Congressional stock trading ban must include spouses, lawmakers say

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

Any bill to prevent lawmakers from trading stocks must apply to their immediate family members, Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas), the authors of a stock trading ban proposal, said Friday.

Several stock trading proposals circulating through Congress omit lawmakers' spouses and dependent children, and Democratic leaders have warmed to the idea of a bill that extends a stock trading ban to senior congressional staffers but not spouses.

Spanberger and Roy, who are pushing a bipartisan stock trading ban with 50 co-sponsors that includes immediate family members, said that they would draw a "line in the sand" over the issue.

"To put forth a stock ban that only applies to members would be, as I would perceive it as an American ... kind of a slap in the face to the American people," Spanberger said during an event hosted by Issue One, the National Taxpayers Union and the Project on Government Oversight.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/congressional-stock-trading-ban-must-include-spouses-lawmakers-say/ar-AAU2hbP?li=BBnbfcQ

[AZLD4Candidate]

1. Must include entire families, no matter how thin the blood lines are

2nd cousins twice removed should also be included.

Uncles, Aunt, Children, Grandchildren, Grandparents, Siblings, Cousins. . .if you are in anyway related to an MOC or an elected official in Congress, you are forbidden.

How do we know that insider news won't pass through the grapevine of a family tree?

[The Mouth]

2. We have to start somewhere.

Slippery Slope arguments suck, IMHO.

[AZLD4Candidate]

3. They do suck. . .but,

It's the same argument used when people argue against banning books in schools.

[The Mouth]

5. You can derail almost any worthwhile initiative

with the Slippery Slope argument, or at least try to. For me it's just one step above ad hominem as far as being not only invalid but arousing my opposition.


Too many times I've seen too many sleazebags, psychopaths, and general douchnozzles try to use it to confuse and obfuscate when we have tried to make progress when discussing actual policy implementation, at least locally.

This is an important symbolic issue and a chance to make every greedy and unethical dirtbag as uncomfortable as possible, in my opinion. I don't see why any of us should tolerate it at all, in any circumstance, or regardless of how much we like the policies and/or personality of the person abusing their privileges.

Yes, if we could extend it to any and all friends and family members that would be great, but spouses alone would be a very Good Thing.

[jimfields33]

4. Definitely true!

I’m cool with them investing in mutual funds though.

[The Mouth]

6. Maybe market-index

But requiring a blind trust would be better.

[jimfields33]

13. Definitely a great idea.

[Polybius]

14. Absolutely not

Suppose I have a cousin that's a piece of shit Republican congressman? So I should be barred from stocks? Fuck that.

[AZLD4Candidate]

16. If you're getting information from said POS Republican, yes

[Polybius]

18. I never even met some of my cousins

Even if one is a good congressman, I shouldn't be punished. It's all moot anyway, it will never be law.

[RainCaster]

7. Judges spouses too!

One in particular.

[Rebl2]

10. Absolutely!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

11. I thought the same thing while reading this story

[PoliticAverse]

8. I can't wait to see what loopholes there are in the final bill. n/t

[OneCrazyDiamond]

9. Are the spouses of lawmaker's even using privileged information for profit.

I would assume that is illegal already if they do. I thought the loophole was lawmakers themselves that could insider trade, not their families.

[lagomorph777]

12. Yes, look at Moscow Mitch & Elaine Chao, or Clarence & Ginni Thomas.

[marie999]

15. Members of Congress also have children, grandchildren, brothers, and sisters.

You are not getting them all to stop trading stocks. A better idea is that they have to make all their stock trades public knowledge.

[bucolic_frolic]

17. I read that as you can't trade stocks and can't trade away your spouse either

[ck4829]

19. K&R