House Bill Banning Congressional Insider Trading Gathering Steam—From 4 Cosponsors to 35 in 2 Days

Finally some good news coming from DC that I can actually support

Prior to the release of Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster book, Throw Them All Out, legislative efforts to pass a bill banning insider trading by members of Congress had floundered.

But all that is changing—and fast.

Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN) says that before the 60 Minutes report on Schweizer’s book, his STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, H.R. 1148, had only garnered four cosponsors in Congress since he and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) re-introduced the legislation on March 18, 2011.

In the two days since the 60 Minutes program aired, Walz says the number of House members supporting the bill has shot up to thirty-five, and climbing.

This is what journalism and reporting is supposed to be about. Spread the blame and point the fingers at any and all involved regardless of party line. Unfortunately, I guess it took two scathing books to get the media to actually open their eyes wide enough to see what we've been talking about for years.

Keep this information in the headlines

This legislation was first introduced in 2006 and went nowhere!! Imagine if it had passed then, where we would be right now? I know Pelosi would be worth far less than she is now.

Congressman Walz says the 60 Minutes report on Throw Them All Out is making all the difference.

“If you didn’t think Congress’ approval rating can go any lower than 9 percent, have them watch the 60 Minutes story,” he told the Mankato Free Press. “And that’s a problem.”

GOOD STUFF!!
biggovernment.com...

Great, though it makes me wonder what other stuff they'd hurry up to stop doing if it was aired on national television. This has been going on for how long, and only NOW, after it's been exposed do they care to do anything about it? Shameful!

However, I would argue that Pelosi couldn't be worth any less than she all ready is.

This is good news, but let's not be fooled. They are only covering their posteriors for re-election. And who is going to police them? They are above the law anyway. Even thougha law passes, they will contravene it the way they do most laws. I believe there was a supreme law stating that "All men are created equal" yet the politicians regularly pass laws that do not apply to them - the healthcare law being a recent one.

Hooey! They still ALL need to be thrown out.

And I agree with others, Pelosi is already worthless!!!

reply to post by tjack


Congressman Walz has been trying to push this since 2006 and reintroduced again back in March of 2011. He and others knew there was a problem. However, it would seem that the crony power structure of DC has been working overtime in recent years. Wealth is tough thing to lose for those whose only career structure lies in DC.

Originally posted by kozmo
This is good news, but let's not be fooled. They are only covering their posteriors for re-election. And who is going to police them? They are above the law anyway. Even thougha law passes, they will contravene it the way they do most laws. I believe there was a supreme law stating that "All men are created equal" yet the politicians regularly pass laws that do not apply to them - the healthcare law being a recent one.

Hooey! They still ALL need to be thrown out.

And I agree with others, Pelosi is already worthless!!!

I would love to see some serious reform on Capital Hill. Strict term limits should be the first step in returning Congress back to the people that it is supposed to represent. Two terms consecutive or split nothing more. Fresh ideas, and fresh voices that speak for US.

Good to see you back on the boards!

I'm going to buy a copy of Schweizer's book, because I want to vote for him writing a next one. This one did some good! Maybe the next one will be about their pensions & healthcare...

Kudos to 60 minutes indeed. Even though this bill will not pass, a small victory to waking up some of the people that while they are having their jobs shipped to China, congress is making millions on their plight and then flying around on private 737 jets paid for by the people who lost their jobs.

reply to post by jibeho

I would love to see some serious reform on Capital Hill. Strict term limits should be the first step in returning Congress back to the people that it is supposed to represent. Two terms consecutive or split nothing more. Fresh ideas, and fresh voices that speak for US.

Hear, hear! I second that motion! Term limits, first order of business. Now that is Change You Can Believe In!

There is a semi-powerful radio talk show host who always shoots down the idea of term limits by saying We already have term limits! they are called elections! To him I merely point to Nancy Pelosi as a rebuttal.

Keep this train chugging as well. Kill the ability for Congresspeople to get rich on insider trading. This is why all accounts held by Members of Congress be heavily scrutinized and regulated!

Nice I didn't see this, finally a thread I can agree with you about OP
Looks like my rep will be hearing from me twice today lol.

UPDATE!!

The Bill now stands with 141 Co-Sponsors. Let's keep rolling!!

www.govtrack.us...

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar
Kudos to 60 minutes indeed. Even though this bill will not pass, a small victory to waking up some of the people that while they are having their jobs shipped to China, congress is making millions on their plight and then flying around on private 737 jets paid for by the people who lost their jobs.

Who would vote against it?

BTW, what took 60 minutes so long to expose this mess?

The more I look into this Bill the more I find just more of the same as well as a Kiss of Death from Nancy Pelosi. If she likes it, it's got to be full of loopholes that would clear her and her questionable stock dealings. Apparently, it does not go far enough to be effective in its current form

As for the official language used in the eventual bill, Rep. Pelosi said, “I’m sure they’ll come up with something that removes all doubt that this is something that is acceptable within the Congress, and when they do, to me it seems like it would fly through Congress.”

However, a closer look at the loophole-ridden language of the bill under consideration, says Peter Schweizer, reveals the need for several additional provisions not presently included in the STOCK Act.

First, political candidates and members of Congress should commit to placing their assets in a blind trust, says Schweizer. While many members of Congress do this voluntarily, most don’t. Whether through law or public pressure, says Schweizer, elected officials should reduce the appearance of a conflict of interest by establishing a blind trust.

Second, Schweizer says the bill must protect the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) from budgetary or personal retaliation by the Congress for investigating its members.

Third, an effective bill must prohibit members of Congress and their staffs from passing along private information to family members, friends, or associates that could aid them in making lucrative stock purchases. That, says Schweizer, is not clearly codified in the existing legislation under consideration.

Finally, members of Congress should be required to provide greater transparency about their investments by publicly posting their stock trades within 48 hours of making them. As the New York Post noted yesterday, currently “the bills contain lawyerly loopholes, including a 90-day grace period on reporting stock trades and a narrow limit on trading proscriptions, making them applicable only to ‘pending or prospective legislative action’ involving the issuer of the securities.”

biggovernment.com...

What a disappointment. Share this info. with whoever you can to put the pressure on ensuring that the proper language and provisions are included in this bill.

reply to post by jibeho


Just pass it now and fix it later. At least we know about it.

US congressmen will have to find a new way to - cash in - when they go to Washington DC.

Banning it will do nothing. The SEC would have to prosecute any violations. And the SEC's budget is wholly dependant on congressional approval and whims. They start prosecuting and all of a sudden we can't afford to pay you...sorry.