That's a law that will get changed soon. It will have to be worded carefully. Congress works on so many matters, it is literally impossible for them not to have some affect on almost any business. To avoid the appearance of fraud, they would have to put all of their life savings into blind trusts where they could have no control over their own money. Career politicians are unlikely to find that appealing.
Well they all claim it is their "financial consultant" making all the decisions. And they review only one time a year. Bunch of scam artists.
That's all Congress is about..making money and staying in Congress. Those guys, all of them, could give a rat's azz about you or the country. I hate those fuggers.
Would you be for or against this restriction? It's a tough spot. I mean they literally touch every industry and have input and power that can increase or decrease value. How do we know when they are acting based off of private information versus public information. On Pelosi's part, she got into a Visa IPO. I would imagine she got in because of her role as speaker. However, congress and the president have passed laws that have been very detrimental to this industry. I can't see how her actions could be construed as insider trading. As for Boehner, he claims he bought numerous blue chips at this time and didn't focus on healthcare stocks and also insists he wasn't making the decisions anyway. IF his story checks out then that's fine too although it seems more suspect than Pelosi's "insider trading". If I were a member of congress, I would do what Red suggested. Blind trust, and only a yearly update of the numbers, not the stocks. But I'm a very principled individual who doesn't care about making money, only doing the right thing. :grin:
But the question is how will the law get changed? A former senator drafted a bill to this effect when he was in office, and it only got 6 co-sponsors and no one showed up to the hearings for it. So it died almost as soon as it was written. It's the ultimate quagmire because it goes against the financial interests of the very people that will have any authority to enact it as a piece of legislation.
I have mixed feelings. I think a person should be able to control his own money whenever he wants to. I also think that most Congressmen are aware of the spotlight and don't do insider trading overtly. But if you hold any stocks at all, a strict law could make one vulnerable to baseless charges in this partisan political atmosphere. Perhaps Congressmen should have to hold only bonds and mutual funds while in office. Then they have no control over what stocks a fund buys, but could still buy funds that they like. But a blind trust may be the only way to insure that insider trading doesn't happen.
It will take public outcry. Who would have thought that the Congress would limit their own earmarks? But when one of them overreached with the "bridge to nowhere", public annoyance forced them to act. So a light is being shined on this and that will help.
