Category: National Politics

Slaughter's STOCK Act Passes

One comment

Congratulations to Louise Slaughter, who has championed the STOCK act for years, most of them in the wilderness, until 60 Minutes shed light on the fact that members of Congress were not barred from insider trading, and getting quite rich as a result. It passed the House yesterday, which is a great thing but also a shocking indictment on our entire political system – that it took this long to identify and solve this rank corruption. What follows is a press release from Slaughter:

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (NY-28), Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee, today scored a major victory having language she first authored that would end insider trading in Congress pass by a vote of 417 to 2. While elements of her original bill the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, were not included in the legislation passed today by the House, today’s vote is a testament to Slaughter’s tenacity on an issue that received little attention until three months ago.

Today Slaughter spoke on the House floor saying, “At its heart, the STOCK Act is a statement of how we in Congress view ourselves, and our relationship to those we serve. No matter how powerful our position, nor how hallowed the halls we walk, no one should be above the law.  With the passage of the STOCK Act, we can move one step closer to living up to the faith and trust bestowed upon us by the American people- the citizens for whom we serve.”

Video of Slaughter’s floor statement is included here.

The journey to today’s passage has been a long one and Slaughter made clear today it is not yet complete.

Slaughter has been pushing Majority Leader Eric Cantor for months to bring the STOCK Act to the floor and the version he brought forth has raised eyebrows from Slaughter and other good government stalwarts when it removed a provision that would bring the shadowy political intelligence industry under the same regulations as the lobbyists they work beside.

Political intelligence is the latest effort by Wall Street and K Street to gain market moving information from Members of Congress and their staffs for the sake of selling it to hedge funds and other financial clients. Because political intelligence operatives don’t currently have to register the way lobbyists do, staffers and Members of Congress often don’t know that information they share is being passed along to the highest bidder. The political intelligence industry has become a $402 million a year endeavor lurking in the shadows of Congress.

Slaughter is now pushing strongly for a conference committee made up of members of the House and Senate to work together rectifying the differences between the Senate and House-passed bills. During the conference committee process, she will fight hard to retain her political intelligence provision which is a part of the bipartisan Senate-passed bill. Slaughter’s house bill that included the provision included the support of 99 Republicans.

Today on the House floor, Slaughter said, “When it comes to K Street, it appears that Republican Leadership couldn’t stomach the pressure from the political intelligence community.  After working behind closed doors, the Majority removed a major provision that would have held political intelligence operatives to the same standards as lobbyists who come before this Congress.  Fortunately, Democrats and Republicans alike are fighting to keep political intelligence as part of the final bill.”

Earlier this week, Majority Leader Eric Cantor released a statement praising Slaughter’s years of work to end insider trading in Congress saying, “Members from both sides of the aisle have worked hard on this issue, specifically Representatives Tim Walz and Louise Slaughter, and they deserve credit for their efforts to increase transparency and accountability as we take a step to restore the public’s trust in the federal government. After years of work, it’s about time their efforts resulted in a law.”

A timeline of Slaughter’s years of work leading to today’s vote is included below.

Timeline

March 28, 2006 – Slaughter along with Rep. Brian Baird (WA-3) first introduced the STOCK Act. In that 109th Congress, the bill received 13 co-sponsors. Earlier, the Wall Street Journal reported that Tony Rudy, Chief of Staff to then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, “bought and sold hundreds of stocks from his computer in the U.S. Capitol in 1999 and 2000, according to financial-disclosure forms and other DeLay aides.” The STOCK Act was reintroduced by Baird and Slaughter again in 2007 and 2009 never gaining more than 9 co-sponsors.

March 17, 2011 – Slaughter reintroduces the STOCK Act into the 112th Congress with Rep. Tim Walz (MN-01). It is supported by good government groups Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, Public Citizen and US PIRG.

November 13, 2011 – 60 Minutes ran a story pointing out the problem of insider trading in Congress. Prior to the piece, the bill had 9 co-sponsors. The next day, the STOCK Act began an explosion of support. Slaughter said recently, “In my 20 years here, I’ve never seen anything like it.”

November 15, 2011 – a Senate counterpart to the STOCK Act is introduced for the first time by Senator Scott Brown (R-MA). Two days later, Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced a second version of the STOCK Act in the Senate. The bills are later combined.

December 1,  2011 – The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee holds a hearing on the STOCK Act

December 6, 2011 – The House Financial Services Committee holds a hearing on the STOCK Act where Slaughter and Walz testify. Chairman Bachus schedules a markup of the bill for December 14.

December 7, 2011 – Politico  reports that the markup scheduled in the Financial Services Committee is postponed under pressure from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

December 8, 2011 – Slaughter and Walz’s STOCK Act receives the overwhelming support of a majority of the House of Representatives. More than 218 members (the number needed to pass the bill under regular order), co-sponsor the bill.

December 17, 2011 – With pressure mounting, Majority Leader Cantor tells CBS he will take up the STOCK Act.

December 20, 2011 – The Wall Street Journal reported on dozens of meetings set up by political intelligence firms with their clients and lawmakers, giving hedge funds and other financial institutions access to privileged information that made them untold sums of money. Slaughter and Walz say this is further evidence that transparency is needed in the political intelligence industry.

January 24, 2011 – President Obama says in his State of the Union, “Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow.”

February 1, 2011 – Slaughter and Walz introduce a discharge petition that would bring their STOCK Act up for a vote on the House floor. In the first day it is signed by 115 Members of Congress. In total 171 Members signed the discharge petition.

February 2, 2011 – The Senate passes their version of the STOCK Act by a vote of 96-3. It includes an amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that includes language from Slaughter’s bill regulating the political intelligence industry.

February, 6, 2011 – As Slaughter and Walz continue to pressure Cantor for a vote on the STOCK Act, it was clear that he would introduce his own version of the bill. He never consults the bill’s original authors. Meanwhile Slaughter’s bill gains the support of 286 co-sponsors including 99 Republicans.

February 7, 2011 – At 10:30 pm, Cantor’s office finally releases text of his changes to be voted on by the House and makes clear that he will bring it a vote using a procedure that does not allow for amendments or changes. Slaughter says repeatedly that this version of the bill is weakened. It does not include her provision to regulate the $402 million a year political intelligence industry.

February 8, 2011 – Slaughter and Walz react to the weakened version of the House bill. Slaughter tells reporters in the Capitol, “Our job here is never done. That’s the beauty of a legislature, you’re never truly defeated until you stop trying and I don’t give up so easily.” Meanwhile Cantor releases a statement praising Slaughter’s years of work on this issue.

February 9, 2011 – The STOCK Act passes the House by an overwhelming vote of 417-2. Slaughter vows to fight for a conference committee to make the bill that will be sent to President Obama even stronger.

America is Better than What It’s Becoming

2 comments

I’ve censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet–a bill that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: http://americancensorship.org/posts/42152/uncensor

█████ ████████ ██████ is a ████ ███████, the ████████ is not to ██████ the ████████. ███████’s ███████ ████ a █████ █████ █████████ ████ a ██████████ of ███████████ ██████ ████ be ████████.

Uncensor This

America is Better than What It's Becoming

2 comments

I’ve censored the following, in protest of a bill that gives any corporation and the US government the power to censor the internet–a bill that could pass THIS WEEK. To see the uncensored text, and to stop internet censorship, visit: http://americancensorship.org/posts/42152/uncensor

█████ ████████ ██████ is a ████ ███████, the ████████ is not to ██████ the ████████. ███████’s ███████ ████ a █████ █████ █████████ ████ a ██████████ of ███████████ ██████ ████ be ████████.

Uncensor This

How Not to Run a Sting

6 comments

In order to prove the need for a voter ID poll tax, and to prove how easy it is for someone to procure and cast a false ballot, the kid who took ACORN down based on fabrications sent some people to New Hampshire to…well, to procure and cast false ballots.

The problem is that it’s a state and federal crime to do just that, and a pretty severe one at that – a felony. And it’s not a sting – it’s the commission of the crime itself; they didn’t catch people falsifying ballots or conspiring to falsify ballots – they actually did it.

“In either case, if they were intentionally going in and trying to fraudulently obtain a ballot, they violated the law,” Schultz said. “So right off the bat, what they did violated the law.”

Election law expert Rick Hasen, who writes the Election Law Blog, joked in an email to TPM that O’Keefe’s team should “next show how easy it is to rob a bank with a plastic gun.”

“Who in their right mind would risk a felony conviction for this? And who would be able to do this in large enough numbers to (1) affect the outcome of the election and (2) remain undetected?” Hasen wrote.

Of course, there was a spate of “Future O’Keefe Stings” on Twitter such as:

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/TheDarklady/status/157252524464816128″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/buffalopundit/status/157246918513274880″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/MotherJones/status/157244859663654912″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/d_pardee/status/157224694762831872″]

[blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/#!/fbihop/status/157223680294928384″]

The Schadenfreude over this kid’s ham-handed efforts to promote conservative causes and embarrass liberals is awesome. I look forward to his next effort to re-create what he did with ACORN, but the problem is it’ll never happen because everyone knows he’s a fraud with zero credibility.

 

Ron Paul Shills for that Newsletter He Never Wrote or Reviewed

14 comments

Turning again to the Ron Paul newsletter controversy, Reuters uncovered a solicitation letter for that very newsletter, where Paul goes into great detail puffing his strategies for you to survive the “New Money”, his war against the moneyed elites in Washington who are beholden to the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, the coming “race war”, and the “federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS”.

Although the letter is undated, the US issued a dramatically redesigned $100 bill with a watermark in 1996. However, the letter also references “President Bush”, who was not in office at the time, so I am guessing it’s referencing the 1991 redesign which incorporated microprinting and a metallic security strip (THE SPY STRIP!!11!)

This document bears his signature, and is on his own letterhead. He has disavowed nothing and has absolutely not proven that he didn’t write or review the subject matter he was putting out in his own name through his fearmongering little conspiratorial newsletters.

Paul’s explanations and disavowals are too little, too late. This came up in 2008, and it’s coming up again now, and like Paul, I’m afraid too. Not about the new-style currency and tinfoil hat conspiracy theories about it, but about the fact that a conspiratorial freak who wrote this sort of incendiary garbage during the time in American life when gun fetishist militias acted out as racial-fascist domestic terrorists with alarming frequency.

Solicitation 2http://www.scribd.com/embeds/76382333/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list&access_key=key-2gpbhn5bwldrdo1ap39v(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Why We Regulate

8 comments

Anyone else think it’s ridiculous that we need congressional legislation to force airlines to give their airline pilots enough rest so as to, for instance, not be too tired safely to fly a plane full of people?

When private industry refuses to police itself, and treats labor more as a commodity than a human being, government has to step in to regulate it.

Oh, and FedEx and UPS are excluded from the law, and their pilots aren’t thrilled with that.

Will this prevent crashes? Nope. Will it hopefully eliminate one of the risk factors that lead to pilot-error crashes? Yep.

Norquist Clarified

One comment

It’s not every day the teabagging wing of the Republican Party decides to overrule an 89-10 bipartisan Senate compromise over the payroll tax holiday.

It would appear, therefore, that the Grover Norquist pledge never to raise taxes to which GOPers have beholden themselves is voidable in the event (a) that the tax hike disproportionately affects middle-class wage-earners; and/or (b) the President isn’t a Caucasian.  I’m glad that the 112th Congress was able to clear that up for us.

You see, under the Republican supply-side sect of trickle-down theory, only tax cuts on the wealthy are acceptable. The middle class, working class, and poor looters must be made to pay more.

The Constitution. Let’s Follow It.

9 comments

Title X, Subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act is neither well-considered, nor do I think it’s Constitutional – even foreigners on American soil are entitled to basic Constitutional protections.

If the government uncovers an al Qaeda cell that plotting some attack on US citizens, it already has myriad tools at its disposal to detain and try the accused.

And that’s the key here – the NDAA doesn’t really call for trial. Indefinite detention and interrogation of people on American soil is a complete abrogation of the Constitution that ought not stand (given an apolitical Supreme Court).  I’m not one to jump on the “police state” bandwagon, because I’ve had the experience of actually spending extended periods of time living in one. But giving the military and police agencies the power to indefinitely detain people based on mere accusations and suspicions brings us ever-closer to an America where people are detained arbitrarily and capriciously based on denunciations and evidence which may not be adequate to convict someone in military or civilian court.

A decade of paranoia and a lousy economy aren’t making anyone any freer, and codifying the indefinite pretrial incarceration of enemy combatants on de jure American soil is contrary to our national interests.  The full text of the provisions in question is after the jump. Read more

The Constitution. Let's Follow It.

9 comments

Title X, Subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act is neither well-considered, nor do I think it’s Constitutional – even foreigners on American soil are entitled to basic Constitutional protections.

If the government uncovers an al Qaeda cell that plotting some attack on US citizens, it already has myriad tools at its disposal to detain and try the accused.

And that’s the key here – the NDAA doesn’t really call for trial. Indefinite detention and interrogation of people on American soil is a complete abrogation of the Constitution that ought not stand (given an apolitical Supreme Court).  I’m not one to jump on the “police state” bandwagon, because I’ve had the experience of actually spending extended periods of time living in one. But giving the military and police agencies the power to indefinitely detain people based on mere accusations and suspicions brings us ever-closer to an America where people are detained arbitrarily and capriciously based on denunciations and evidence which may not be adequate to convict someone in military or civilian court.

A decade of paranoia and a lousy economy aren’t making anyone any freer, and codifying the indefinite pretrial incarceration of enemy combatants on de jure American soil is contrary to our national interests.  The full text of the provisions in question is after the jump. Read more

1 … 9 10 11 12 13