[bdcravens]

> he owned it before he became the director if it matters

All the more reason that those who "serve" in the government should be required to divest of their business interests. The traffic such a site would get due to the tribalism prevalent in US politics makes it a fat target, and potentially a national security threat.

[abc123abc123]

This is not good. What it achieves, is that the quality of people who assume office sinks even lower than it is today, since anyone with a modicum of competence, would never divest a business for a low paid, public job.

On the other hand... you _do_ have a point here. Care must be taken to make sure that the persons business does not profit by the PR and media exposure related to the position they are taking.

I don't know how to do this. Maybe someone else runs their business at arms length? Maybe tracking the revenue and profit to catch sudden upward swings?

And adding to this, it should of course be completely illegal for politicians, US and other nations, to profit from insider trading.

[compass_copium]

I disagree. I think the caliber of public employee, and their integrity, would be much higher if they were "only" allowed to collect their salary.

No state employee would be allowed to run a business like this while employed where I live (sapphire-blue New England state FWIW). Government positions are fairly, but not extravagantly, compensated, prestigious and come with excellent benefits. They should not be an avenue for accumulation of riches. It clearly does not work well and we're not getting the country's best.

[yostrovs]

The person should also work for minimum wage, since that is a sign that the welfare of the community is more important than the employee's own. Perhaps weekly self immolation sessions would take that up a notch? What about divesting one's family because they might take attention away from important government work?

[bdcravens]

The roughly $200k/year that department heads, congress, etc get is hardly minimum wage. No one is even suggesting they should lose the assets they've built up, just that they shouldn't be allowed to own a business while serving the public.

[mikestew]

You’re not even going to try to argue in good faith, are you? No one suggested anything close to what you’re saying.

[bdcravens]

> a low paid, public job

I think there should probably be a level at which those requirements kick in, but keep in mind that most of the jobs we're talking about pay around $200k/year, with many of the daily and life expenses included as benefits, pushing the equivalent salary even higher.

It's not like they lose their money or lose the ability to invest their pre-public money. They could sell their business interests, then take the proceeds and put the money into a broad market fund (to prevent company- or industry-specific conflicts of interest). I'd even suggest making them exempt from capital gains should they choose to sell.

[jaredklewis]

> What it achieves, is that the quality of people who assume office sinks even lower than it is today, since anyone with a modicum of competence, would never divest a business for a low paid, public job.

Unless of course those with a modicum of competence desire to be true public servants. Read about the character of some of our great leaders like Washington, Lincoln or Eisenhower to understand the mentality of a true public servant. Something someone like Kash Patel knows nothing about.

I don’t think this level of virtue is all that rare, though it is rarely rewarded at the ballot box.

[etothet]

I’m not a CPA, but aren’t there plenty of legal ways to divest in a business where you’re not directly involved, but where you can still get a share of any profits?

[compass_copium]

If you're getting profits, it's an avenue for bribery.

"Hey Ka$h, can we have a quick discussion about my federal racketeering case? Btw I just purchased 10000 $40 shirts from your store to give away."

[etothet]

And we all know that being a high profile politician isn’t an avenue for bribery. /s

[wheelerwj]

Im a big fan of divesting in these scenarios but i dont know how that would help in this scenario specifically. His current role and his previous ownership made the site a target, but it would be a target regardless of who owns it currently.

[Nevermark]

It is the mix of high-security high-visibility national impact with organizations that are completely unequipped to operate in that arena.

> it would be a target regardless of who owns it currently.

The commonality of attacks makes it more important to eliminate distracting dependencies for critical leaders. Not less.

There is a reason top security clearances have requirements no normal organization could make on their employers. Lack of loose vectors is even more important for leaders.