Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,981 posts)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 02:14 PM Jul 2012

I almost missed this: CNN exclusive: Congressional insider trading ban might NOT apply to families

CNN exclusive: Congressional insider trading ban might not apply to families

....CNN uncovered that the law that members of Congress thought they voted for earlier this year isn't exactly as advertised. A loophole could still allow family members of some lawmakers to profit from inside information.
The STOCK Act requires that any trades of $1,000 or more made on or after July 3 have to be reported to the House and Senate within 45 days. But the House and Senate have two completely different interpretations of that rule.

In the Senate, the Ethics Committee released one page of guidelines last month ruling that members and their spouses and dependent children all have to file reports after they make stock or securities trades. But the House Ethics Committee disagreed.

Its 14-page memo notifies House members and aides covered by the law that their spouses and children aren't covered. The Office of Government Ethics, which oversees all federal executive branch employees, sided with the House, informing its employees that their spouses and children don't need to file these periodic reports.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/stock-act-loophole/

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I almost missed this: CNN exclusive: Congressional insider trading ban might NOT apply to families (Original Post) kpete Jul 2012 OP
Loopholes formercia Jul 2012 #1
But, but, Congress is composed of lawyers. Baitball Blogger Jul 2012 #4
Right Arm..... formercia Jul 2012 #8
Well, isn't that just spiffy. TouchOfGray Jul 2012 #2
Insider trading is either wrong or it isn't. Gold Metal Flake Jul 2012 #3
There should be, but there isn't... Amonester Jul 2012 #5
In this case, Yes, they are the same. russspeakeasy Jul 2012 #6
If my wife filed separately, how would I know? Igel Jul 2012 #7
Ask Martha Stewart Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #10
Insider trading is insider trading is insider trading. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #9
And guess who put in that loophole? The one and only Eric Cantor. KamaAina Jul 2012 #11

formercia

(18,479 posts)
1. Loopholes
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 02:17 PM
Jul 2012

Laws are just for people who can't afford a Lawyer that knows their way around the Law.

Writing laws is an art form.

formercia

(18,479 posts)
8. Right Arm.....
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:33 PM
Jul 2012

They need Lawyers in Congress to work-in the loopholes, otherwise the Laws would be unambiguous. Can't have that.

Gold Metal Flake

(13,805 posts)
3. Insider trading is either wrong or it isn't.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 02:20 PM
Jul 2012

There should be one law that applies to all, not one law for the special insider congressional elite and another law for everyone else.

Igel

(35,293 posts)
7. If my wife filed separately, how would I know?
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:25 PM
Jul 2012

What could I do to stop her?

And if she did tell me but didn't give me the paperwork, how would I get it?

Can I force her to file a joint tax return?

Now, what if I don't have a wife but am seeing somebody? Do I have to file a report for them, even if I have a really big interest in helping that person? After all, I could give my SO a taxable gift or I could just give her some info that would let her $5k investment double in the next month.

What if that person is a brother or retired parent? Childhood friend I owe a favor to? The guy who managed to get a photo of me doing something that would create unpleasantness?

So many ways to be corrupt, so few ways of ensuring that politicians aren't. Perhaps we should have each legislator and aide wear an implanted video camera/microphone, with a team of 5 people listening to each one at all times to spot any bad behavior. After all, they may be our representatives but it doesn't mean we have to trust them in the least.

Ruby the Liberal

(26,219 posts)
10. Ask Martha Stewart
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:36 PM
Jul 2012

Insider Trading is on the person who enacted the trade, not the person who shared the information (assuming the information being shared was not shared for the purpose of monetary gain - good luck proving that once the can of worms is open)

Ruby the Liberal

(26,219 posts)
9. Insider trading is insider trading is insider trading.
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 04:35 PM
Jul 2012

Is anything in our federal laws NOT written to exclude those with Dewey Cheatum & Howe on retainer?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I almost missed this: CNN...