Do you support the PELOSI Act?

You have it backwards. If/when a member of U.S. Congress buys (100 to 10000) shares of stock, the member or members may not move the market much but the members either SELL before bad news or BUY before good news.

* Inflation report;

* Unemployment report;

* Change in Overnight Fed Funds Rate;

* Decision to go to war or not;

* Health of U.S. President.

Inside knowledge on any of the five will move S&P 500. There are other opportunities for insider trading.

Absolutely do, but don't support the naming of the act. Only serves to ensure it is defeated by Dems that won't vote for it just because of that (and they're not wrong about that).

I am a flaming left wing libruhl demonRAT and Josh Hawley is a treasonous POS.

However, I support the idea behind this proposed legislation and will go as far as to call my Congressional representatives (all Dems, BTW) and ask them to support this legislation if it actually goes anywhere.

It’s obviously extremely stupid, immature, but on brand for Hawley to name the legislation as he did. That will, as others have suggested, make it difficult for Dems to support it—maybe that’s why this POS did that? Perhaps he’s an unserious, juvenile moron that shouldn’t be in Congress (let alone the Senate)?

As I understand the proposed legislation these are rules that should have existed since the founding of our country. Congressional members have way too much inside info to not be biased when investing. I believe I read the average rate of return on investment for members of Congress is something like 18% vs something like 6% for the average citizen. There are reasons—frankly unethical reasons—for this that should be made illegal.

I guess the devil is in the details here but it is stated the bill would "BAN stock trading & ownership by members of Congress". If the ban includes any stock ownership in any form it would include retirement accounts, IRAs, 529 plans, etc. How many members of Congress would actually vote for a ban that is so restrictive it essentially limits their investments to savings accounts and bonds. But at least they would still have crypto.

I think members of Congress should be allowed to have mutual funds—and things like IRAs, 529s, 401Ks but they should have to put those in a blind trust. They should be allowed to contribute to those accounts while in Congress but there should be a degree of separation between them and the composition of the funds in those accounts.

Essentially, we need to prevent them from using the knowledge gained from their legislative position to profit. Similar regulations exist for physicians (at least academic physicians….private practice in the US is full of conflicts of interest still, unfortunately) for good reason. It’s clear that currently there are too few restrictions on financial conflicts of interests for members of Congress and this no doubt contributes to at least some of the dysfunction in that legislative body.

As a poor a** democrat who truly cares about fairness and equity, i SUPPORT this.

As a worker in civil service, you're not supposed to make your election a get rich quick scheme. No, you promised your constituents a solid presence, an honest vote, and adherence to your convictions and promises.

In order to avoid any conflicts of interest, you should have to have a stock freeze. You cannot draw gains on stock; you cannot lose value. You cannot buy stock; you cannot sell stock.

You cannot trade; you can legislate.

If your stock value was $52.80 per share entering office, it's $52.80 per share leaving it.

No book deals while in office.

No lobby perks.

No super PACs.

Just real government service.

The crime investigation budgets for the SEC and IRS have been defunded by Republicans.

Also why name it the Pelosi bill when Republicans do it as much as Democrats?

I mean, you can say what you want, but when i worked for the 2010 Census admin at the Escondido office, we were background checked and e-verified for a $12.50/hr. job. We didn't get perks, stock options, stock info or anything like that. Just. Government. Service.

It should be like that for all US government positions.

Everything the new GOP does is for show. It is theatre designed to get hits on Fox News and fundraise. It is agitprop bait that gets people worked up and bickering back and forth. Naming it Pelosi does that.

Many Democrats have been pounding the table to ban stock trading for some time. So of course, because this would pass easily in the house it will not come to a vote. BTW, the preferred method of grift these days is not stock trading on insider knowledge. Although we saw that by the GOP during the start of covid. It is accepting dark money from lobbyists and foreign agents. Let me know when Josh introduces that bill.

If this ever did pass, it would be viewed as a great bill and Pelosi would love to have her name on it in the history books. Surprising more people don't see this idiocy for what it is.

There is also NO WAY the rank and file of the GOP would support this either since it also affects their portfolios. Also yea, it's all political theatre.

Alan

Yes. He's really become a caricature of the old Flagpole Willy. Seems to be in it just to make outrageous claims to get attention and has been on the wrong side of history on many of his positions. Bring back the old Flagpole Willy.

Agreed.

It won't pass because it will be opposed on both sides of the aisle.

I think it absolutely should be a law.

Giving it this name implies that only one person or one side engages in this practice of self-enrichment, which is unequivocally false. (Look at how many Republicans bought and sold stock to profit off of COVID after they were briefed on what was coming).

Given that both sides do it, giving it this name is tragically juvenile.

Josh Hawley of all people:

The photograph immediately became a subject of controversy; The Kansas City Star
called it "the image that will haunt Josh Hawley" and "one of the
iconic images to emerge from the day the Capitol was breached by
rioters"[123] and Pulitzer Prize-winning St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Tony Messenger said "the staging was perfect" and recommended the photograph be known as Hawley: The Face of Sedition.[126] Tom Coleman,
a former U.S. representative from Missouri and a fellow Republican,
said Hawley's "clenched fist in front of the Capitol will seal his
fate."[123]
The photographer, Francis Chung, declined to weigh in on the
photograph's political impact, saying it "is what it is" and "kind of
speaks for itself."[123] Later that day, video showed Hawley running through the Capitol, fleeing the rioters

en.wikipedia.org

Josh Hawley

Joshua David Hawley (born December 31, 1979) is an American politician and lawyer serving as the senior United States senator from Missouri, a seat he has held since 2019. A member of the Republican Party, Hawley served as th...

Link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Hawley#/med...

They need to bring the hammer down on the Pelosi's insider trading.

"If your stock value was $52.80 per share entering office, it's $52.80 per share leaving it."

How, exactly would that work? If you have 100 shares of x stock or fund you will still have 100 shares when you leave (plus any additional accrued through dividend reinvestment) but the price will be higher (or lower).

But some of these people have been in office 30+ years. The idea that they can't benefit from the growth of the market over time like every other American is unreasonable. Who would run for Congress under those rules? It's difficult enough as it is to attract intelligent people to run.

This bill is just posturing. As a start they need to strictly enforce the insider trading rules and laws already on the books, and make the penalties for violating them more severe.

Government work should have benefits that are perfunctory... insurance for health, life, etc. Your average Joe doesn't get lobby perks or information to help them on stocks.

There should be no "for-profit" benefits for elected office.

If the benefits were perfunctory, you'd have fewer Joe Bidens and Strom Thurmonds and people who believe in policy... and not an "establishment."

1) Not a troll account.

2) Not a fan of criminals on any level.

3) Yes, the FBI and the SEC can and will and HAVE gone after House members and Senators before, and they will do so in the future.

4) Nancy Pelosi's money is mostly from her husband. If you believe she broke the law, then file some charges.

5) I do not worship anyone or anything...not a person, not a God, not an entity.

6) I am fully aware that politicians don't care about me. I'm fine with that. I'm a grown-ass man. I don't need a politician to care about me; that's what Trumpers want, not me. Now, if I am ever feeble and need nursing care, I will need that, but I will pay for that, and I won't need anything from politicians (other than things we already have like Medicare...but my savings and/or long term care insurance will pay for any long stay I have in a late-stage-of-life facility).

7) You realize that my position here is that ALL politicians should be able to own individual stocks, right? This is not me supporting Democrats. I believe ALL of them, Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever, should be able to own individual stocks. I would be for their holdings to be closely monitored, and I would even be for extra punishment (extended jail time) for insider trading by them, but they should be able to own individual stocks. If they break the law, they should pay with their freedom.

It's hardly outrageous to say that House and Senate members should be able to own stocks. We have laws on the books that prevent insider trading. If they do it, they should go to prison. Not EVERYTHING needs to be legislated.

For the record, my basic views on life haven't changed since I started posting here. I am wiser and more experienced about certain things...fatherhood, getting HUGE biceps, etc. I DID at one time consider myself a "Christian," though I was a VERY liberal one indeed and did not believe in the MAGIC in the Bible or the virgin birth or other such nonsense (so, many, but not all, Christians would say I was never a Christian; I disagree with that). I have since taken that view further though and have divorced myself from Christianity entirely as I see way more harm than good coming from it (and ALL religions with which I am familiar). I am now an atheist. I still think the teachings of the one we call Jesus (he never responded to that name in his life) are good, and if The Bible and its followers were reduced to The Ten Commandments, I could get on board with that. The problem is that during my lifetime, Christianity has allowed absolute nutbars to ruin it...too many "Christians" today use their religion to demonize and hate others. Can't align with that nonsense.

CORRECT! Attaching Pelosi's name to it is just dirty politics. How many Republican officials were in trouble with insider trading in the last few years? MANY.

If Pelosi broke the law, then someone should file charges against her. Fine by me.