[funinspace]

Need a fact check on aisle 5. Is this real?

Holy shit that story has the fridge priced at $24,000. What an insult to Pelosi for me to misremember her refrigeration rig as some poverty-class $16k clanker not fit to store the food of the domestics.

Why in the world do you care? Pelosi's net worth is just under $50 million, even at a 5% rate of average investment return, she would add another $2.5 million a year prior to taxes to her net worth. A $24,000 fridge is less that 1% of one years income. Why can't she spend some of it on what she enjoys? Trump used to fly around in huge $100 million jet he owns (now rusting away), and wears Brioni suites that start at $7,000. Did you hate on him for his lavish habits?

She could very well spend some money on what she enjoys. She could very well do it while not being a senator.

If I were a senator, I would expect and even demand that I divest from the means to live that life, because it is a conflict of interest, my sworn interests thus being the wellbeing of my constituency over my own, as a result of and cost to accepting "power over".

"Even at an unattended rate of return". You do realize that ethically, that means she is necessarily "doing nothing for that money", and using her leverage to get more leverage parasitically?

I hate on all of them equally for their lavishness.

Being a senator should mean accepting a lifetime vow of poverty.

Ok, from what I've seen of your postings, I can get that, even if I fully disagree. You would at least be consistent. For myself, I don't want or need monks running our country, nor do I consider investments to be parasitic.

However, I really don't comprehend why Metaphor would care, beyond the fact that Pelosi is hated by the right.

 

[Jarhyn]

Need a fact check on aisle 5. Is this real?

Holy shit that story has the fridge priced at $24,000. What an insult to Pelosi for me to misremember her refrigeration rig as some poverty-class $16k clanker not fit to store the food of the domestics.

Why in the world do you care? Pelosi's net worth is just under $50 million, even at a 5% rate of average investment return, she would add another $2.5 million a year prior to taxes to her net worth. A $24,000 fridge is less that 1% of one years income. Why can't she spend some of it on what she enjoys? Trump used to fly around in huge $100 million jet he owns (now rusting away), and wears Brioni suites that start at $7,000. Did you hate on him for his lavish habits?

She could very well spend some money on what she enjoys. She could very well do it while not being a senator.

If I were a senator, I would expect and even demand that I divest from the means to live that life, because it is a conflict of interest, my sworn interests thus being the wellbeing of my constituency over my own, as a result of and cost to accepting "power over".

"Even at an unattended rate of return". You do realize that ethically, that means she is necessarily "doing nothing for that money", and using her leverage to get more leverage parasitically?

I hate on all of them equally for their lavishness.

Being a senator should mean accepting a lifetime vow of poverty.

Ok, from what I've seen of your postings, I can get that, even if I fully disagree. You would at least be consistent. For myself, I don't want or need monks running our country, nor do I consider investments to be parasitic.

However, I really don't comprehend why Metaphor would care, beyond the fact that Pelosi is hated by the right.

I do not want or need monks running the whole government.

I do want, and need, monks running the senate.

As to the house, you don't need to be one of "mammon's teeth" to get a seat in the house. There are a lot of people there and each one has power proportionate to their constituency, and many of which have gotten there with very little money.

It is an interesting problem: senators represent 'the vote given to land', and by extension, 'the interests of the region'. We can decide what we want that to mean, whether that is going to be interpreted as "the vote that money gets" or "the vote that the area gets".

I'd wager if it is to be "the vote money gets" then monied interest is given an eternal veto power within government

As to what the shape of such a vow of poverty looks like, what indexes the "poverty", I would as soon see it as the median (the most common) income in the region; the peak of it's bell curve for "over 25".

It would amount to most senators living worse than I do, all things told.

This way, it is the actual interests of the region which motivate the decisions made "for the land".

I would not be opposed to trying "trickle-up" economics and see how that goes.

 

[Metaphor]

Need a fact check on aisle 5. Is this real?

Holy shit that story has the fridge priced at $24,000. What an insult to Pelosi for me to misremember her refrigeration rig as some poverty-class $16k clanker not fit to store the food of the domestics.

Why in the world do you care? Pelosi's net worth is just under $50 million, even at a 5% rate of average investment return, she would add another $2.5 million a year prior to taxes to her net worth. A $24,000 fridge is less that 1% of one years income. Why can't she spend some of it on what she enjoys? Trump used to fly around in huge $100 million jet he owns (now rusting away), and wears Brioni suites that start at $7,000. Did you hate on him for his lavish habits?

I don't hate Pelosi for having a $24,000 refrigerator. I was expressing astonishment, via satire, at its extraordinary cost.

And, the fact that Pelosi gets a passive income of $2.5m+/year doesn't somehow make her a more sympathetic character.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Need a fact check on aisle 5. Is this real?

Holy shit that story has the fridge priced at $24,000. What an insult to Pelosi for me to misremember her refrigeration rig as some poverty-class $16k clanker not fit to store the food of the domestics.

For all I know, it's $4K per fridge. Fridges cost a lot these days. It could be $24K and not the $16K you said. Or you could be right that it is $16K. What is the source of the numbers? How are they substantiated based on images of the fridges?

What is striking to me is that Pelosi's marketing people thought this was a good idea. And when I write "this," I mean this:

The attire looks like how actors are wardrobed to portray an upper class person. The sweater thing is usually worn by a snooty character no one likes. I think going on the show was a way to connect to people, but something went wrong with the planning.

 

[thebeave]

Looks like she has two SubZero fridges. Those are about the priciest fridges you can get. They are nice to look at, but sadly highly prone to failure, and there aren't too many options for replacement by another manufacturer due to their massive, unique cabinet depth design. There's an old saying that when you buy a SubZero, you are married to it (because you stick with it through better or worse). They do cover a wide price range though. You can check prices for them online if you're interested in the actual cost.

I agree with you about the image problem she has created here. It astounds me how often politicians of all parties put themselves in these predicaments, and think no one notices or cares. Poor, hungry Democrats living in slums look at the video and go, "What is this thing called chocolate? And...how you say...ice cream? Is that anything like my ketchup and rice gruel dish I eat every night?

 

[ZiprHead]

They look like this model, $11,885. each. So, yeah, $24K for the pair.

 

[Derec]

Poor, hungry Democrats living in slums look at the video and go, "What is this thing called chocolate? And...how you say...ice cream? Is that anything like my ketchup and rice gruel dish I eat every night?

I did not know many Democrats live in the orphanage from Oliver Twist.

But your point is well taken. All these rich Democrats seeking tax cuts for themselves (e.g. SALT deductions and student loan forgiveness for their time at Boston U or Georgetown and Northwestern) while demonizing those richer than themselves for creating companies that are developing space technologies.

 

[Derec]

She could very well do it while not being a senator.

Nancy Pelosi is not a senator.

 

[Derec]

Jen Perelman on Twitter: "This stock trading ban bill must include friends, family & staff otherwise it’s all for show." / Twitter

Friends? So now if my friend gets elected to Congress, I can't buy or sell stocks? And how do you distinguish between friends and mere acquaintances? Same problem applies with family. How deep do you go? Do second cousins once removed count?

 

[lpetrich]

Jon Ossoff on Twitter: "Tonight I introduced legislation to ban Members of Congress (and our spouses) from trading stocks.

3/4 of Americans agree!" / Twitter

Another Rep:
Andy Kim on Twitter: "@ossoff A ban on trading stocks is important but we should also prevent Members from owning individual stocks altogether. I hope you are willing to reconsider this. I stand ready to work with you to prevent ownership of individual stocks by members of congress if you change your mind." / Twitter

Not yet in congress.gov

 

[lpetrich]

The Republicans are now going left on this issue, hoping to outflank the Democrats.

McCarthy considers banning stock trades in Congress if Republicans win majority | Fox Business - "McCarthy directly at odds with Pelosi over potential stock ban"

Hawley introduces bill banning lawmakers from making stock trades in office | TheHill

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced on Wednesday that he will introduce a bill banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from maintaining stock holdings or making new transactions while in office.

Hawley’s announcement came the same day a pair of Democratic senators introduced a similar piece of legislation that would ban members of Congress and their families from making stock transactions while serving in office.

Hawley's bill, dubbed the Banning Insider Trading in Congress Act,” would ban members of Congress and their spouses from holding, buying or selling stocks or equivalent economic interests while serving in Washington. Investments in mutual funds, exchange-traded funds or U.S. Treasury bonds, however, are permitted.

Hawley in a statement said “It’s time to stop turning a blind eye to Washington profiteering.”

Jon Ossoff's bill:

A source familiar with the matter told FOX Business that the ethics bill, which the freshman Georgia Democrat hopes to file as soon as he secures a Republican cosponsor, would also target conflicts of interest by making it illegal for lawmakers' spouses and family members to trade stocks while in office, the source said.

It may also require lawmakers to put their financial assets in a blind trust – something Ossoff did a few months after he was elected in January 2021. Ossoff's blind trust contributed to a net worth somewhere between $2 million and $7.3 million as of late 2020.