Elizabeth Warren Wants to Ban Members of Congress From Owning Stocks

Too far. Owning stocks is the primary way of building wealth and we don't need to ban it entirely to prevent abuses. There should be mandatory and enforced blind trusts. And I don't mean ones run by family members

[QUOTE]As an apparent alternative to individual stock ownership, the bill would create "conflict-free investment opportunities for federal officials with new investment accounts," according to a synopsis of the bill obtained by CNBC.

[QUOTE]"They can put their savings in conflict-free investments like mutual funds or they can pick a different line of work," Warren said.

[QUOTE]These accounts would be managed by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, an independent agency established during the Reagan administration that boasts fewer than 300 employees.

[QUOTE]A source familiar with the legislation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it would establish so-called Federal Employee Investment Accounts for senior officials to maintain their stock and securities investments. They can divest from their conflicted assets, the source said, and "temporarily invest the resulting funds" into the federal accounts.

[QUOTE]Officials would be able to withdraw their funds from the government accounts "at any time without penalty," the source added.

Good for her. She's got balls, this is the only way real change will happen.

I think there's a big political space for anti-corruption laws. Thats the first thing I'd do if I became president

R4, I hope the cancer finds you soon.

Where's a grease fire when r4 needs it?

Probably the least effective approach to achieve the stated goals.

It will both have a negative impact on the type of people who are willing to run for office. Also, these people are more likely to seek financial incentives from other sources.

What we need is campaign finance reform and significantly more rigorous financial disclosure requirements along with penalties. You can own stocks and invest in whatever you like if you disclose. If you don't disclose are are discovered, it should be a federal crime with significant financial and criminal penalties.

This should cover both you and immediate family members. Let's just remember that our old pal Justice Kennedy's son works for Deutsche Bank with theories ranging from Kennedy's son being actively involved with loans to trump (and connected to Russian money laundering) to other theories like Kennedy resigned to clear a space for a trump nominee as a trade for undisclosed personal consideration.

The big accounting firms have very good independence rules for employees - anyone above a certain level of government should be required to follow a similar set of requirements with significant financial and criminal penalties - not just an "ooops" if caught.

Warren is right. We need to get money out of politics and maybe we will finally have some people in government who actually care about the American people and not just the status quo and filling their damn pockets.

And get rid of lobbyists while you're at it.

I support this and virtually any anti-corruption policy proposed in good faith, but money in politics isn't our problem and these bills won't make governing better. Partisanship is the problem and that's cultural so can't be addressed with bill

I don't agree with this, but I love the fact that Warren is attempting to change the narrative. The status quo is no longer tenable.

Any of you who think Elizabeth Warren is right need to wake up. She's not only going to impose these ideas on Congress. These are hints of what she's going to do to every citizen. Wake up, Sally Bowles, there's an evil dictator in Congress.

Have the trolls found this thread yet?

Oh yes, R8, because we have such stellar individuals in Congress now. Why, how would the Bob Corkers of the world amass fortunes while in the Senate if they couldn't use insider info to rig the stock market for themselves and their kids?

R14 Did you read R4 and r13?

You either work in the government or you make a shitload of money. She is right. You should not do both at the same time. Get rid of financial benefits while serving as senator or POTUS.

I think what would be more sane is to have Congressional term limits. No life long 80 years in Congress and no lifetime pensions. I think term limits is a much better solution than Warren's dictator ideas.

While Warren's ideas affect a small group of extremely privileged people, yours is actually dictatorial R18.

You have no right to tell people in other states who they can and can't nominate to their own offices. If VT wants to elect Leahy over and over again, that's their right for example. If you don't like long serving congressman. vote your own out. Don't seek to impose that value over the entire country

God the crazy libertarians who infest DL are so tiring. Only someone who has no idea what a dictatorship really means could imply that banning direct stock ownership for lawmakers constitutes anything tyrannical.

Also, federal term limits would require a constitutional amendment. So if that's what you want, get started on the petition drive. I bet it'd be successful, actually.

One of Hillary's priorities was Campaign Finance Reform. Incidentally, she repeatedly said Trump was unfit for office. We're finally getting some pushback from a Dem, but if Warren is serious about these reforms, she'd have to run in 2020.

[quote]Oh yes, [R8], because we have such stellar individuals in Congress now. Why, how would the Bob Corkers of the world amass fortunes while in the Senate if they couldn't use insider info to rig the stock market for themselves and their kids?

Utterly flawed logic r15 on two counts. First, I never said that the existing members of congress were stellar individuals. Second, none of the reforms I suggested exist now, so judging the existing members of congress as if the reforms had been implemented is absurd.

Investing is an essential part of building wealth today. Preventing people from doing so will drive people who recognize that away from serving. Do you really want people who have such a limited understanding of the economy making legislation? The world and global politics are complex. By the time you're old enough to understand the world, you've been working and are likely to be investing. Do you really want people too young to have reached that life stage making laws - and conversely, do you really want people who don't think about their long-term future? Adverse selection is a real problem that this proposed legislation will exacerbate.

Campaign finance reform. Disclosure. Meaningful penalties. Independence requirements. Mandatory recusal requirements for voting on particular types of legislation.

#4 should watch a loved one suffocate due to small cell lung cancer and then catch it too! NEVER WISH CANCER ON ANYBODY-FLAMING ASSHOLE

[QUOTE]but if Warren is serious about these reforms, she'd have to run in 2020.

She wouldn’t be doing this if she wasn’t planning to run in 2020. It’s all but guaranteed now.

Term limits would just weaken the federal governmnent more.

What the U.S. really needs is long-term planning and follow-through, which we don’t get because of the Presidential term limits (which was a Republican power grab, BTW).

So corporations are the only persistent force in America and they’re left to actually govern most people’s lives while the federal government goes bankrupt and useless, doing reckless and erratic shit for short-term, presidential stunts (Invading Iraq; trade wars).

If an officeholder is popular, he should be allowed to stay. Experience and consistency is important for the world.

Obama should still be President.

Indeed, Trump wouldn’t be in office if it wasn’t for the 22nd Amendment. Obama would’ve electorally wiped the floor with yet another Republican candidate.

R26 - that's a foolish piece of speculation. Who knows who would be in office without the 22nd Amendment. Obama may never have had a chance to run. Stick to writing fan fiction.

ACTUALLY R22, being born to rich parents is the only sure way to "build wealth" right now. And the Congress we have is mostly quite rich people, who presumably understand the global investment system. Problem is, rich people tend to be amoral monsters who seem to want to rig the world to make themselves and their friends richer at the expense of nearly everyone else.

All those things you say you want (disclosure, etc) are fine but laying down laws with real teeth to them are the only way to stop thieves from robbing.

[quote]ACTUALLY [R22], being born to rich parents is the only sure way to "build wealth" right now. And the Congress we have is mostly quite rich people, who presumably understand the global investment system. Problem is, rich people tend to be amoral monsters who seem to want to rig the world to make themselves and their friends richer at the expense of nearly everyone else.

r28 - your statement is false. The majority of people in the US who are wealthy (obviously depending on where you draw that line) are not born to "rich" parents.

[quote]And the Congress we have is mostly quite rich people, who presumably understand the global investment system.

Yes, that is something we should all want and I stated as much.

[quote]Problem is, rich people tend to be amoral monsters who seem to want to rig the world to make themselves and their friends richer at the expense of nearly everyone else.

You're parroting a narrative here. Elizabeth Warren herself would be considered "rich" and is she an "amoral" monster?

We need reform. We need people serving in government held to a higher standard of moral and ethical behavior. We need stricter oversight. Flinging accusations and calling for impractical legislation is not the approach that will lead to a higher caliber of people.

"She wouldn’t be doing this if she wasn’t planning to run in 2020. It’s all but guaranteed now."

I'll gladly vote for her but I don't see her becoming the nominee. She's intelligent and principled but not charismatic.

If we've learned anything from the nightmare of the last couple of years it's that charisma seems to make people lose their damn minds. Granted, you and I may not find some bloated bankrupt blowhard to be charismatic, but inexplicably millions of people do.

Warren is actually one of the poorer Senators. But let's look at the track record of the wealthy in the past 15-20 years, since they control the money (and thus the power) of the US? One huge economic calamity. Followed by years of high unemployment and austerity policy. Then, when things get a little better (even though wages aren't tracking productivity or unemployment), they pass themselves an enormous tax cut and blow a hole in the federal budget the size of Yankee Stadium. And if their representatives are asked about this, they offer to cut Medicare and Social Security to pay for it.

These are not the acts of kind, moral or decent people. These are the acts of avaricious monsters.

Executive offices like president and governor should have term limits. A huge limit to executive power is that the executive branch is staffed with lots of legacy hires. You'd lose that if one person was in power too long. There are also too many other ways to abuse executive power. Legislators are limited because they require at least SOME consensus.

R29 - just out of curiosity what would be an example of "a higher standard of moral and ethical behavior" we would hold people serving in government to that we wouldn't hold the rest of the population to?

[quote]money in politics isn't our problem

Money in politics is easily our BIGGEST problem.

R34 It's less powerful than people think. There numerous occasions, like the Gang of 8 immigration bill where all the money was pushing for one outcome, and congress did the opposite anyway because they were afraid of primary challengers. Taking money out of politics won't make people agree more often or act less toxic

😂 You picked that one fucking example? How many other hundreds of pieces of legislation with their thousands of amendments have passed in the direction that big money wanted them to?

OK-- but we can still own slaves, right?

[quote][R29] - just out of curiosity what would be an example of "a higher standard of moral and ethical behavior" we would hold people serving in government to that we wouldn't hold the rest of the population to?

I want to thank you r33 for actually asking a question and trying to further the discussion, rather than the usual response. In the past, I've had my own opinions changed by having useful conversations. And while, you may or may not agree with me, you're at least trying to understand my point.

Two key areas.

First, we do not expect people in the general population to put the interests of other people above their own. I'm not suggesting everyone has to be Mother Teresa, but that we want people serving in government able to look at the best interests of a wider audience. We want people who fight for both their constituents and the greater good. When personal interests (as reflected by say holdings in banking or pharmaceutical stocks above a certain threshold), members of congress ought not vote on legislation that directly impacts that sector. We expect people in their personal lives to lobby for their interests. We don't want congress people to use their votes to achieve that end more directly. This would require legislators to more, not less, actively manage their investments. In a purely hypothetical example, if Elizabeth Warren wanted to continue voting on banking issues, she would need to divest holding from banking or financial services companies. She could shift to pharmaceuticals or any other sector of choice.

Second, there is not only actual impropriety, but the appearance of it. Therefore, disclosure and "independence" are essential (independence in this sense is a term of art used to describe existing relationships between various parties with a stake). In private life, if your brother or father run a company, you're perfectly able to enter transactions with their companies. However, in the financial audit and accounting world (Big Four accounting firms, for example), you may not audit or even be in the reporting chain for audit clients. Legislators (and actually many of the supervisory bodies like FDA and EPA) should be independent with no close ties. Also, while people are free to work for whatever company is willing to hire them, these people should be limited for a certain number of years from taking positions with companies in certain industries based on their voting record.

While it sounds like an administrative hassle, most of this could be handled using technological tools which tag and track both holdings and legislation and produce lists of people who cannot vote on particular legislation.

Does Warren offer a reasonable plan to transfer stocks to some other form of investment without getting killed by taxes? I imagine her plan would exclude tax free bonds as well.

I like the idea. Genuinely would like to understand these details because most working individuals have investments by age 35.

R39 Details are at R2. There seem to be no penalties of any kind

[quote]In a purely hypothetical example, if Elizabeth Warren wanted to continue voting on banking issues, she would need to divest holding from banking or financial services companies. She could shift to pharmaceuticals or any other sector of choice.

But can someone in Congress really avoid voting on a certain sector? So much comes before them that they would constantly be shifting their holdings. Everytime they voted on a war bill, they would have to shift out of airline sector, everytime they voted on healthcare, they would have to shift out of pharmacy sector, etc.

Eaxctly R41 Better to put it all into a blind vehicle. They can vote on whatever they want without knowing how it will affect them

This is a GREAT idea. Let's see where each representative and senator stands.

Imagine you have 700k in stocks and bonds. Are you really going to feel comfortable handing this over to some federal entity?

I do like the idea generally. My impression is the plan needs some fine tuning or perhaps I need to explore the proposal to reach a better understanding

For example, does the plan also account for spouses and kids of elected officials? If the spouse has 35,000 shares in Exon..

It's very easy R44. You keep your stocks and leave office.

Good

Yeah, and I want Trump and most of the GOP to be led out in cuffs, tried, found guilty of treason and executed. Neither of us will get what we want.

[quote]But can someone in Congress really avoid voting on a certain sector? So much comes before them that they would constantly be shifting their holdings. Everytime they voted on a war bill, they would have to shift out of airline sector, everytime they voted on healthcare, they would have to shift out of pharmacy sector, etc.

You really cannot shift holding quickly enough without huge financial risk, especially since some votes themselves and uncertainty around them drive stock prices down. I mean, I wouldn't expect someone to not to vote on mutual fund regulations just because they hold mutual funds.

I don't believe it would ever be possible to regulate the perfect legislator. I think anyone who wants to will find away around any. The question is how much of that you want in plain sight and which are likely to create more problems.

It's not a perfect solution because there isn't one. I weight the risks of outlawing legislators with stocks higher, but you may not. Frankly, it's a lot easier to hide activity that's been outlawed than to track and restrict it. Just because they don't hold stocks directly doesn't mean they won't vote in favor of those sectors. Friends, family, insider trading to split profits, these are no less likely to occur with this type of proposed legislation.

To me, it's more akin to legalizing pot. Legalized, you can regulate and tax it. You remove a huge portion of the illegal and criminal activity associated with it. And, you can track and monitor it.

I wish she would not go so far, she makes herself unelectable- almost all investment funds, retirement plans, you name it include equity (stock) investment. Thus Congressional members would be able to own, bonds, treasury notes, cash, commodities, and real estate.. Conflicts can occur with some of these assets as well. Silly. The key is transparency and avoidance of conflict by regular declarations of potential conflict which is the way this kind of thing in handled in academia with varying diligence. Business schools look the other way, while medical schools tend to monitor closely. Research in economics tends to be much more tainted (by conflict) than that in health care- although both contain significant lapses. Faculty at the best business schools tend to make out like thieves with "commissioned" research and reports that would never stand up to conflict of interest safeguards in medical schools.

I love how the Libertarian assholes all come swooping in to defend the poor, threatened multimillionaires in Congress. Fuck them. If they want to play games in the world's biggest casino (which is what the stock market is--if you think it's something rational and intelligible, you're a fool), let them stay out of making laws. If their noblesse oblige forces...FORCES them to "serve" as Senator, then they can do what a lot of us do and hand their holdings over to a non-controversial index fund. It's really not that big a deal and shouldn't impede anyone with decent motives from "serving."

However, assholes like Bob Corker who want to use their office to get rich might be inconvenienced.

r50 - It's not about noblesse oblige. Outlawing owning stocks won't be as effective at curtailing bad behavior as limiting what can be done while owning it and forcing real disclosure and independence requirements - along with penalties for violating them.

I agree that holding index funds would also be an option and would be better than individual stocks for some situations. But, even that is going to create some incentives for self-dealing in voting.

Although we live in what amounts to a shameless society these days, the appearance of impropriety should be modeled into whatever restrictions are put in place - and there definitely needs to be more restrictions put in place, both for the time they are in office and immediately afterwards (ranging for 3yrs on some issues and 7 years on others, such as lobbying).

This is all just babble. A majority of Congress isn't going to vote against their own interests. Ideas like this will die immediately.

I mean it's cute that you think that a "disclosure" from Congressman Joe Blow would mean his mean, racist constituents would vote for his well-meaning college-professor opponent. I have no idea why Chris Collins decided to retire. It's possible there's worse to come but if that motherfucker had decided to try hard enough, he'd have WON, despite being indicted for insider trading. There were already Op-Eds appearing in the WSJ wondering aloud if insider trading is Actually Good.

There is literally nothing too shameless and underhanded for the rich of this country to try and get away with. The only hope of establishing some kind of law in this country is to throw as many of these motherfuckers in jail.

[quote]I mean it's cute that you think that a "disclosure" from Congressman Joe Blow would mean his mean, racist constituents would vote for his well-meaning college-professor opponent.

I don't know to whom you're speaking, but that's not even close to the what I said, let alone my basic thesis, if that's a rebuttal to my post(s).

If you cannot understand my position, ask questions. Don't just make up crazy stuff that has no bearing on what it seems anyone in this thread has said.