Cantor guts STOCK act

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

I believe I said I'd like that to stay. Do you not want the President to be equally a accountable and do you want criminal politicians to keep their pensions?

 

[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

Thanks.

What a mess.

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.

I don't see removing the amendment the same as you do.

The Grassley amendment just looks to put the investment types in a similar situation to lobbyists. They'll have to fill out reports.

I.e., it looks like an info gathering requirement. I don't see where it prohibits trading on 'political' insider info.

The links say that's now legal. So, lobbyists can do it. Making investment info types the same as lobbyists stops nothing.

(I'm not sure how they're stopping Congresspersons from doing it. That's not explained anywhere.)

This strikes me as a very complicated problem. The nature of the press is to report as much info on politics as possible, even the type that can be used for investment decisions. Lobbyists, by their very nature are also in a position to get this info.


But now we have a new class of investment info publishers that seek to harvest this info for the specific purpose of giving fund managers etc an unfair advantage.

How to stop this?

I'm not sure anyone's figured that out yet. What I see as the difference here is that Grassley wants to require data collection now and Cantor wants a separate bill with more time for consideration and input.

I can see both sides. I feel that way because I think this is going to be f'ing complicated.

I don't what the bill does to stop Congresspersons from trading on this info. But I would like to see something like all their assets held in (really) blind trusts so they couldn't know if any of their actions would benefit their investment portfolio. Trading on insider political info is bad, but so is enacting laws that help companies they invest in so they profit too.

Fern

 

[Patranus]

Why are laws originating in the Senate to begin with.
If I remember my Constitution..........

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not sure anyone's figured that out yet. What I see as the difference here is that Grassley wants to require data collection now and Cantor wants a separate bill with more time for consideration and input.

Cantor wants to put it in a back room & starve it to death, quietly.

 

[lothar]

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.

Looks to me like Eric Cantor's bill has more "teeth" than the Senate version.

 

[lothar]

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.

Why can't the SEC themselves impose this rule?
Why would(should?) such a rule imposed by the SEC require congressional approval?

 

[Mursilis]

Why can't the SEC themselves impose this rule?
Why would(should?) such a rule imposed by the SEC require congressional approval?

So what you're asking is, why can't the SEC just create its own laws? You do see why they can't, right?

 

[MovingTarget]

Why are laws originating in the Senate to begin with.
If I remember my Constitution..........

Thats a big if....:whiste:

Only spending/taxation bills must originate in the House. Anything else can originate in either house.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

So what you're asking is, why can't the SEC just create its own laws? You do see why they can't, right?

The SEC does have some authority to set insider trading rules under the 1934 Act. In fact most of our insider trading laws actually come SEC rule 10b. I don't remember what the relevant section of the 1934 said so I can't say if that authority be relevant to setting rules for insider trading in Congress.

Personally I'm not a fan of executive agencies making up the rules rather than the legislative branch so I'd rather this comes from Congress.

 

[MovingTarget]

Looks to me like Eric Cantor's bill has more "teeth" than the Senate version.

It sounds like it has more bark than bite, otherwise the provision Cantor nixed would have been left in there. I don't mind the other additions, but why water down such a good provision?

 

[Mursilis]

The SEC does have some authority to set insider trading rules under the 1934 Act. In fact most of our insider trading laws actually come SEC rule 10b. I don't remember what the relevant section of the 1934 said so I can't say if that authority be relevant to setting rules for insider trading in Congress.

Personally I'm not a fan of executive agencies making up the rules rather than the legislative branch so I'd rather this comes from Congress.

I understand the difference between regulatory and legislative authority, but this situation (expanding the scope of existing law) seems to be a clear case where legislative authority would be required.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand the difference between regulatory and legislative authority, but this situation (expanding the scope of existing law) seems to be a clear case where legislative authority would be required.

Not only that, but wouldn't regulating the conduct of what lawmakers can do in relation to their official duties raise big separation of powers issues if not done through legislation approved by Congress?

 

[Mursilis]

Not only that, but wouldn't regulating the conduct of what lawmakers can do in relation to their official duties raise big separation of powers issues if not done through legislation approved by Congress?

Clearly. There's just no way the SEC has existing authority to do this sort of thing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Clearly. There's just no way the SEC has existing authority to do this sort of thing.

It could be enabled to do so by law, however the problems we've had which resulted in bail outs is due in part to political pressure applied to prevent the SEC from effectively doing it's job. If they caved because of pressure from the financial industry then what would prevent that when faced with controlling their masters?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Clearly. There's just no way the SEC has existing authority to do this sort of thing.

You are probably right. The courts have also limited insider trading rules to situations where there was an actually breach of fiduciary duty which obviously wouldn't apply to these types of cases so I doubt it would hold up in court.

 

[MovingTarget]

So, what are the chances that the provision will be added back during reconciliation?

I for one hope it is, but it won't likely happen.

 

[Dulanic]

And Cantor wins. This Cantor version /w the stripped down legislation is going to go to Obama to sign. Reid pushed it through saying it is better than nothing.... what is the word for that that republicans don't believe in? I forget what it is.... was it compromise?

Hell this isn't even truly comprimise, it is more giving in to the little children throwing fits yelling no no no no no no no don't take away our right to make money by trading on inside info!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...g-bill-likely-headed-to-obamas-desk-thursday/

Rather than send the two competing bills to a conference committee to hash out the differences, as is typically done on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced late this afternoon that the Senate will stop their push for their own bill and will now take up the House-passed legislation instead.

Reid said he filed cloture on a “motion to concur” with the House bill, for the sake of getting something passed more quickly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And Cantor wins. This Cantor version /w the stripped down legislation is going to go to Obama to sign. Reid pushed it through saying it is better than nothing.... what is the word for that that republicans don't believe in? I forget what it is.... was it compromise?

Hell this isn't even truly comprimise, it is more giving in to the little children throwing fits yelling no no no no no no no don't take away our right to make money by trading on inside info!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...g-bill-likely-headed-to-obamas-desk-thursday/

So insider trading is banned, if a crime is committed by someone in Congress they forfeit their pensions and that would by definition include insider trading, there isn't a prohibition for the prosecution of Congressmen, and the Act applies to the President as well.

Yeah it's a shame that nothing bad can happen to those in power because of this law.

 

[Dulanic]

So insider trading is banned, if a crime is committed by someone in Congress they forfeit their pensions and that would by definition include insider trading, there isn't a prohibition for the prosecution of Congressmen, and the Act applies to the President as well.

Yeah it's a shame that nothing bad can happen to those in power because of this law.

So we shall ignore the provisions taken out just to leave loopholes etc... great idea. It is kind of funny how one of the provisions removed was originally proposed by a republican. It passed the senate with flying colors...

BTW.... one of the sections removed is the removal of their pension.

Cantor’s version of the legislation, however, did not include provisions that require registration by political intelligence consultants, strip pension benefits from corrupt members of Congress and close loopholes in the nation’s anti-corruption laws.

Cantor’s version of the STOCK Act also omits a provision that would require political-intelligence practitioners to adhere to the same registration requirements of lobbyists.

“It’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who proposed the amendment, said. “The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that’s behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether?”

 

[Doppel]

Pure corruption. Absolute.

 

[Ausm]

I always concered Boner's little ball licker to be a shady fuck in the first place but this confirms it.

 

[Jhhnn]

So insider trading is banned, if a crime is committed by someone in Congress they forfeit their pensions and that would by definition include insider trading, there isn't a prohibition for the prosecution of Congressmen, and the Act applies to the President as well.

Yeah it's a shame that nothing bad can happen to those in power because of this law.

Except that the DoJ can't investigate or prosecute, so it's one of those non-sequiters like "if pigs had wings, they'd fly."

Who's gonna bust 'em, anyway?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So we shall ignore the provisions taken out just to leave loopholes etc... great idea. It is kind of funny how one of the provisions removed was originally proposed by a republican. It passed the senate with flying colors...

BTW.... one of the sections removed is the removal of their pension.

There were two choices in this bill. Now let me ask it the other way around. Why do you support Congressmen who betray the public trust keeping their pensions when they commit a criminal act? Why do you believe the President ought to be able to participate in insider trading? Because a group isn't being tracked you would let all that go. Why?

 

[Dulanic]

There were two choices in this bill. Now let me ask it the other way around. Why do you support Congressmen who betray the public trust keeping their pensions when they commit a criminal act? Why do you believe the President ought to be able to participate in insider trading? Because a group isn't being tracked you would let all that go. Why?

No there were not 2 choices in this bill. This bill was fored to one choice by Cantor. This could have easily had things merged and changed for a final version... but that option was forced away by republican leadership.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No there were not 2 choices in this bill. This bill was fored to one choice by Cantor. This could have easily had things merged and changed for a final version... but that option was forced away by republican leadership.

This isn't perfect. I get that. Tracking the equivalent of lobbyists was removed and real punishment was added and it's still going to be illegal to do insider trading AND the executive branch is now accountable. On balance this is a far more reaching bill in terms of accountability, yet this is the "gutted" version. I wish they would "gut" more bills then.