Obviously they thought so, they passed a law (STOCK Act) supposedly purposed to prevent that very thing. Thoughts?
What better time to invest? Any legislator doing so should (but wont) be removed.
I couldnt pull up your link. But to me it is typical of the republican party.
Benefits to large companies are beneficial to them, personally, the public be damned.
This is but one example of members of Congress benefiting financially from their office. In addition to what amounts to insider trading, they do it through the revolving door with lobbying, consulting, and contracting after leaving office, and do so despite past "reform" measures. This link from last year looks back on a lobbying reform bill from 10 years ago, and clearly showcases that it was sabotaged before passage by members of both parties, and members of both parties have since gone on to benefit from the loopholes. These things are not partisan issues -- except among the voting public, who cannot seem to comprehend that the only true and substantial difference between the two parties is that they represent different cheeks of the same ass.
Sorry the link didn't work for you, it works for me. Not sure why that is.
It was my server. I just tried it again. I was able to read it. Thank you fnr.
Yeppers. That is insider trading no matter how they spin it. (It would be interesting to see who invested in United stock around the time the ACA was enacted, as the stock value rose some 480% subsequent to its passage.)
Elected and appointed officials, as well as career bureaucrats, agents, and military profit handsomely not just through insider trading, but also via lobbying, consulting, and contracting. Reform measures always sound good when presented to the GP, but become so watered down and knotted with loopholes by the time a bill meanders its way through both houses that they always end up being of none effect.
"(It would be interesting to see who invested in United stock around the time the ACA was enacted, as the stock value rose some 480% subsequent to its passage.)"
I was thinking the very same thing! I know this was a popular practice around the bank bailouts as well...
Business as usual. Sometimes I really wish I was a computer nerd and could write the code for a program to follow things like this. The insurance and banking are obvious, as are all the military and intelligence contractors that derive most or all their income through government contracts. Though just keeping up with the name changes, through mergers and for less savory reasons (notice how many defense contractors have changed names, Blackwater/Xe/Academi, for example) is a chore. There are less obvious things that could net one a bundle by knowing what is considered and rejected or quietly passed as add-ons on unrelated legislation in Congress, as well as the multitude of administrative laws that never pass through Congress, but are quietly published and seldom reported on. It'd be sweet to be able to make a printout of each member's financial gains whenever they were running for reelection and flood their district with it.
Yes it is. But most politicians don't think the laws pertain to them.
They certainly have their share of vultures... it's a real special kind of hypocrisy they're practicing.
Well, I believe that was one of the roll-backs of this administration. Elected officials may now benefit from insider information. Making America great again!
My understanding is, it was passed in 2012 and almost immediately changed in 2013. That change was voted up unanimously.
Then there was some other rollback that Trump signed in Executive Order form which gave them a leg up on the little people.
I know there was a big stink over his Fiduciary EO, I'm not aware of one relating to the STOCK Act, but if you come across the one you're referring to, drop me a link, would you?
Perhaps that's the one I'm thinking about.
I don't think they can keep track of everyone who does that.
It's only a good tool if they are out to get you anyway.
I imagine it would be quite simple for them to make these sorts of investments and / or hire financial 'advisers' to make the investments for them, that's the more likely scenario. imo
They keep a pretty detailed agenda in congress and they're authoring the law which dictates the winners and losers, making a buck off of it preemptively would be easier than passing the law itself.
However, Congress has exempted themselves (through various rulings) of insider trading.
The STOCK Act is their attempt to make it appear otherwise?
The next time someone screams about Trump and his tax records -
I have that info, it was actually linked to in the source above.
No worries, it's an interesting, albeit typical, story for govt.
Another good example was Pelosi and her husband investing in natural gas while she was pushing legislation to expand it...
unethical is what politicians are all about. If that becomes apparent, they change laws to please themselves. I say make them live with the majority benefits and lack of them. Things will change faster.