[rasengan]

Agreed - and she says it was her husband and not her. There needs to be a law that politicians are no longer single people but in fact come as a package - and politicians should have 0 expectation of privacy as they serve the public.

[creaghpatr]

Still applies to standard insider trading law. It's not like a CEO's spouse can trade the company's stock after hearing about his/her day at work.

[fratimo66]

I still believe in the value of individuality. Politiciants should have same expectation of privacy as regular citizens.

Transactions should not.

[save_ferris]

The argument that politicians should have the same expectation of privacy as regular citizens while also making their stock transparent is inherently contradictory. Regular citizens do not have to make their stock transactions public, but politicians should be required to.

I think it’s entirely reasonable for politicians to assume a life of less privacy since every aspect of their lives is scrutinized by the press anyway.

[pc86]

This whole debate stems from the fact that we have career politicians, which (at the federal level, at least) is not what the founders envisioned. A citizen legislature cannot, by definition, exist when it's filled by people who have never had a real job.

Term limits fixes this from both ends. Politicians are allowed their privacy, because they're just regular people and nobody is going to get rid from a single Senate term or 3-4 House terms. It eliminates the incentive to associate one's self more with DC than your home district. And it would probably result in people having a better opinion of Congress as a whole because it's not filled with people who have never done anything else.