House Passes Bill Banning Insider Trading by Members of Congress

[ElNono]

House Passes Bill Banning Insider Trading by Members of Congress

The 417-to-2 vote came less than three weeks after President Obama demanded such action in his State of the Union address. The Senate approved a similar bill by a vote of 96 to 3 on Feb. 2, but the lopsided votes concealed deep disagreements over the details of the legislation.

[ElNono]

You would think this is an area everybody would agree on...

[Wild Cobra]

House Passes Bill Banning Insider Trading by Members of Congress

The 417-to-2 vote came less than three weeks after President Obama demanded such action in his State of the Union address. The Senate approved a similar bill by a vote of 96 to 3 on Feb. 2, but the lopsided votes concealed deep disagreements over the details of the legislation.

Lopsided vote? WTF? After Obama mentioned it... like he proposed it?

HR 1148 was introduced 3/17/2011 with 285 cosponsors. The democrats don't take action until their godfather asks for it, and come up with S 2038 which is now voted on.

I wonder what Pelosi things is inferior about the republicans bill. Anyway, I like an amendment that Ron Paul attempted, to require congressional member give up retirement if they became lobbyists.

The article says that Pelosi claimed the house version didn't go far enough. The major difference I see is that the house version includes lobbing. the senate version doesn't.

Is it because she has too many barriers if it becomes law to become a lobbyist after she leaves office?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Lopsided vote? WTF? After Obama mentioned it... like he proposed it?HR 1148 was introduced 3/17/2011 with 285 cosponsors. The democrats don't take action until their godfather asks for it, and come up with S 2038 which is now voted on.

I wonder what Pelosi things is inferior about the republicans bill. Anyway, I like an amendment that Ron Paul attempted, to require congressional member give up retirement if they became lobbyists.

The article says that Pelosi claimed the house version didn't go far enough. The major difference I see is that the house version includes lobbing. the senate version doesn't.

Is it because she has too many barriers if it becomes law to become a lobbyist after she leaves office?

so if a president merely mentions something he should not get credit or blame for what was said. Is that what you are implying?

[ElNono]

The major difference I see is that the house version includes lobbing. the senate version doesn't.

From the article:

Democrats said that House Republican leaders had weakened the Senate-passed bill by stripping out a provision that would, for the first time, regulate firms that collect “political intelligence” for hedge funds, mutual funds and other investors. Under the Senate bill, such firms would have to register and report their activities, as lobbyists do.

[Wild Cobra]

so if a president merely mentions something he should not get credit or blame for what was said. Is that what you are implying?

No.

Just that republicans wanted this. It wasn't until the president mentions it that the democrats get in line.

[mercos]

Regardless of who called for it, this legislation was long overdue. It is but a tiny step forward in cleaning up the corruption in congress.

[Wild Cobra]

From the article:

Democrats said that House Republican leaders had weakened the Senate-passed bill by stripping out a provision that would, for the first time, regulate firms that collect “political intelligence” for hedge funds, mutual funds and other investors. Under the Senate bill, such firms would have to register and report their activities, as lobbyists do.

LOL...

Democrats said... LOL...

That's a real knee slapper... Expect me too believe professional liars?

Can I see the amendment/bill text that says that?

[JoeChalupa]

[ElNono]

LOL...

Democrats said... LOL...

Can I see the amendment/bill text that says that?

“That provision raises an awful lot of questions,” Mr. Cantor said Thursday on the House floor. “There is a lot of discussion and debate about who and what would qualify and fall under the suggested language that came from the Senate. That is why we are calling for a study of the issue.”

Better?

You can do your own homework...

[ElNono]

Did you read the article at all? Because you just contradicted your own ass...

[Wild Cobra]

Did you read the article at all? Because you just contradicted your own ass...

Do you believe their assessment of it?

What is the text of the removed regulation, Is it really bad, or are they blowing hot air? If it's so bad, why were there only two NO votes from the democrats?

Get real. Use your head.

[ElNono]

The major difference I see is that the house version includes lobbing. the senate version doesn't.

...stripping out a provision that would, for the first time, regulate firms that collect “political intelligence” for hedge funds, mutual funds and other investors. Under the Senate bill, such firms would have to register and report their activities, as lobbyists do.

“That provision raises an awful lot of questions,” Mr. Cantor said Thursday on the House floor. “There is a lot of discussion and debate about who and what would qualify and fall under the suggested language that came from the Senate. That is why we are calling for a study of the issue.”

So the provision was stripped and replaced by a request for a study...

Get real. Use your head.

[Winehole23]

Congress stonewalls on insider trading investigation:

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/01/...sider-trading/

[boutons_deux]

Congress stonewalls on insider trading investigation:

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/01/...sider-trading/

politicians run for office to get (more) wealthy