General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOpen Secrets ACTION ALERT: STOCK Act Reversal Signed by President
Occupy Wall Street @OccupyWallStNYC
Today, Obama signed into law a reversal of the STOCK Act, letting politicians off hook 4 corrupt financial dealings:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/action-alert-stock-act-reversal-signed.html …
President Obama has just signed a rollback of key transparency provisions of the STOCK Act.
Late Thursday night, as we reported last week, the Senate gutted the disclosure requirements by approving S.716, an act amending the requirements of the 2011 law. The House followed suit the next day, and the president signed the bill minutes ago.
The bill doesn't just eliminate a controversial requirement that personal financial disclosures of tens of thousands of high level federal employees be made publicly accessible online. It also reverses two critical components of the original STOCK act: mandatory electronic filing of PFDs by the president, his cabinet and members of Congress, and the creation of a publicly accessible database.
The elements of the STOCK Act that were removed include:
(Are at the link. Cross-posted from Occupy Underground.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
Baitball Blogger
(52,350 posts)He would have lost the election if the media ran with that quote. I don't believe he said it.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)The poster does appear to have gotten the date wrong. It appears to be from December, not October.
"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.
Read more
delrem
(9,688 posts)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)
progressoid
(53,179 posts)Obama: More Moderate Republican Than Socialist
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080#.UWyyy1eaJ8F
Baitball Blogger
(52,350 posts)Especially when they're president.
Number23
(24,544 posts)"During an interview with Noticias Univision 23, the network's Miami affiliate newscast, Obama pushed back against the accusation made in some corners of south Florida's Cuban-American and Venezuelan communities that he wants to instill a socialist economic system in the U.S. The president said he believes few actually believe that.
"I don't know that there are a lot of Cubans or Venezuelans, Americans who believe that," Obama said. "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080#.UW3X3Fdy23o
Always check things out for yourself around here. Folks are way too free and loose with the truth if they can make it align with what they already think about something.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)MIC=military industrial complex. Eisenhower feared its growing power. Obama embraces it.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)jobs. You could say the military is too big to cut. Obama is in a no win situation as far as the pentagon spending goes.
Also, the military is the employer of last resort with many young people. It's three hots and a cot, and that is better than flipping burgers 20 hours a week.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)you'd see no loss of jobs and improve America.
New bridges, better transit, cleaner energy, cleaner water, better public amenities...and jobs building things that create jobs and revenues and stimulus...and opportunities for people to create their own personal wealth. You know how Republicans love empowering people to become entrepreneurs.
The next brave US President on defense issues is the one the downsizes the Pentagon into a pie-wedge. (and I'm saying that cutting my own throat...my family fortune is mostly MIC.) They're also the one that cuts enlistments and stops spending money on unneeded new equipment 4 generations of technology ahead of everybody else. The Cold War is over. We fucking won. The Innovation War is now. We're losing badly.
Do you know what we could do for science, technology and innovation if we cut the USDoD budget to equal that of 2nd-place China and had to redirect that money to other initiatives? We'd be mining Andromeda by now and taking 2-hour train trips from LA to NYC.
So I ask, which would you rather have: F-22s or continental bullet-trains? Zero dependence on oil due to our 100% hydro, geothermal and solar energy generation or Humvees to be able to fight foreign wars to procure oil? Prosperous peace or deficit-driven war?
alfredo
(60,301 posts)The military contractors were smart in that they placed assets in as many congressional districts as possible. Those aircraft makers could make those bullet trains. Still nothing will happen because Republicans don't want any domestic spending that will make Obama look better.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)First, I don't think the military should ever be viewed as a jobs program. It's an authoritarian model, and it programs its members deeply with that mindset. It's anti-democratic to its core. Also unless we're being threatened by foreign enemies, which these days is mostly because of blowback from our military over-reach, they aren't providing services that benefit the domestic civilian population. And the founders had an excellent understanding that standing armies need wars to fight, and their superiors will find them or create them if they can't find them.
I realize that we would have to get domestic spending past an obstinate opposition (Republicans), so in the short term, we could re-purpose parts of the military to convert our energy infrastructure to decentralized renewables. Chan790 did a great job outlining some of the benefits of re-purposing. I'm not sure how Republicans could stop it. Their constituents would love having their military family members serving stateside on projects that benefit all of us instead of serving abroad risking life and limb for corporate access to natural resources. And if the Republicans don't like it, they can just approve less military spending, win-win.
But my point was that Obama acts more like a Reagan Republican than an Eisenhower Republican. He embraces the military industrial complex. Case in point is this recent article in BusinessWeek, which explains that it was Obama's objection to the military cuts that kept him from embracing the budget sequestration, rather than his objection to so-called entitlement cuts.
Obama’s Budget Rescues the Pentagon
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-10/obamas-budget-rescues-the-pentagon
Jon Carson, a top White House official, replied that the $1.2 trillion sequestration cuts that were part of the fiscal cliff worried him and other officials. Not only the cuts to social programs, but also the cuts to the military budget. “They’re too deep,” he said. Although sequestration was delayed until March 1, those cuts ultimately were not averted. The Pentagon budget will be cut by $500 billion over the next decade (an additional $100 billion in deficit reduction comes from interest savings). While it may have troubled the White House, many Democrats regarded this as a huge gift—military cuts were something many of them desired but few would actually argue for. Sequestration delivered more than they could have imagined.
Guess what? The White House still doesn’t like those cuts. And Obama’s new budget, released today, makes this clear. Although the White House doesn’t advertise this fact in the six-page budget overview it put out this morning, the new budget eliminates nearly all of the cuts that sequestration imposes on the Pentagon.
This was over what I believe were proposed 10% cuts to a military whose already massive budget had more than doubled since 2001.
And in Obama's own words, he referenced Reagan, not Eisenhower, as a transformational figure.
Finally, in this article, "The Role Model: What Obama Sees in Reagan",
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2044712,00.html#ixzz2QeCQQjXL
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted that Obama was reading a Reagan biography, and just to confirm the bond, Obama recently wrote an homage to Reagan for USA Today. "Reagan recognized the American people's hunger for accountability and change," Obama wrote, conferring on Reagan two of his most cherished political slogans.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)experience. It's really a tough spot he is in.
I do like the idea of repurposing of military for domestic development, but if you remember, the republicans don't like any hint of the government going into competition with the private sector. Putting soldiers to work rebuilding our infrastructure would be challenged by Republicans. I could hear them complaining about government taking away private sector jobs.
"The Federal government will not start or carry on any commercial activity to provide a service or product for its own use if such product or service can be procured from private enterprise through ordinary business channels."
--Bureau of the Budget Bulletin 55-4, January 15, 1955
It was Nixon that ended the draft and he knew full well the dangers of a professional military class.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)since my point was about Reagan vs Eisenhower, and this is not related to that. I don't know if you ever got my point about that, but no worries either way, I had my say, you can agree or not.
The 1955 quote you referenced applies only to services or products for the federal government's own use, correct? There are a lot of things that would fall outside of that criteria. And I don't buy it anyway, public is better than private. It's not as growth-driven, not as profit-driven, and it is allowed to design its policies with the public good in mind rather than to maximize profits.
So much for letting the discussion go, lol. Have your final say if you like and have a good one.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)I am not upset over his stand. I'd rather have a Liberal president, but it might be a long time before that can happen. I like Hillary, but she is even more conservative than Obama.
Anything can be seen as for government use, even the repair of a bridge.
NSA developed SELinux and was going to use it and release it to the public, but MS complained and the project was abandoned.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Obama never used those words. You twisted the real words, and intentionally changed the meaning of what was REALLY said.
Pretty fucking lame...
siligut
(12,272 posts)Out of context to suit ones purpose.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
PB
Autumn
(48,962 posts)
disgusted but not surprised.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The STOCK Act, which was passed by Congress a year ago, requires online posting of the personal financial disclosure statements that lawmakers and congressional candidates, the president and vice president, members of the cabinet and high-ranking congressional and executive branch staff file each year. The data is supposed to be made available in machine readable format that is to be ready to download this October.
The law's provision barring insider trading by members of Congress was left intact.
With no hearings or notice to the public or to most members of the body, the Senate voted by unanimous consent to remove both the online disclosure requirement for staff members on the Hill and in executive branch agencies and the creation of a public database containing the information within the reports. Roll Call reports that "neither the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee nor its House counterpart seemed to have specifics on what was in the works."
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/senate-guts-stock-act.html
Of course, it passed by unanimous consent.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s716
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Note that is only delayed but they are changing who is covered. Employees is replaced with officials.
S. 716, which eliminates the requirement in the STOCK Act to make available on official websites the financial disclosure forms of employees of the executive and legislative branches other than the President, the Vice President, Members of and candidates for Congress, and several specified Presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed officers; and delays until January 1, 2014, the date by which systems must be developed that enable public access to financial disclosure forms of covered individuals.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/15/statement-press-secretary-s-716
It doesn't take that long to figure out how to post it on the internet. It didn't take them very long to figure out a way to post that excuse.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)-- Barack Obama, January 21, 2009
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Who boy... that was a good one.
sorefeet
(1,241 posts)They are taking over the God Damned country right before your eyes people. They just blatantly allowed, what is a crime for anyone but them and you can't do a fucking thing about it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Every. Single. Day.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sadly, he isnt on our side.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Or why do you never express any anger for the old white dudes who run the Senate and House? Just curious and definitely asking this time. Not staying silent anymore. It passed by unanimous consent. Not a chance for a veto to stick. Yet all your anger goes to the Pres. Kinda strange, that. For that matter, it's strange that Open Secrets held onto this until it went to Obama. Didn't matter when all those old white dudes passed it but it matters when the black Pres has to sign their fucking bullshit, right?
Exactly how open IS Open Secrets anyway?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)That is where the speaker asks for unanimous consent to pass the bill in a empty house and no matter what it passes...unless someone is there to say a forum is not present and asks for the vote...that is done every single day and if you miss it it gets passed with no one even noticing it...but it sure sound like they all voted for it don't it?
The fucking system is corrupt...when will we ever learn that?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Then the process you described took place. The result is the same. Nobody objected. ETA - yes. Corrupted. I wonder how many knew what was being done.
onenote
(46,143 posts)Its not hard to stop a UC from moving. Any Senator can show up and request a quorum call. Second, whether or not a quorum is present, a UC can be blocked by one Senator objecting. And Senators are given advance notice of when a bill is going to be "hotlined" and can even object by simply contacting the Majority Leader's office.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Apparently rationalization is the key to happiness.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)But I know I am wasting my time. I am sick of those that literally worship the president like he is a god.
It's best I put you on ignore. Go preach your absolute devotion to someone else.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)REID. So, don't you try to weasel out of this by acting like you've complained about Reid before. THIS bill is ALL Reid. And yet here you are doing your usual anti-Obama bullshit. There are people here calling him a fucking traitor because of this. When it's REID's bill. Just read the thread. Not ONE person even MENTIONED a lawmaker. Not one. Nope. All the President's fault. I call bullshit when I see it and I see a whole lot of bullshit in this thread.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I think most Democrats would expect Obama to veto this kind of shit. Apparently he did not. So yes, the buck does stop with Obama on this one.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)And I am calling it like it is. That's right. Like it IS.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You completely excuse Obama by way of blaming Reid. Reid and the Congress is corrupt as shit, yes-- I think everyone here would agree.
The only difference is that you're absolving the President of guilt. He signed this-- that makes him every bit as complicit as Reid.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Which personality is called on it is of little importance because it goes way, way, way beyond any one person but they are all adding to and participating in it.
Stuff like this not even the most stalwart makes waves on. Bipartisan and all rowing together with not a single voice in the wilderness warning out, the final line of defense elected by the whole country acts as a rubberstamp on the mess.
The drapes and the carpet only mean so much when the house is in shambles.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)That's an opinion not focused on one black guy. I can appreciate that even as I recognize it includes the black guy. Thank you.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)That all Obama supporters are idol worshippers BS was old the first thousand times you said it.
And the endless repetition ain't making it any younger.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
mimi85
(1,805 posts)don't include me in your "we."
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)than "idol worshippers".
You need some new material.
Marr
(20,317 posts)sorefeet
(1,241 posts)when you need him. This is serious we no longer have a voice.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)He blew the whistle on them and nothing came of it...and nothing will come of this ether
We have a class of people that are to big to prosecute.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)and it makes targeting so much easier.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)You can be the first!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)With all eyes and all MSM focused on Boston no one will even notice it.
midnight
(26,624 posts)Milliesmom
(493 posts)He said he would have been considered a moderate Republican, he did not say he was, give me a break.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)him say that, though. By moderate Republican he means a Reagan Republican. That would have been enough for me. Reagan began the steady decline and destruction of the Middle Class.
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)Yeah,yeah, let the pitchforks fly. I'm fed up & thoroughly disgusted with this liar.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Plenty of competition for that title. I certainly expected more of him, though, based on his campaign rhetoric. Very sad. But Hillary's no better at all, possibly worse, and Jeb is worse too. I so hope we get a real candidate for 2016, our country is on the ropes, being sold out, and our elected reps are facilitating the process.
blm
(114,658 posts)the historic record even mean if you can make a statement like that.
Moostache
(11,179 posts)Ever since that excremental Patriot Act and the hysteria over 9/11 went into effect, our system of "government" has accelerated its own demise. We were already in deep shit by that time, but that seminal event simply forced the accelerator into overdrive. The more and more that these people feel they can exempt themselves from the law, the more and more people will lose respect for the law as a governing principle. We either have slavery or rebellion at the point of critical mass, and neither I nor my children will bend the knee to any plutocratic group of human filth who believe themselves to be above the law or their purchased enforcers...so our fate is sealed at this point.
It's only a race to see which ends our republic first:
- the wanton recklessness of the politicians (unprincipled and unscrupulous bastards with so few exceptions it tortures the soul to even contemplate for very long - not only whores, but cheap, dirty ones in back alleys at that...we're not talking about high-priced escort services here, we are talking about the crack-addicted, no-teeth, victims of pimp violence);
- the craven greed of the "money" that buys the political whores (these idiots are good at one thing - exploiting humanity to enrich themselves, and then moving locust-like to the next field of blood to suck dry; they are in control for now of enormous wealth, but when you are talking about 300-400 families GLOBALLY, then you're talking about a finite number who won't be missed);
- or the imperiled environment being pushed beyond so many tipping points at once that it may simply not make any difference at all 50 years down the road (glaciers disappearing, fisheries collapsing worldwide, honeybees disappearing with alarming swiftness, invasive species, diseases and antibiotic resistant bacteria lining us up for an uncontrollable pandemic, rising sea levels, shifting weather patterns and climate change preparing to go on steroids with methane releases underway and getting worse).
Seriously, I was offended in principle that Obama would offer up senior citizens of my generation onto the altar of fake free market ideology with future cuts and chained CPI; but in reality, I do not think there is a sea-ice chance in July that we ever make it that far anyway. We are re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic at this point and these kinds of "laws" just hammer that point home. (Will be called a "doomer" in 5...4...3...) In the end, it won't really matter. It comes down to the same equation it has for centuries - which side's children will rise up to kill more of their counterparts on the other side - those who are fighting for their lives or those who are being paid to defend someone else's lifestyle?
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)..i have seen on DU...i think we're all frogs and we have no idea just how hot the water already is...
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I read the act the other day. There will still be a database online that's searchable for the financial statements.
randome
(34,845 posts)
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I guess it's too much to ask for that people go to the actual thing instead of taking some editorialized article as fact.
mick063
(2,424 posts)The more inequitable craziness that happens, the more desensitized I get.
This is all working toward the Aristocrat's plans. Our collective desensitization that is. When you are over whelmed with one bad policy after another, you can't prioritize the bad policy to address. All of the President's policy is bad for middle/poor America. All of it and I don't know where to start. We are past the point of no return. We have been sold like slaves. His Attorney General has already declared that the robber barons are untouchable. He does not "have our backs."
The man has been vilified by the opposition party to historic extreme, yet he panders to them to build "legacy".
Ill conceived visions of Abraham Lincoln dance through his head. His projected self image is delusional as his puppet strings define his "transparency".
I'll tell you what his legacy is.......
The great facilitator of the robber barons. He will always be described in such a manner by me. Forever and ever. I will pass it on to my children and grandchildren. I will finally find a small piece of common ground with my Republican neighbors. There is at least one thing we can agree on.
This is the *final chapter from the book "Animal Farm" as I look through the window and watch them all play poker with our working class' historic productivity. I worked to get this man elected. I contributed money to his campaign. I argued "his" argument.
Now I feel foolish. Now I feel betrayed. This reversal of the Stock Act was the final straw. It only builds my contempt.
What a historically failed Presidency.
*Summary :
Years go by. Only Clover, Benjamin, Moses the raven, and some of the pigs remember the revolution. Animal Farm is more prosperous than ever. The windmill is finished, though instead of producing electricity it’s used to mill flour, and brings in a hefty profit. Although the farm is richer, only the pigs and dogs seem better off. Still, the animals can’t remember any other way of life, and even those that don’t remember the revolution are proud to be free.
Analysis:
The pigs rule Animal Farm as masters, just as Mr. Jones once did. However, they control language and thought on their farm so completely that their animals still consider themselves free citizens.
Summary:
One day Squealer brings the sheep out to a distant field with him and keeps them there for a week. Just after the sheep return, Clover lets out a terrified neigh: Squealer is walking on two legs! All the pigs then walk out of the farmhouse on two legs. Napoleon appears last, carrying a whip.
Analysis:
The pigs’ power is so complete that they now feel free to act exactly like humans. Napoleon’s whip is a symbol of oppression.
Summary:
The animals are silent and seem poised to protest. Just then the sheep begin to bleat “Four legs good, two legs better!” over and over, and the prospect of protest passes.
Analysis:
Once again the animals don’t take their chance to rebel. The pig’s propaganda overpowers them.
Summary:
Clover asks Benjamin to read the Seven Commandments to her. But the wall now only reads, “All Animals Are Equal. But Some Are More Equal Than Others.”
Analysis:
Animalism has been entirely rewritten to benefit the pigs. It now reads like nonsense.
Summary:
The next day, all the pigs start carrying whips and wearing clothes. A week later, they invite humans from nearby farms to look around and stay for dinner at Animal Farm. That night, the animals, led by Clover, sneak up and watch the pigs and humans through the window. Pilkington and Napoleon toast each other. Pilkington says he’s pleased to have their history of mistrust behind them. He expresses admiration that the pigs can feed their animals so little yet get so much work out of them. He adds that pigs and men have similar problems: pigs have lower animals to deal with, while men have lower classes.
Analysis:
The pigs, who once wanted to kill all humans, now seek friendly relations with nearby farmers. Animal Farm suggests that all totalitarian governments are fundamentally the same because their leaders share one goal: to maintain their own power by oppressing and exploiting individuals in particular and the lower classes in general.
Summary:
Napoleon agrees wholeheartedly with Pilkington, and announces plans to eliminate all signs of Animal Farm’s revolutionary past, including its name. From now on it will be called by its original and proper name: Manor Farm.
Analysis:
The similarity of all totalitarian governments is represented by the changing of the farm’s name back to its original name.
Summary:
The men and pigs return to a game of poker and the farm animals turn to leave, but a shout from within stops them. Napoleon and Pilkington have discovered each other cheating at cards. A fight has broken out. In the chaos, the animals can’t tell the pigs from the humans.
Analysis:
In their petty greed, the Animalist and Capitalist leaders are indistinguishable. The animals are back where they started: enslaved by oppressive leaders.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)That sums it up quite nicely.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)And happily so, I'd guess.
The monetary reward will be epic.
jsr
(7,712 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)onenote
(46,143 posts)Actually, members of Congress,the President, VP, and executive branch officials will have their financial disclosure and transaction information posted online under the amended bill. The folks who wont are several thousand, often unionized, career bureaucrats.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)Anyone?
jsr
(7,712 posts)or whatever the hell they're doing for corporate headquarters.
DarkLink
(52 posts)"The Federal Reserve said early Wednesday that it inadvertently e-mailed the minutes of its March policy meeting a day early to some congressional staffers and trade groups."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-10/fed-releases-names-early-fomc-minutes-recipients-include-employees-goldman-barclays-
DarkLink
(52 posts)nt
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)‘(i) financial disclosure reports filed by Members of Congress and candidates for Congress,
‘(ii) reports filed by Members of Congress and candidates for Congress of a transaction disclosure required by section 103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978,
‘(iii) notices of extensions, amendments, and blind trusts, with respect to financial disclosure reports described in clauses (i) and
pursuant to title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 101 et seq.), through databases that are maintained on the official websites of the House of Representatives and the Senate.’;
‘(i) financial disclosure reports filed by the President, the Vice President, and any officer occupying a position listed in section 5312 or section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, having been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to that position,
‘(ii) reports filed by any individual described in clause (i) of a transaction disclosure required by section 103(l) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, and
‘(iii) notices of extensions, amendments, and blind trusts, with respect to financial disclosure reports described in clauses (i) and (ii),
pursuant to title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 101 et seq.), through databases that are maintained on the official website of the Office of Government Ethics.’;
They don't have to submit electronically, but it's easy to convert a paper document to a pdf. Also the act clearly says that the documents will be on databases available to the public.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Non-Justice has never been easier, just a web search away!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Actual off-the-record quote of retired Michigan state lawmaker, evidently applicable to the Federal level.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
librechik
(30,957 posts)two steps forward six steps back...
onenote
(46,143 posts)First, to the extent that the headline on the story suggests that the entire Stock Act was reversed, it is misleading. Only a small part of the STOCK Act (a part that had never gone into effect) was repealed.
Second, while the article says that the "key transparency" provisions were rolledback, the fact is that the heart of the Stock Act was not the "searchable data base" or the coverage of thousands of non-political, career, unionized federal employees. It was disclosure by members of Congress, and top executive branch officials (i.e., political appointees). Similarly, to the extent that the change in the language from a requirement that filers "shall file reports electronically" to "shall be able to file reports electronically" means much of anything, it doesn't remove the requirement of disclsosure and public availability.
There were good reasons to change the law, which why the federal employees union worked hard for the changes.