Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cktk9 t1_j5v8v2p wrote

A few thoughts

  • Fuck Josh Hawley
  • Fuck Josh Hawley especially for the name of the bill - Pelosi is one of many
  • I love the concept of banning congress from owning stock
  • I am suspicious as fuck about the actual wording/intention of the bill/what else is in it
30

DebbieDunnbbar t1_j5xb6im wrote

>Fuck Josh Hawley especially for the name of the bill - Pelosi is one of many

Why? Yes, Pelosi is one of many politician inside traders, but she was third in line to be president and the third most powerful politician in the country (arguably second since the VP is a figurehead) for like a zillion years. Her insider trading is much more egregious than some nobody Congressman from Idaho. She had much more control over what legislation gets pushed and voted on and how it affected the market. And if there’s a politician who’s made more from insider trading than Pelosi, I’m not aware of it. She absolutely deserves her name on the bill far and above anyone else.

The name on the bill is only to point a spotlight at this stuff anyway. It never did and never will have a chance in hell of passing.

4

cktk9 t1_j5xcf93 wrote

It is disingenuous to portray the naming of the bill as anything other than a political swipe at the left.

6

DebbieDunnbbar t1_j5xdu61 wrote

Um, dude, maybe it should be political against Pelosi considering she was the second most powerful politician in the US and might be the most prolific inside trader in American history.

There’s no reality where a bill like this can pass right now regardless of how it’s named. Even if Hawley’s motives are shitty, bringing more attention to this issue is nothing but a good thing and is the only way something can ever be done about it someday.

1

turbulance4 OP t1_j5vd7fl wrote

> I am suspicious as fuck about the actual wording/intention of the bill/what else is in it

You can find the actual text of the bill with a simple google if you are interested in reading.

−1

pssssn t1_j5vgpys wrote

Googling this, thought this was interesting, the bill Democrats tried to pass to do the same thing back in 2022 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-text-nancy-pelosi-house-democrats-stock-trading-ban-2022-9

Actual text of current bill. Just like most contracts I don't feel like I understand this verbiage correctly enough without interpretation from someone that actually does this for a living. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8990/text

10

turbulance4 OP t1_j5vv8lf wrote

from you first link:

> While the House leadership bill is driven by top Democrats, some notable Republicans have, in principle, supported the idea of a congressional stock ban; Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep.

So he did support it before. Unlike what a few others have implied in this thread. Like u/Lachet

1

Lachet t1_j5vw913 wrote

No implication; I'd heard something along those lines and thought I'd ask. The bill in the article was introduced, but never voted on. Also, the addition of "in principle" does a lot of heavy lifted in that quoted chunk.

5