This is a common tactic in the Senate to subvert legislative direction. Ossoff's bill is superior in that it prevents children from also trading (see Sen. Manchin's shady dealings).
If a bill can only pass because it's toothless, then what's the point? Just because it passes doesn't make it better. That's some serious stretching of logic you're attempting.
"Hawley's bill would have the Government Accountability Office provide oversight, whereas Ossoff would leave that to congressional ethics committees."
Congressional ethics committees are notoriously partisan and unreliable in enforcing. You are trusting Congress members to police themselves, which isn't remotely reliable. In reality, they only police members of the opposing party. The GAO would be far superior.
> in that it prevents children from also trading (see Sen. Manchin's shady dealings).
Were Manchin's adult children "dependents"? How is that defined in the bill? Also, it's been interesting to see negative attention on Manchin suddenly get ratcheted up the minute he wouldn't vote in a manner popular with people who don't live in his state.
> This is a common tactic in the Senate to subvert legislative direction.
The assumption that the purpose of this specific instance is to "subvert" is speculative. I'm no fan of Hawley, but he has been very public about wanting to ban stock trades by members as much as Ossoff.
I tire of the red/blue tribal loyalties on this site. I see two corrupt tribes, filled with people who won't vote for this bill. But both, and their foolishly gullible supporters, just sit and point at the misdeeds of the opposing side, unaware of their information bubbles.
The superior bill is the one that gets passed. This is something democrats badly need to learn wrt Manchin.
Until then we're just giving completely, utterly pointless kudos to whoever can play chicken most convincingly. I'm sure Hawley's office could have come up with something with even slightly more teeth if Ossoff came to him first with a GAO bill.
Insider trading is illegal. Children (adult or otherwise) of individuals in possession of material non-public information about a company are not allowed to trade stocks based on that information.
The way I see it, congressional trading rules are a natural extension of insider trading rules. Children/spouses should be prevented from trading not because they are children/spouses, but if/because they’ve been made aware of inside information.
What part of the constitution would prevent such rules from being implemented?
If that's the case why is a new law needed in the first place? The adult children are independent of their parents and can be prosecuted under current law.
For the same reason a new law is required for elected officials. If an elected official is currently exempt from insider trading rules, and if the rationale is that the official doesn't actually hold "inside" information, and if it's necessary to change that, then it follows that the "tipping" clause must also be updated.
This could also depend on how a new law is written. If the law is explicit that information gained as an elected official is material/non-public, then existing tipping clauses may already account for this.
However, if this is not explicitly accounted for, it becomes an easily exploited loophole.
I'm still curious though - why is this potentially a constitutional issue?
> Ossoff's bill also would apply the ban to any *dependent children* in addition to the spouses of lawmakers, whereas Hawley's bill would not.
I mean this sort of makes sense. In order for an adult child to be a dependent they have to be pretty much invalid, and not responsible for their own actions.
I can see that working as a part of a private contract, I'm just not sure it's constitutional for the government to prevent one person from doing something based on their relationship to another person. Especially spouses, but perhaps even children.
So as a government official with appointment authority, should I be allowed to hire my wife to work for my agency in a role they may or may not be qualified for?
It’s pretty easy to see how this stuff goes off the rails.
I think that's different. This isn't about appointing someone to a job, it's about preventing one person from trade with another strictly because of their marriage.
Say if I was a Senator, and I had the ability to kill some legislation that would financially hurt Facebook using my committee post. I call my wife before the hearing and tell her to buy stock, is that ethical?
It’s been tested in court. Employment isn’t a right.
When I was subject to public officers law, my kids were unable to play the lottery, engage in any sales or lobbying activity without written permission from agency counsel.
I know of one case where a senior leader was referred for civil penalty (fine up to $20k) because he took a meeting with a prospective contractor that his kid worked for.
There’s other areas like this as well. The actions of a spouse or child can affect a security clearance or be disqualification for employment as a police officer.
If you read the link, it specifically says dependent children, which seems fair. I don't see how how the constitution protects your stock trading rights if you are likely to be privy to insider information.
If you work in the financial industry, there are already draconian rules on oversight for all trades made by you, your spouse, your dependents, and even roommates. Why shouldn't this oversight extend to members of congress?
I'm not qualified to say if it's constitutional, but it would seem that it's widely accepted as constitutional if existing insider trading law applies to similar situations.
Can you explain the reasoning more? And why making laws for Congress would raise a novel issue?
College students who are paid for by their parents can also be claimed as dependents on tax returns. I have no idea whether that is the criteria in Hawley’s bill, but it would be reasonable. If you want to trade stocks, don’t take senator dad’s money.
Even better, there's zero accountability for himself or any of the 50 republican senators who passed on cosigning Ossoff's bill when this also goes nowhere. It's nice not being in power!
Even better, there's zero accountability for himself or any of the 50 democratic senators who passed on cosigning Hawley's bill when this also goes nowhere.
The senate is 50/50, this logic works both ways. Either party could vote for the other’s bill tomorrow and be done with it. I’d prefer the Dems work with Hawley to pass the better bill.