Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban | Hacker News Reader

Pelosi buckles, pushes stock-trading ban

axios.com

69 pointscwwc34 comments

I'm sure we all get the sense that there's probably going to be a big fat loophole somewhere.

I think what might have been wiser is better transparency from politicians and their families.

Either having a real-time trading dashboard that announces all of their trades in real-time, or set a requirement for them to pre-announce trades at least 1 day before. "If Apple's price is below $X tomorrow, then I intend to buy X calls" and make it so that these pre-announced trades are the only action they're allowed to do.

But nothing really tackles the root of the dirty corruption problem so long as the government is involved in essentially picking the winners and losers in the marketplace. That's the real root of the issue that neither side even pretends to address.

they should also make it like US expats have to deal with their foreign bank accounts. don't declare an FBAR appropriately, the US government fines you half the max value of the account (and make it no cap on penalty, unlike FBAR). Don't declare stock trades appropriately, not just that trade is penalized, the entire account or even one's entire portfolio (to avoid having many many different accounts) is penalized.

No doubt, the bigger problem is they shouldn't be able make information trades because they don't have any special information.

At this point, none of them should be able to own individual stocks. I would even ban them from owning sector ETFs. Broad index funds/bond funds, etc..a selection that looks like many of the average person's 401k choices.

Being in power is not supposed to be your best career option and the best way you can possibly make money. That is practically the opposite meaning of civic virtue.

Of course, I know this is all fantasy land stuff. I think systemically we have just hit that time decay before expiration that things start going down faster and faster.

The main issue with corruption in politics has little directly to do with stock trading. The main issue is access.

Companies give donations based on access. Companies give jobs after politicians are finished with their political careers so that they can have process SMEs who have access to the sitting group of politicians and their political parties.

Stock trading isn't a bump on a frog's ass comparatively. I'm not saying they shouldn't ban it for people in Congress. I'm saying that if it's corruption you're looking to stamp out, then politicians should be forced to use ONLY public funding for political campaigns AND be banned from holding lobbying or lobbyist-adjacent positions for 6 years after leaving Congress.

I'd go further and say once you've been a politician at a certain level, you should be banned from being in politics for the rest of your life. Why? Because if a person's total purpose in life is to be a politician, IMO they will eventually be a bad / corrupt one. If a person goes into with "here's my attempt to make things better for 4 years", great. But that's all you get.

I'd also ban the next 2 generations in the family from going into politics. If grandpa did it, you can't, and you can't benefit from his connections. It's not like we are talking about a lot of people.

The main issue in politics IMO is that greed is a human characteristics that we aren't likely to soon be rid of.

I've always wondered about using a lottery system for public service, other than jury selection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

This is a terrible proposal whose immediate and obvious effect would be to worsen corruption. No rational human being could believe that making sure power can only be wielded by the naive and weak-willed, while banning lifelong public servants, will somehow shield it from manipulation.

You effectively want to set up a Fellowship of only Hobbits, and expect them to stand up to Sauron without the assistance of the elves or humans or Gandalf.

> The main issue is access.

Access isn't the root problem though: ask yourself why anybody wants to pay money to speak to those charlatans.

The root problem is that the politicians can control who the winners and losers are. So long as that variable exists, any attempt to stamp out corruption is like trying to drain water out of a bathtub with a bucket that has a hole in it.

> politicians should be forced to use ONLY public funding for political campaigns

Maybe there's a good answer to this, but this sounds like a way to ensure that the Democrat/Republican duopoly continues indefinitely. Certainly Greens, Libertarians, and others are going to qualify for public funding in exactly the same way as they qualify for debate appearances.

Might be a power play for shows only, a cunning strategy by politicians for PR purposes

I know the argument against term limits is that it puts power into shodow structures of the government, but man oh man regardless of what side you are on I think that everyone has been in power too long.

Time will inevitably put these long serving boomers in the grave. I have a hard time thinking the next generation, growing up in a more multicultural, tougher (economically), progressive time will share the same values.

>I have a hard time thinking the next generation, growing up in a more multicultural, tougher (economically), progressive time will share the same values.

I think you're forgetting these were the free love dope smoking hippies. People's values change as they get older.

The only reason she would back this is if:

a) there are giant loopholes

b) it doesn't ban her husband from buying individual stocks

c) she knows there is no way this passes

It appears she doesn't back/support it. From another article:

"I just don't buy into it, but if members want to do that I'm OK with that," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference.

Source? Because the Axios article says she changed her tune on supporting a ban. If the quote is from a year ago maybe it’s no longer accurate.

January 20th from npr. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074387320/pelosi-opens-the-d...

To be honest I just googled and clicked the first recent result because I was curious if this was a backtrack or she's just putting it up. It seems like the Axios article is conflating her not blocking it with her supporting it. I don't see any quotes from her saying she supports it.

Recent news articles are stating: "Nancy Pelosi's challenger in California thinks putting the House speaker on blast for supporting congressional stock trading might finally pay dividends for him in his third attempt at unseating the long-term lawmaker."[0]

She is possibly flipping on her decision now to keep her seat. If her husband Paul Pelosi[1] (an investment manager) can continue to trade, this ban will do nothing to her.

[0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-challenger-shah...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Pelosi

We know from the bill text that it does ban spouses from trading individual stocks. You forgot a fourth reason, which is probably the actual reason, that not supporting it could make her lose her position as speaker and prevent her from holding leadership positions in her party.

She's in her 80s. She's got maybe one more congressional term in her.

I dunno, with remote work and all, maybe she'll be Speaker from a nursing home. Any rule against that? Can a person be Speaker over Zoom? /s

You should be aware that she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough.

Some suggestions of "she would only backoff because of ..." don't take that into account.

She's not rich because of stock trading. He/she was already plenty of rich/successful before anything happened that people now accuse her of.

Like: they already had plenty of successful investments before Pelozi even went into politics.

That's a really important variable to take into consideration.

> she also worked for politics a long time unpaid ( 20 years) because of her husband, who was earning enough.

Who here is naive enough to think her politics and her husband's work are entirely unrelated?

The synergies for the two are way too lucrative to pass up for almost anyone (which is why so many legislators invest in things they are legislating).

She was the first woman and definitely one of the few in many posts.

She wouldn't have ranked that hard without hard effort/ethic and I'm pretty sure she ( as a woman at that time) would encounter a "snear campaign" pretty early on if you're insinuations are true during her entire political career.

I do not know how it is now or have an indication of it. But the fact remains that eg. Her husband was already successful and didn't need Nancy to be successful either. She's without a doubt a very smart and successful woman on her own.

It's pretty rude to set aside all those accomplishments during many decades with simple and unsure accusations.

Additionally, I'm 100% sure the opposing side in politics would use any knowledge about Pelosi to their benefit if it was true. After all their shit that came out, the fact remains I haven't seen much (any?) facts discrediting Pelosi.

There was a time, not long ago, that more proof was needed than just yelling "lock her up" and blind faith.

https://www.womenofthehall.org/inductee/nancy-pelosi/

Innocent till proven guilty seems to be appropriate here, not the other way around.

Pelosis (as many of her colleagues in both parties) are guilty of essentially doing insider trading. The fact is that it's not currently illegal.

These guys work for us not the other way around.

Pelosi Insider trading: opinion/suspicion or fact? If so, please provide source.

Fyi, the possibility for trading stocks does not mean insider trading. A lot of people trade stocks and this would be the first "job" to make it illegal.

What should be done is improving transparency and accountability. Not the witch hunt you are proposing.

And i mean a real check/punishment on insider trading+family. Not the weak enforcement that is going on now, which is the real problem.

It's not my job to reveal what's well known.

There are several ways for heads of large companies or states (which she presumably is as she's 2 steps removed from being President) to divorce themselves of direct control.

One is a blind trust which executes trades without the direct involvement of it's beneficiary. 2nd is execution of trade schedules (e.g. CEO sells company stock on a schedule to prevent appearance of timing his/her sales).

You and I agree on what needs to happen. Pelosi is only part of the problem but she happens to be the most powerful person in government whose spouse trades stock. Justice Clarence Thomas's wife and her lobbying cash moves are equally as corrupt.

I agree that the "checks and balances" need to be improved and definitely the follow-up/prosecution on that, for sure!

BUT, as someone who has a 100% yoy stock gain since 2017 ( I started with a small amount to experiment fyi). I would be very reluctant to say "insider trading" instead of "common sense".

I think "the public opinion" would be very suggestive against me concerning "insider trading", if I would be in politics.

I also wouldn't go in politics if someone else decided "picking stocks" for me. There are certain risks I'm easily willing to take, because ( I think) I have some knowledge of that sector ( yes, tech) and that isn't easily transfered to a 3rd party.

I hope we can agree on that too.

Wonder what loop hole they'll leave.

Prob doesn't matter to her, she's already got her millions.

There is a point in the article her husband is a heavy trader. When I read that, my first thought was unless they ban spouses from trading as well, it seems like that's what will happen since the majority are married.

If not the husband, then the kids. If not the kids, then the cousins. If not the family, then the lawyers. etc etc etc.

> publish the trades of politicians and Fed officials online every evening

Just like banning trading, this will be circumvented by family/business proxies doing the trades. Including potential family proxies, in the public accounting, would probably be the most effective move to motivate ethical behavior. At least put some risk in the form of the relationship to the business partners, given the vast amounts of money flowing.

It won’t pass.

People love to target Pelosi for her and her husband’s trading, but she’s far from the only one.

Still good press though right?

So, we have to hope that those in power will effectively regulate themselves? Like Apple and Microsoft and Google and FaceBook, etc can effectively regulate themselves? The point is there is simply no accountability for those in power because there is no sacrifice needed in order to gain that power. Gaining political power is 100% a financial move these days, and has nothing to do with passing legislation that is "by the People, of the People and for the People".

The only solution to any of this is if attaining political office comes with some sort of life-altering consequence. You get a seat in Congress? You have to live as a hermit and abandon all your wealth for good. Political action becomes the ultimate sacrifice, like Italo Calvino positied: http://www.ruanyifeng.com/calvino/2008/12/beheading_the_head...

(This was really just a comment to post this story)

I could swear I remember this exact thing happening a few years ago. They silently repealed it a few years after the dust settled. I can't find any reference to it though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com