The STOCK Act

[Conan71]

These are all relatively clean amendments.  I think we will probably see this bill passed very soon.

Boxer's amendments are always worth a laugh. They remind me of my Father-in-law's scavenger hunts. She references a paragraph in another law, and when you look it up, it references another paragraph, and this goes on until you finally find the simple sentence or word that she is wanting to insert.  

She's a hoot!

I don't care how "clean" they are.  Why should a bill to do something as simple as stopping insider trading in Congress go in as a ten page bill and come out of the chamber in a bucking wheel barrow with 1000 amendments attached to it?

[Townsend]

Not a pile yet, though Barbra Boxer tried a funny trick.

New amendments:
Sen Thune offers an amendment for Catholic school recognition day. 

Sen DeMint offers an amendment establishing term limits for members of congress. 

Sen Boxer offers an amendment that exempts "spouses" of Congress men and women. She tries to burry this by making reference to definition made in section 109 (12) of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act.  Of course this is an eye-roller.

Sen Paul offers an amendment that eliminates all "credit for service" for any congress member who becomes a lobbyist.

Sen Shelby offers an amendment to extend the powers of the Ethics in Government act of 1978 to include the secondary individuals (spouses, employees and others specified in the bill).

Sen Tester offers an amendment that would exempt the trade of certain securities involved in the formation of small companies.  This exemption would be limited to $50,000,000. Basically part of his Small Company Capital Formation Act.  This would allow members of Congress to participate in new business formation ventures and be exempt from reporting. Another eye roller.

Sen Grassley offers an amendment requiring the disclosure of lobbying activities and/or "political intelligence activities" and consultants.

Sen Heller offers an amendment that requires the passage of a timely budget in order for members of congress to get paid "No Budget, No Pay" 

Sen Brown offers an amendment requiring members of congress to act in the people's interest before acting on their own behalf. "Putting The People First Act of 2012."

Sen Leahy offers an amendment adding the "Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2012" which in lots of pages increases the lengths of penalties under the US code section 18.

Sen Paul offers an amendment that requires certification by members of congress to the effect that they are required to state in every disclosure "I hereby certify that the financial transactions reflected in this disclosure form were not made on the basis of material, non-public information."

Sen Corker offers an amendment making it unlawful for the Federal Government to reduce the principal of any mortgage or provide bailouts to reckless borrowers. 

Sen Paul offers an amendment extending this law to cover all members of the executive branch.

Sen Wyden offers an amendment that extends the law to any "nonmilitary appointee of the President" and establishes an online database for publication of the data.

So far, no tax increases, turtle tunnels, or solar bicycles.

Is there a full list of these somewhere?

[Gaspar]

I don't care how "clean" they are.  Why should a bill to do something as simple as stopping insider trading in Congress go in as a ten page bill and come out of the chamber in a bucking wheel barrow with 1000 amendments attached to it?

Because, you need plenty of dirt to burry a turd, and Senators have desks filled with turds!

[nathanm]

Well, you can tell who is in the pocket of the banks.

[Gaspar]

The one thing I see possibly holding this bill up is one of the amendments made by Sen. Paul.  Basically what it would do is: If a member of congress retires and becomes a lobbyist, he/she will forfeit all retirement and medical benefits afforded to congress.

I think this is a fantastic idea, but most of our current thieves are looking forward to a lucrative career in lobbying after congress.  In fact many companies court congressmen for years by promising them a cushy salary if they come to work for them selling access after they lose an election or retire.  While I'm fairly sure this will be cleansed from the bill before a final vote, it does make wonderful fodder.

Can't wait to hear the debate on the floor by the detractors of this amendment. 

[nathanm]

The one thing I see possibly holding this bill up is one of the amendments made by Sen. Paul.  Basically what it would do is: If a member of congress retires and becomes a lobbyist, he/she will forfeit all retirement and medical benefits afforded to congress.

Define "becomes a lobbyist". If I were a Congressperson with a personal interest in cancer research, say, would I be running afoul of the rules if I were to go lobby Congress for more cancer research funding completely on my own, would I be a lobbyist? What if some 501(c)(3) paid for my hotel room or airfare, but didn't pay me for the actual lobbying?

[Conan71]

Define "becomes a lobbyist". If I were a Congressperson with a personal interest in cancer research, say, would I be running afoul of the rules if I were to go lobby Congress for more cancer research funding completely on my own, would I be a lobbyist? What if some 501(c)(3) paid for my hotel room or airfare, but didn't pay me for the actual lobbying?

I like Senator Paul's amendment as I find it repugnant for the public to fund full federal benefits for someone who goes on to be paid millions for their insider knowledge of Congress.  However I wish he would simply introduce his own bill, then it can stand alone on it's merits and members of the Senate or the House can explain to their constituents why they didn't think it was a good idea to put measures in place which limit corruption.

Nathan, if a retired congressperson makes an appearance and goes door-to-door in the Senate or Congressional office buildings of their own accord for an issue they are passionate about and are not being paid to represent an issue, that's one thing.  I think it would also need to be without any sort of travel or lodging compensation from a non-profit.  100% pro-bono, IMO.

Going to work on K Street is entirely another issue and that is what I think Senator Paul is trying to address with his amendment not someone engaging in the sort of lobbying you are talking about.  Any one of us is perfectly capable of doing that sort of lobbying and there's no harm to it.

[nathanm]

Going to work on K Street is entirely another issue and that is what I think Senator Paul is trying to address with his amendment not someone engaging in the sort of lobbying you are talking about.  Any one of us is perfectly capable of doing that sort of lobbying and there's no harm to it.

I agree that the revolving door into highly paid lobbyist positions is reprehensible at best. That said, I think any law needs to be carefully crafted to avoid free speech concerns, and even then the SC will probably piss in our cheerios on it even if it does become law.

I'm not sure that former Congresspeople ought not be able to lobby on behalf of 501(c)(3)s (not c4s!), so long as any pay is reasonably small. (and it has to be, under the IRC).

[Conan71]

I agree that the revolving door into highly paid lobbyist positions is reprehensible at best. That said, I think any law needs to be carefully crafted to avoid free speech concerns, and even then the SC will probably piss in our cheerios on it even if it does become law.

I'm not sure that former Congresspeople ought not be able to lobby on behalf of 501(c)(3)s (not c4s!), so long as any pay is reasonably small. (and it has to be, under the IRC).

I appreciate the way you are envisioning a way to limit and monitor it.  I'm simply afraid that's a Pandora's Box, and is rife for all sorts of in-kind corruption or getting a paid "executive director" position.

I never thought PACs would evolve into powerful "Super PACs" which are buying all sorts of media on behalf of candidates and essentially by-passing campaign finance laws.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well, you can tell who is in the pocket of the banks.

There was ever a question??

[Gaspar]

As with everything in the Senate, looks like Reid has found his silver bullet.  Just as I anticipated, he will not stand for any limitation on earmarks.

He has started his pontification:

"I've done earmarks all my career, and I'm happy I've done earmarks all my career. They've helped my state, and they've helped different projects around the country," an unapologetic Reid told reporters after the Democrats' weekly caucus lunch. He called senators' right to direct spending to pet projects in their home states is a "constitutional duty."

"And I repeat, I will not stand by and be driven down this path ... that I think is taking away from what the Founding Fathers wanted, three separate but equal branches of government," he added. "I don't believe that the White House has the authority to tell me how I should spend money in Nevada."

Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) introduced the permanent earmark ban as an amendment to a popular insider trading bill, known as the STOCK Act, that's now being debated on the Senate floor.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72241.html#ixzz1lEigQrVO

So, get rid of the earmark ban, so that the short-order pile chefs can continue to rob the many to serve the few, and pass the damn bill.  

[Hoss]

As with everything in the Senate, looks like Reid has found his silver bullet.  Just as I anticipated, he will not stand for any limitation on earmarks.

He has started his pontification:

"I've done earmarks all my career, and I'm happy I've done earmarks all my career. They've helped my state, and they've helped different projects around the country," an unapologetic Reid told reporters after the Democrats' weekly caucus lunch. He called senators' right to direct spending to pet projects in their home states is a "constitutional duty."

"And I repeat, I will not stand by and be driven down this path ... that I think is taking away from what the Founding Fathers wanted, three separate but equal branches of government," he added. "I don't believe that the White House has the authority to tell me how I should spend money in Nevada."

Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) introduced the permanent earmark ban as an amendment to a popular insider trading bill, known as the STOCK Act, that's now being debated on the Senate floor.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72241.html#ixzz1lEigQrVO

So, get rid of the earmark ban, so that the short-order pile chefs can continue to rob the many to serve the few, and pass the damn bill.  

Hmm...ok if one side does it, but how about the other?

[Red Arrow]

Hmm...ok if one side does it, but how about the other?

Easy.  You don't get any money if you are a Red state when Blue rules congress and opposite.  It's a good reason to split the House and Senate ruling political party.

[nathanm]

Easy.  You don't get any money if you are a Red state when Blue rules congress and opposite.

That's not how it actually works. If it did, the donor/donee state list would have more than minor movement after each election cycle.

[Gaspar]

They have rejected the Earmark ban. SHOCKER!