Pelosi with another W - congressional stock ban bill won't come up for a vote

[Professor Emeritus]

So Pelosi stalled for months and said she was against the Congressional stock ban, then did a fake about-face and said she would support it, then refused to support either of the already-proposed bills which both have plenty of bipartisan support, then put a Congresswoman who is against the whole thing in charge of drafting the bill, then claimed the negotiations were going well and the bill would come up for a vote, and now is saying there's just not enough time....which is entirely a product of her ensuring there would not be enough time.

The effort to ban members of Congress from trading stocks is mostly dead — at least for now

Both top lawmakers and the most dogged advocates of stock ban legislation seem to agree — Congress has run out of time to strengthen ethics.

news.yahoo.com

The effort to ban members of Congress from trading stocks is mostly dead — at least for now | Business Insider India

Politics Insider Article and News

www.businessinsider.in

And what's wild is even the bill that Pelosi isn't going to put to vote was weak as fukk. Look at the list here:

Pelosi’s Stock Ban Bill Isn’t Just Weak, It’s Dangerous

House Democrats made a point of criticizing Trump’s assault on government ethics, so it’s maddening to see their leadership adopting his most notorious ethics dodge just a few years later.

time.com

1. Would replace the government's strict rules for what constitutes a blind trust with weak-ass rules that would allow fake blind trusts like the one Trump had when he was president.

2. Would allow each branch of government to set their own rules for blind trusts, including the ability to refuse to disclose the contents.

3. Would allow ethics offices to waive penalties for violations due to "extraordinary circumstances."

4. Allows investment in "diversified" assets, without defining diversified (so, for example, officials with secret information or policy power over Covid would likely still be able to dump money into targeted medical or tech funds just so long as they didn't buy individual stocks).

5. Would allow government officials to hold banned assets if they receive them via gift.

6. Automatically defers capital gains taxes.




This is why Democrats have such weak support compared to their demographic numbers. No one believes they're the party of the working class/poor anymore. Too many of the corporate dems in power are just rich a$$holes who are grateful the other rich party is even bigger a$$holes.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Speaker Pelosi, an 82yo white woman with a net worth around $170 million: "We have a free market economy; they should be able to participate in that."

Pelosi bought and sold somewhere between $30-$80 million in individual stocks in the last two years alone, including trades in Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Tesla, Apple, Disney, Paypal, Salesforce, Roblox, American Express, Micron Technology, and Microsoft. One well-timed Google sale alone netted her $5.3 million in profits.



Congresswoman Lofgren, a 74yo white woman with a net worth upwards of $5 million: "Should we require members of Congress to sell their homes?"

Within the last two years, Lofgren traded stocks in Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Gilead Sciences, Merck, AbbVie, Walgreens, Qualcomm, Applied Materials, and Intel, despite sitting on Judiciary committees which were proposing bills on prescription drug costs, internet restrictions, and technology.



Walter Shaub, former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics under Obama:

"Lofgren drafted the bill for Pelosi in relative isolation, by all accounts excluding the Democrats who most vigorously supported a ban and all Republicans. The reason for this partial secrecy became clear when her committee released the text of the bill late Tuesday night: The bill is terrible.

I am horrified by what it could do to the executive branch ethics program I once led. This bill would weaken conflict of interest and transparency laws in the federal government. Whether that effect is immediate or delayed, it would be inevitable. Although I have passionately advocated for a congressional stock ban, Pelosi’s bill would leave the nation worse off than we are now."

 

[Tair]

An uninformed electorate, greedy politicians, and power hungry corporations. Modern America.

 

[CrimsonTider]

Speaker Pelosi, an 82yo white woman with a net worth around $170 million: "We have a free market economy; they should be able to participate in that."

Pelosi bought and sold somewhere between $30-$80 million in individual stocks in the last two years alone, including trades in Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Tesla, Apple, Disney, Paypal, Salesforce, Roblox, American Express, Micron Technology, and Microsoft. One well-timed Google sale alone netted her $5.3 million in profits.



Congresswoman Lofgren, a 74yo white woman with a net worth upwards of $5 million: "Should we require members of Congress to sell their homes?"

Within the last two years, Lofgren traded stocks in Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Gilead Sciences, Merck, AbbVie, Walgreens, Qualcomm, Applied Materials, and Intel, despite sitting on Judiciary committees which were proposing bills on prescription drug costs, internet restrictions, and technology.



Walter Shaub, former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics under Obama:

"Lofgren drafted the bill for Pelosi in relative isolation, by all accounts excluding the Democrats who most vigorously supported a ban and all Republicans. The reason for this partial secrecy became clear when her committee released the text of the bill late Tuesday night: The bill is terrible.

I am horrified by what it could do to the executive branch ethics program I once led. This bill would weaken conflict of interest and transparency laws in the federal government. Whether that effect is immediate or delayed, it would be inevitable. Although I have passionately advocated for a congressional stock ban, Pelosi’s bill would leave the nation worse off than we are now."

Did Nancy Pelosi buy these stocks?

These are just SP500 companies. It’s not like it’s pump and dumps.

 

[Pressure]

Meh, ts fun to make her the bogey woman but the article states the senate never produced a product:

But the Senate group never produced a product, punting the potential introduction of legislation toward the lame-duck period as the House teed up — and then promptly aborted — a vote on a bill drafted by Administration Committee Chair Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California that contained a massive loophole and was written without the input of members who'd been pushing the idea for months.

Hoyer admits he killed it in the house:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who's tasked with setting the floor schedule for the House, pointed to those legislative efforts as he threw cold water on the idea of passing a stock trading ban.

"We've got to get these important pieces of legislation done, and we only have two weeks, or three weeks, left to go," he told Insider during a briefing with reporters last week.

And he reiterated his belief that the legislation was unnecessary, pointing to the current disclosures mandated by the STOCK Act and the fact that blatant insider trading is already illegal.

"There are a lot of members who want to go further on that," he said. "I'm not one of those, necessarily."

There is bipartisan support, but bipartisan doesn't mean there's a lot of folks who support it. Just means at least one dem and one republican supports it.

They can take it up in January in the new congress. It won't have much affect between now and then anyway.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Did Nancy Pelosi buy these stocks?

I believe she claims "her husband" buys the stocks and they don't talk about it. It's no more believable than when Trump claimed his sons were running the company and didn't share anything with him.

These are just SP500 companies. It’s not like it’s pump and dumps.

If you're the fukking Speaker of the House you don't need to pump and dump shytty stocks, you have access to info and policy levers that affect big corps like that.

There were several instances where the Pelosis sold millions of stocks just days before major House announcements that were predicted to affect their price.

 

[CrimsonTider]

I believe she claims "her husband" buys the stocks and they don't talk about it. It's no more believable than when Trump claimed his sons were running the company and didn't share anything with him.





If you're the fukking Speaker of the House you don't need to pump and dump shytty stocks, you have access to info and policy levers that affect big corps like that.

There were several instances where the Pelosis sold millions of stocks just days before major House announcements that were predicted to affect their price.

All this commotion starting 2020 and 2021 where the SP500 Had 19% and 29% return

where are all the people complaining Pelosi is making money from inside Knowledge in 2022 when the SP is down 14% YTD

Paul Pelosi runs a VC firm.

 

[ill]

All this commotion starting 2020 and 2021 where the SP500 Had 19% and 29% return

where are all the people complaining Pelosi is making money from inside Knowledge in 2022 when the SP is down 14% YTD

Paul Pelosi runs a VC firm.

Pelosi's husband bought up Tesla shares/options before his wife introduced an infrastructure bill that heavily favored EV. Thats just one example. Its really not alright to front-run the public market like that. What she's doing is legalized insider trading and it should end immediately.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

All this commotion starting 2020 and 2021 where the SP500 Had 19% and 29% return

where are all the people complaining Pelosi is making money from inside Knowledge in 2022 when the SP is down 14% YTD

Bullshyt, she's been involved in conflict-of-interest trades for over a decade. The noise just resurfaced because she became Speaker of the House again in 2019, she had been out of power since 2011.

Pelosi fires back at '60 Minutes' report on 'soft corruption' | CNN Politics

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi fired back Sunday at a CBS News' report that highlighted several instances of what it suggested could be "soft corruption."

edition.cnn.com

No one has said her totals for 2022 because the 2022 disclosures haven't been completed, the year isn't even over yet.

Paul Pelosi runs a VC firm.

This is just as stupid an excuse as saying "Well the Trump family runs a real estate firm so who cares if they rent out rooms at high prices to foreign officials" or "Well Ginny Thomas is a political activist so who cares if she's lobbying on cases that her husband will then rule on?"

It's a conflict of interest for Trump, it's a conflict of interest for Thomas, and it's a conflict of interest for Pelosi. Congress shouldn't be able to buy and sell stocks that will be directly impacted by their legislative choices. It's the most basic fukking anti-corruption principle but some of y'all are so fukking subservient to rich Dems that you can't even admit that much.

The vast majority of the American public is agreed on this in every poll on the issue. The Pelosis will have more money than they can spend in their lifetimes even if they never own another stock. The fact that you're carrying the water for some of the richest politicians in America is gross.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Meh, ts fun to make her the bogey woman but the article states the senate never produced a product:

There were two bills sponsored in the House, one of which had 70+ cosponsors and the other which was cosponsored multiple reps and senators from both parties. She refused to bring either to a vote and then designated a congresswoman to write her version who was already on the record as not being in support of the ban at all.

There is bipartisan support, but bipartisan doesn't mean there's a lot of folks who support it. Just means at least one dem and one republican supports it.

What kind of bullshyt fake insinuation is this? One bill was sponsored by 71 representatives (59 dems and 12 republicans) the other was sponsored by 17 dems and 3 republicans. And it would have been a solid election issue for a ton of congressmen, public support was over 67%. There was clearly movement for this shyt on both sides of the aisle.

 

[CrimsonTider]

Pelosi's husband bought up Tesla shares/options before his wife introduced an infrastructure bill that heavily favored EV. Thats just one example. Its really not alright to front-run the public market like that. What she's doing is legalized insider trading and it should end immediately.

When was this?

Bullshyt, she's been involved in conflict-of-interest trades for over a decade. The noise just resurfaced because she became Speaker of the House again in 2019, she had been out of power since 2011.

Pelosi fires back at '60 Minutes' report on 'soft corruption' | CNN Politics

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi fired back Sunday at a CBS News' report that highlighted several instances of what it suggested could be "soft corruption."

edition.cnn.com

No one has said her totals for 2022 because the 2022 disclosures haven't been completed, the year isn't even over yet.







This is just as stupid an excuse as saying "Well the Trump family runs a real estate firm so who cares if they rent out rooms at high prices to foreign officials" or "Well Ginny Thomas is a political activist so who cares if she's lobbying on cases that her husband will then rule on?"

It's a conflict of interest for Trump, it's a conflict of interest for Thomas, and it's a conflict of interest for Pelosi. Congress shouldn't be able to buy and sell stocks that will be directly impacted by their legislative choices. It's the most basic fukking anti-corruption principle but some of y'all are so fukking subservient to rich Dems that you can't even admit that much.

The vast majority of the American public is agreed on this in every poll on the issue. The Pelosis will have more money than they can spend in their lifetimes even if they never own another stock. The fact that you're carrying the water for some of the richest politicians in America is gross.

That article cites that PAUL PELOSI bought Visa at its IPO price and sold it two days later.

Where the soft corruption in that

 

[Pressure]

There were two bills sponsored in the House, she refused to bring either to a vote. One of those two was cosponsored by powerful senators.

Stop. You know they aren't brining up bills to vote if they don't have a tentative agreement in the senate unless they're being performative.

None of that counters the fact that there is no bill due to what looks like a high level of bipartisan apathy / push back against an substantive legislation to fully block legislators from trading stops.

The criticism, which holds, is your framing that this is some unilateral action taken by pelosi is click bait.

No one has said her totals for 2022 because the 2022 disclosures haven't been completed, the year isn't even over yet.

Don't they have 45 days to submit trades?anyway you can track much of it pretty easily if you care to

Senate Stock Trade Disclosures

Realtime feed of of stock trades filed as part of federal financial disclosure requirements.

sec.report

What kind of bullshyt fake insinuation is this? One bill as sponsored by 71 representatives (59 dems and 12 republicans) the other was sponsored by 17 dems and 3 republicans. And it would have been a solid election issue for a ton of congressmen, public support was over 67%. There was clearly movement for this shyt on both sides of the aisle.

There is no insinuation. My statement was clear, there aren't that many legislators who view it as a priority which is why it has been put on the back burner for more pressing issues.

20% is your movement.. Wow sweeping

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That article cites that PAUL PELOSI bought Visa at its IPO price and sold it two days later.

He didn't sell the stocks, he not only kept them but bought more and more. So now you're openly lying to defend your multimillionaire masters?

In fact, Pelosi bought more. Much more. Pelosi bought in two more tranches, her financial disclosure records show. As her office released today, those were on March 25, 2008 (10,000 shares at $64) and on June 4 (5,000 shares at $86). Pelosi ended up with nearly $1.3 million in shares at an average cost of $64.50.

Where the soft corruption in that

The soft corruption is that they had massive holdings in Visa at the same time that Pelosi was considering bills that would directly impact Visa. In the end, the House passed a version of the bill that didn't hurt Visa's price at all, helping lead to the situation where that stock has doubled multiple times since she bought it despite the fact that we've had two recessions since then, bringing her massive profits that she wouldn't have if Visa had been hit with harder regulations.


And Visa was directly lobbying Congress including meeting with Pelosi directly and contributing to her accounts just before she made those stock purchases.


In 2007, Visa used an army of lobbyists to try to influence Pelosi, including one of her former advisers, Dean Aguillen, Newsweek reports. Aguillen left Pelosi's office to work for the lobbying firm Ogilvy. By law, he could not lobby Pelosi's office directly, but he did lobby Congress on the credit card issue and offered advice to other lobbyists on that particular mission.

In addition to exploiting the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms, Visa's political action committee made a $1,000 donation to Pelosi's re-election campaign, Newsweek reports (Visa headquarters is in Pelosi's home district). Two days after that donation was made, Pelosi met with Visa executives in her office. Aguillen also contributed $1,000 to Pelosi and another $1,000 to the campaign arm of the House Democratic caucus in the first half of 2008.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Stop. You know they aren't brining up bills to vote if they don't have a tentative agreement in the senate unless they're being performative.

Again, Pelosi REFUSED to consider either of the bills that House Dems had written, so there couldn't be any "tentative agreement in the Senate". The only bill that was even up for negotiation was the bullshyt bill her lackey wrote.

How can the Senate make an agreement with the House when the Speaker of the House has already refused to consider the bills?

Not to mention that, at best, you're pointing out that corporate dems in the Senate are as bad as corporate Dems in the House.

Don't they have 45 days to submit trades?anyway you can track much of it pretty easily if you care to

Senate Stock Trade Disclosures

Realtime feed of of stock trades filed as part of federal financial disclosure requirements.

sec.report

They violate that provision constantly, and we're months away from being 45 days from the end of 2022 so you're not going to have a year's total anyway. Not to mention this is just a random red herring, if you have proof Pelosi lost a bunch of money in 2022 then just say so, but I'm not sure how that helps your argument at all.

Congress and top Capitol Hill staff have violated the STOCK Act hundreds of times. But the consequences are minimal, inconsistent, and not recorded publicly.​

Congress and top Capitol Hill staff have violated the STOCK Act hundreds of times. But the consequences are minimal, inconsistent, and not recorded publicly.

Most lawmakers who've broken the conflict-of-interest law refused to prove that they've paid their fines.

www.businessinsider.in

What kind of bullshyt fake insinuation is this? One bill as sponsored by 71 representatives (59 dems and 12 republicans) the other was sponsored by 17 dems and 3 republicans. And it would have been a solid election issue for a ton of congressmen, public support was over 67%. There was clearly movement for this shyt on both sides of the aisle.

There is no insinuation. My statement was clear, there aren't that many legislators who view it as a priority which is why it has been put on the back burner for more pressing issues.

20% is your movement.. Wow sweeping

You went from saying, "Maybe it's just one of each" to now saying, "nearly 100 co-sponsors combined on the issue is nothing".

Having 71 co-sponsors on a single bill is a HUGE number. How many bills have been proposed all year with that many co-sponsors without coming to a vote?

 

[Pressure]

They violate that provision constantly, and we're months away from being 45 days from the end of 2022 so you're not going to have a year's total anyway. Not to mention this is just a random red herring, if you have proof Pelosi lost a bunch of money in 2022 then just say so, but I'm not sure how that helps your argument at all.

I think it's on yo to show that. Based on the data she seems to be pretty good about reporting her transactions. The one mentioned in this thread regarding tesla was filed within 4 days. See the attached image.

Regardless, the plumline on whether or not she engaged in nefarious behavior isn't judged solely on whether her husband is or is not a good trader (profits and losses). It's whether or not his behavior is abnormal and aligns with privileged information.

using tesla calls during its bull run as an example is just bad.

Again, Pelosi REFUSED to consider either of the bills that House Dems had written, so there couldn't be any "tentative agreement in the Senate". The only bill that was even up for negotiation was the bullshyt bill her lackey wrote.

How can the Senate make an agreement with the House when the Speaker of the House has already refused to consider the bills?

Not to mention that, at best, you're pointing out that corporate dems in the Senate are as bad as corporate Dems in the House.






They violate that provision constantly, and we're months away from being 45 days from the end of 2022 so you're not going to have a year's total anyway. Not to mention this is just a random red herring, if you have proof Pelosi lost a bunch of money in 2022 then just say so, but I'm not sure how that helps your argument at all.

Congress and top Capitol Hill staff have violated the STOCK Act hundreds of times. But the consequences are minimal, inconsistent, and not recorded publicly.​

Congress and top Capitol Hill staff have violated the STOCK Act hundreds of times. But the consequences are minimal, inconsistent, and not recorded publicly.

Most lawmakers who've broken the conflict-of-interest law refused to prove that they've paid their fines.

www.businessinsider.in

You went from saying, "Maybe it's just one of each" to now saying, "nearly 100 co-sponsors combined on the issue is nothing".

Having 71 co-sponsors on a single bill is a HUGE number. How many bills have been proposed all year with that many co-sponsors without coming to a vote?

Medicare for All Act - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Long title	To establish an improved Medicare for All national health insurance program.
Announced in	the 117th United States Congress
Number of co-sponsors	121

121 sponsors and no one thinks it had a chance in hell of passing. You're being emotional.