Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
29. More:
Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:57 AM
Apr 2013
The Senate voted Thursday to kill broad disclosure of already public reports detailing the personal finances of public officials and employees.

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


<...>

The STOCK Act’s history has been one of knee-jerk reactions rather than reasoned decision-making. Yesterday’s vote proved no different, with Senators overreacting and taking a hatchet to the law when a scalpel would do.

The bill enacted last year would require already public financial disclosures of senior congressional and executive branch officials to be put online in order to prevent or root out insider trading. There were concerns that some provisions of the bill were overbroad and would put some government employees at risk. Rather than craft narrow exemptions, or even delay implementation until proper protections could be created, the Senate decided instead to exclude legislative and executive staffers from the online disclosure requirements.

The sweeping exemption goes even farther than critics of the disclosure requirements requested. For those to whom online disclosure would still apply (the president, vice president, members of Congress, congressional candidates and individuals subject to Senate confirmation) the Senate bill made electronic filing of the information optional and struck the requirement that online information be searchable, sortable and downloadable, making even the disclosures that remain in the bill tepid and relatively unusable.

Not only does the change undermine the intent of the original bill to ensure government insiders are not profiting from non-public information (if anyone thinks high level congressional staffers don’t have as much or more insider information than their bosses, they should spend some time on Capitol Hill) but it sets an extraordinarily dangerous precedent suggesting that any risks stem not from information being public but from public information being online.

- more -

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2013/04/12/epic-failure-by-the-senate-on-transparency-provisions-in-stock-act/

Again, we need to find out why Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Bernie Sanders and/or Elizabeth Warren didn't object to this. All it takes is one Senator to object.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Something they agree on. reteachinwi Apr 2013 #1
But don't you trust them? defacto7 Apr 2013 #2
"Public Servants" kenny blankenship Apr 2013 #3
Any chance Obama will veto this? JDPriestly Apr 2013 #4
it was passed by unanimous consent, implying the votes are there to override. unblock Apr 2013 #5
He could make hay off this if he's smart Prophet 451 Apr 2013 #9
Piss off the populace?? DiverDave Apr 2013 #15
At this time of sequesters and cut-backs and higher taxes, that this JDPriestly Apr 2013 #16
Harry Reid is the bill's sole sponsor. Unanimous consent DevonRex Apr 2013 #7
Call 202 456 1111 demand a veto! alp227 Apr 2013 #34
So they can act in concert when it's in their best babylonsister Apr 2013 #6
+1 HiPointDem Apr 2013 #12
+1 n/t OneGrassRoot Apr 2013 #28
Thanks for reporting this accurately. DevonRex Apr 2013 #8
Reeks with corruption. blkmusclmachine Apr 2013 #10
Leaves little doubt of why the bankers have not arthritisR_US Apr 2013 #11
Can't wait to see the evening news pick this one up and run with it n2doc Apr 2013 #13
What about EX members of congress and their aides? Ligyron Apr 2013 #14
this entire congress should be jailed spanone Apr 2013 #17
A little quid pro quo to the private prison business. MindPilot Apr 2013 #21
We need to find out why ProSense Apr 2013 #23
why indeed. spanone Apr 2013 #31
They are crooks Generic Other Apr 2013 #18
What a bunchof crooks. myrna minx Apr 2013 #19
Bipartisanship we can believe in. bullwinkle428 Apr 2013 #20
What a fucking joke. City Lights Apr 2013 #22
One corporate party, masquerading as two. woo me with science Apr 2013 #24
Disgusting, but not surprising Cal Carpenter Apr 2013 #25
A pox on all of their houses. The incumbency system has corrupted Congress beyond repair. slackmaster Apr 2013 #26
"VETO" - The people of the United States of America Berlum Apr 2013 #27
More: ProSense Apr 2013 #29
Just last week, the Fed 'accidentally' gave Congress insider trading info.... DarkLink Apr 2013 #30
kick Quixote1818 Apr 2013 #32
fucking crooks. n/t librechik Apr 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Congress Quietly Repeals ...»Reply #29