It’s not even about evidence of illegal actions, she’s a public official and part of her job is to build trust with the public.
It’s not even about evidence of illegal actions, she’s a public official and part of her job is to build trust with the public.
This is why avoiding the appearance of impropriety is almost as important as avoiding impropriety itself. When you do things that people might reasonably mistake for unethical, it contributes to the perception that such unethical behavior is commonplace. That, in turn, might inspire others to actually behave unethically, or alternatively to despair that they live in such a society. Either is socially harmful.
What is unusual about her spouse buying TSLA options? I'd say that the TSLA CEO has been more influential over the TSLA price than any new legislation.
If you don't think this gives rise to the appearance of impropriety, then what precisely does?
The U.S. infrastructure deal was unanimously supported by all members of the house, not just the speaker.
This type of uncertainty/doubt argument can go both ways. Her spouse lost money on that specific option call, so that could also be proof she didn't use her influence.
No it wasn't. By all members with a (D) after the name who she leads, perhaps, and some others, but not all.
> that could also be proof she didn't use her influence
I don't find this a compelling enough argument that it would likely restore the public's lost trust in these institutions.
Which is precisely the point of how illogical it is.
What about reduced regulation of the franchise car dealership model at the federal level?
Those might have a 'lil bit of an effect.
Just because Elon Musk has more power over the stock does not exonerate her from buying potentially massively lucrative options on a stock that she has power to affect. My understanding is she is not under the same restrictions as a CEO would be when trading that ticker, and she also has entirely different incentives than CEO's do. CEO's have the incentive to make the company perform well because their compensation is tied to the share price. Nancy Pelosi in this case has the incentive to rule favorably for Tesla because her options will benefit from it. Those incentives are very very different.