Cantor guts STOCK act

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Since the theme for the day is Republican embarrassment...

A feel-good bill has suddenly turned nasty.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has released his version of a congressional insider-trading ban, and it strips a provision that would require so-called political intelligence consultants to disclose their activities, like lobbyists already do. It also scraps a proposal that empowers federal prosecutors going after corruption by public officials.

That’s stoked backlash from Democrats and even some Republicans, who are furious at Cantor and are accusing the Virginia Republican of watering down the popular legislation that easily passed Senate last week.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) slammed the House for deleting his amendment targeting the political intelligence industry, which tracks action on Capitol Hill and then sells the information to investors. Instead, the House bill requires just a study of the industry’s activities within 12 months.

“It’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision,” Grassley said in a statement. “If Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72624.html

This bill passed 96 to 3 with Grassley's amendment in the Senate.

Update 7/20/12: He wasn't finished:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33715023&postcount=52

 

[Craig234]

Hm, which party controls the Senate which put up and passed the stronger version (bi-partisan vote), and which party controls the House that 'gutted the bill'?

 

[JockoJohnson]

Truly pathetic of Cantor. How are We The People supposed to ever get any common sense legislation passed with clowns like this that don't want to give up their perks for the sake of what is right.

 

[jstern01]

Hm, which party controls the Senate which put up and passed the stronger version (bi-partisan vote), and which party controls the House that 'gutted the bill'?

I am not about to throw all of the house republicans under the bus because of Cantor's lack of moral fiber and not doing his master's bidding. There were 280 votes to pass the bill as is, but Cantor had to mess with it because his paymasters did not like disclosure.

 

[MovingTarget]

Truly pathetic of Cantor. How are We The People supposed to ever get any common sense legislation passed with clowns like this that don't want to give up their perks for the sake of what is right.

This. Cantor's actions show that he epitomizes what it wrong with this congress. I can only hope that his district elects someone else...and the sooner the better.

 

[Craig234]

I am not about to throw all of the house republicans under the bus because of Cantor's lack of moral fiber and not doing his master's bidding. There were 280 votes to pass the bill as is, but Cantor had to mess with it because his paymasters did not like disclosure.

Who elects the leadership who did this?

Beware the political strategy that picks a lightning rod to take the heat while all the rest then get to say "darn, we wish he hadn't dont that" for a popular bill.

The leadership in the Senate actually put it up for a vote where both parties had to go on record, and did so voting for it.

Republican leadership killed it, giving their members the out to not have to.

That's just basic politics with popular measures they don't want to pass and would be in trouble with voters if they were on record opposing.

That's the rare case where such measures actually pass, with enough public heat.

I'd considered a post with speculative dialogue in a Republican leadership meeting, 'Cantor, you're in a safe district, you're going to take the heat for killing this, we'll repay you.'

Instead my post just asked, which party controls the Senate that put it up for a vote, and which party controls the House which gutted it?

If it actually got to a vote in the House, I expect it'd have both parties vote for it, which is why the question is who blocked it?

 

[Craig234]

This. Cantor's actions show that he epitomizes what it wrong with this congress. I can only hope that his district elects someone else...and the sooner the better.

Fat chance. His worst election he won 59-34%; his highest he got 75% of the vote, when only an independent ran agaisnt him. He appears to have a 'safe' district.

 

[Linflas]

Funny how everyone ignores this part of the same article:

The new version of the House’s STOCK Act ensures that the bill’s insider-trading ban and its disclosure requirements apply to the executive branch, and it also bans lawmakers convicted of a crime from collecting pensions.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Funny how everyone ignores this part of the same article:

It doesn't excuse the removal of Grassley's provision. He did that specifically to protect the real power brokers, civilian insiders who can exploit the same info, people like his wife.
http://people.forbes.com/profile/diana-f-cantor/26882

But the House bill cut a provision that was in the Senate version requiring people who collect and trade so-called political intelligence -- information from government that can move markets and stock prices -- to register just like lobbyists if they want to talk with covered officials in Congress and the executive branch so that the public knows who they are and what they're doing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/stock-act-passes-insider-trading-congress-_n_1265423.html

 

[manimal]

So who profits from this?


Small businesses right?

 

[dank69]

Wow. Too bad 90% of the US population won't ever know about this or won't understand any of this. Cantor Tea Party for We the People, right? What a two faced piece of shit. Dems should be broadcasting this news 24/7 in every possible outlet.

 

[cubby1223]

Correct me if I'm wrong:

This bill has the opportunity to have amendments added on to it. It has the opportunity to be voted down by the House. If passed, it must be reconciled with the Senate bill before sent to the President.

To me, the news article looks like partisan campaigning more than it does an analysis of the legislation.


“The thing we greatly feared has come upon us,”
Seriously? A member of congress greatly feared this? Not a chance.

 

[cubby1223]

If the Democrats didn't like the bill, they should not have voted for it:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72670.html

"STOCK Act passed by House by vote of 417-2"

Every single Democrat who voted, voted in favor of the bill.

Guess your Democratic party is willing to vote in favor of things they greatly fear.

 

[cubby1223]

Well now I'm really curious - is there an article out there, that actually describes what is in the bills and what the results and consequences of the pieces are?

You know, one that doesn't skip over any and all details and revert to calling Republicans evil?

Would the senate bill actually solve a problem? Something a little more than a public perception problem?

 

[Anarchist420]

Fat chance. His worst election he won 59-34%; his highest he got 75% of the vote, when only an independent ran agaisnt him. He appears to have a 'safe' district.

I agree and if his seat is ever threatened, then fraud will guarantee him retaining his seat. I know at least one person who was changed from a hardcore libertarian (he had been a libertarian since he was a kid) to a neocon by the VA GOP. Cantor probably warped his mind. I suspect that was why he cut me off (we had been good friends since our first course together).

Cantor votes along party lines, regardless of who the President is. He'd have voted for this had Bush or Romney told him to.

 

[Ausm]

Truly pathetic of Cantor. How are We The People supposed to ever get any common sense legislation passed with clowns like this that don't want to give up their perks for the sake of what is right.

Not going to happen until the American people can neuter their paymasters...I doubt this will ever occur in my lifetime.

 

[Ausm]

If the Democrats didn't like the bill, they should not have voted for it:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72670.html

"STOCK Act passed by House by vote of 417-2"

Every single Democrat who voted, voted in favor of the bill.

Guess your Democratic party is willing to vote in favor of things they greatly fear.

Good question, I am looking into it right now.

 

[Fern]

Cantor guts STOCK act

"Guts"?

The article you linked says "tweaks".

I thought the real objective of this bill was to stop insider trading by Congresspersons? If so, it surely hasn't been gutted, not at all.

In reading the parts you omitted in your post, looks like Cantor has actually stiffened up the portion targeted at Congresspersons by adopting the "Pelosi Amendment" aimed at stopping shens in IPO's.

Then Cantor also added this:

The new version of the House’s STOCK Act ensures that the bill’s insider-trading ban and its disclosure requirements apply to the executive branch, and it also bans lawmakers convicted of a crime from collecting pensions.

Are you complaining about that as well?

And about this part that seems to be your main complaint:

deleting his amendment targeting the political intelligence industry, which tracks action on Capitol Hill and then sells the information to investors. Instead, the House bill requires just a study of the industry’s activities within 12 months.

Who are these people and why do we care? They're not Congresspersons, who are the point of this bill. Why are they included? What are the problems these people are causing? What are we trying to stop? Stopping Congresspersons from be able to trade on insider info is something I easily understand. But I've never heard of these investment info publishers and don't see why they are targeted. Sellers of other investment info aren't targeted.

I don't care for the below change:

It also scraps a proposal that empowers federal prosecutors going after corruption by public officials.

That's the only potentially legit complaint I see.

Fern

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Here's an article that describes it as neutering. Happy now?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/08/cantor-slammed-for-neutering-stock-act/
And it's not like he's not taking heat from fellow Republicans about this. Maybe you should e-mail Senator Grassley and tell him how little his amendment mattered. The point of this bill was to reduce corruption and shine light on the actions that lead to it. Cantor clearly took out the most relevant aspect for latter and I'd say preventing prosecutors from going after corruption is a pretty big god damn gutting of the former regardless of anything else he may have added to the bill. He's fouled this up just like everything else he's meddled with this congress.

 

[Doppel]

These fvcking guys. Insider trading ban is like the damned definition of honest government and they don't want it. Corrupt motherfvcker.

 

[Fern]

Here's an article that describes it as neutering. Happy now?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/08/cantor-slammed-for-neutering-stock-act/
And it's not like he's not taking heat from fellow Republicans about this. Maybe you should e-mail Senator Grassley and tell him how little his amendment mattered. The point of this bill was to reduce corruption and shine light on the actions that lead to it. Cantor clearly took out the most relevant aspect for latter and I'd say preventing prosecutors from going after corruption is a pretty big god damn gutting of the former regardless of anything else he may have added to the bill. He's fouled this up just like everything else he's meddled with this congress.

No. Not happy.

I read the new article and still don't see why we're concerned about these non-Congressional investment info providers.

I haven't seen anywhere anyone claiming that Cantor is "preventing" prosecutors from going after corruption.

I already said I don't like the part about Cantor's amendment NOT giving additional powers to prosecutors (although I haven't seen any details and don't know exactly what they're referring to).

But prosecutors already have power to go after corruption. None of their current power is being taken away so they're not being prevented from anything.

My primary concern in this is that Congresspersons be stopped from benefiting from insider knowledge. We cannot do it, they need to follow the same rules. Every thing I see indicates this (primary) object is being met.

Am still curious what the complaint is about publishers of investment info.

Fern

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Am still curious what the complaint is about publishers of investment info.
Fern

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57374166-503544/will-political-intelligence-stay-in-the-dark/

http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100607/what-political-intelligence

 

[Wreckem]

If they don't want the political intelligence amendment, prosecutors should be allowed to bring corruption charges against lawmakers who receive political donations from those they have given the information.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This change does two things I like. It extends to the Executive Branch and better, it causes those who are convicted of crimes to lose their pensions. I'd like to see criminal prosecution stand, but I really like the idea of crooks losing their payoff.

 

[Wreckem]

This change does two things I like. It extends to the Executive Branch and better, it causes those who are convicted of crimes to lose their pensions. I'd like to see criminal prosecution stand, but I really like the idea of crooks losing their payoff.

There is NOT LEGITIMATE reason for the political intel amendment be removed. Its an OBVIOUS favor to the banking and securities industries.

They should just amend the SEC code to, Anyone who knowingly trades on non public information commits insider trading. No loopholes, no exceptions. No agency theory, no insider theory. Just straight up, anyone trading on non public information commits insider trading.