Republicans are joining a discharge petition to force a vote on a bill that would ban lawmakers, their spouses, dependent children and trustees from owning, buying or selling individual stocks. For some reason many of the MAGAs, including Johnson, oppose this. This will force a vote on it.
Republican dissenters spark discharge petition clash with Johnson
Republicans are joining a discharge petition to force a vote on a bill that would ban lawmakers, their spouses, dependent children and trustees from owning, buying or selling individual stocks. For some reason many of the MAGAs, including Johnson, oppose this. This will force a vote on it.
Republican dissenters spark discharge petition clash with Johnson
They're just looking out for Nancy.
This should be a bipartisan thing that we all should agree on.
If I’m nitpicking, securities owned prior to taking office should not have to be liquidated. The counter-argument is of course that you could craft policy to benefit your pre-existing securities, sure. Assuming the majority of congress also owned that stock and wanted to boost it.
It just strikes me as anti-American that you would have to liquidate an investment you earnestly believe in.
If congressperson Smith bought Amazon stock in 2000 and was forced to liquidate it upon entering congress in 2003 he would and should be irate.
If I’m nitpicking, securities owned prior to taking office should not have to be liquidated. The counter-argument is course that you could craft policy to benefit your pre-existing securities, sure. It just strikes me as anti-American that you would have to liquidate an investment you earnestly believe in.
If congressperson Smith bought Amazon stock in 2000 and was forced to liquidate it upon entering congress in 2003 he would and should be irate.
That's sensible, and I would agree except for one thing: if their investments are that big of a deal, they always have the option of resigning from Congress. So they should do that.
I'd like to see more members of Congress not investing in the stock market, anyway.
@goat why would we want a congress with no stake in the generalized success of the market? There’s a reason the bill excludes index funds, mutual funds, etc. That would be absurd.
A congress full on non-asset owners is not the solution either. Would we really be better off with 535 Tim Walz’s?
@goat why would we want a congress with no stake in the generalized success of the market? There’s a reason the bill excludes index funds, mutual funds, etc. That would be absurd.
A congress full on non-asset owners is not the solution either. Would we really be better off with 535 Tim Walz’s?
For reasons brought up many times, I don't think the stock market reflects economic reality for most people.
Why not an office of congressional fund managers that handle investments in blind trusts. Sure, you might know somewhere you have Nvidea stock. But no idea how much.
If I’m nitpicking, securities owned prior to taking office should not have to be liquidated. The counter-argument is course that you could craft policy to benefit your pre-existing securities, sure. It just strikes me as anti-American that you would have to liquidate an investment you earnestly believe in.
If congressperson Smith bought Amazon stock in 2000 and was forced to liquidate it upon entering congress in 2003 he would and should be irate.
That's sensible, and I would agree except for one thing: if their investments are that big of a deal, they always have the option of resigning from Congress. So they should do that.
I'd like to see more members of Congress not investing in the stock market, anyway.
No, you don't. The only people not investing in the stock market are people who don't have money....aka people not real smart or successful. We already have enough clowns in Congress. This might be the only way to make Congress more unlikable.
Anything they own alresdy should go in blind trusts.If I’m nitpicking, securities owned prior to taking office should not have to be liquidated. The counter-argument is course that you could craft policy to benefit your pre-existing securities, sure. It just strikes me as anti-American that you would have to liquidate an investment you earnestly believe in.
If congressperson Smith bought Amazon stock in 2000 and was forced to liquidate it upon entering congress in 2003 he would and should be irate.
That's sensible, and I would agree except for one thing: if their investments are that big of a deal, they always have the option of resigning from Congress. So they should do that.
I'd like to see more members of Congress not investing in the stock market, anyway.
The only people not investing in the stock market are people who don't have money.
Or maybe they listen to Snarl and have all in Bitcoin.
If I’m nitpicking, securities owned prior to taking office should not have to be liquidated. The counter-argument is of course that you could craft policy to benefit your pre-existing securities, sure. Assuming the majority of congress also owned that stock and wanted to boost it.
It just strikes me as anti-American that you would have to liquidate an investment you earnestly believe in.
If congressperson Smith bought Amazon stock in 2000 and was forced to liquidate it upon entering congress in 2003 he would and should be irate.
they can get exposure via funds and ETFs. There is no reason to allow them to hold individual securities to which their policies can influence outcomes.
@jdb Sure, but now they may have huge gains. Allowing them to sell tax free? And could that not dissuade some of our smartest and best from running for office?
The only people not investing in the stock market are people who don't have money.
Or maybe they listen to Snarl and have all in Bitcoin.
Between just you and me. Can you tell me how Democrats vote multiple times? Because I'm gong to need to vote a dozen times for the all in Bitcoin politician.