Should members of congress, executive or judicial be allowed…

[Doctor Amadeus]

As Fears of Banking Crisis Surged, Members of Congress Sold Bank Shares.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fears-ban...114128107.html

Should members of congress, executive (where applicable) or judicial be allowed to own stock including immediate family?

I would say no. Any gain in or around their elected positions should disqualify them and any immediate family from profiting or potentially profiting off that position. In my opinion.

[Fugus]

Voted no, the conflict of interest is just too high.

Also believe that taking office should also ban you from working in the private sector again but you get pay and medical benefits for life.

Running a nation should be seen as a life goal for someone, not a stepping stone to a consulting job or a means to get gifts and money from others.

[Doctor Amadeus]

@Fugus

Yeah I think if you work for many companies you get a cooling off period after employment.

I would agree that should apply especially to government. You shouldn’t be allowed to sit on special committees then retire to go work for said company’s right after. Not at least with out a cooling off period of at least one election cycle depending on whatever branch of government you worked.

[Fugus]

@Fugus

Yeah I think if you work for many companies you get a cooling off period after employment.

I would agree that should apply especially to government. You shouldn’t be allowed to sit on special committees then retire to go work for said company’s right after. Not at least with out a cooling off period of at least one election cycle depending on whatever branch of government you worked.

You are more forgiving than I am on this one.

For me, if you serve even a part of a single term long enough to make a single vote (Even if you didn't vote when the time came) or ruling or be on any committees, you should be forced to give up any stocks or interests in any company before allowed to even be seated. And once seated you are banned from working in the private sector again for life, banned from owning stock, banned from receiving any forms of discounts or deals unless a normal person could reasonably receive it as well. Same goes for your husband/wife.

Your children will be allowed to hold those stocks and get those jobs though as they have a life of their own but will also be stuck being audited annually for the entire time you are in office plus the next 10 years to monitor for any suspicious activity as they will also be banned from any deals or discounts a normal person could not reasonably receive. So no random vacations or some college giving your kid their tuition paid for as some special discount that no one or almost no one else could hope to get.

Would also require that if they ever work with anything that requires security clearance for a normal person they must also obtain that security clearance and any waivers they get are heavily scrutinized.

After they leave their job either though losing their election or retiring, they will receive 50% of their pay and full benefits for life and while they are banned from working in the private sector, they can still work government sector jobs. At age 55 their pay jumps to 100% of their normal pay.

[Doctor Amadeus]

@Fugus

I was just trying to be fair and that those with genuine talent who then also serve in government could after an appropriate time be allowed back into the private sector. None the less I also agree with your points.

Why this has been acknowledged by the public but not realized as legislators is frustrating.

I don’t see the counter. The only argument against might be something something about members of congress being citizens and constitutionally protected.

But why the hell did Carter have to give up his damn peanut farm. Lol.

[Fugus]

@Fugus

I was just trying to be fair and that those with genuine talent who then also serve in government could after an appropriate time be allowed back into the private sector. None the less I also agree with your points.

Why this has been acknowledged by the public but not realized as legislators is frustrating.

I don’t see the counter. The only argument against might be something something about members of congress being citizens and constitutionally protected.

But why the hell did Carter have to give up his damn peanut farm. Lol.

Talented or not, the conflict of interest and chance to exploit them returning to the private sector is too great and you can best bet all the worst ones will be chiming in about how they deserve that exemption. And if their talent is that great, they can use it doing public sector jobs as well. It's not like getting out of office and still receiving 90-100k a year for life on top of the next government job you get is a bad deal either. And if you are chasing a level of income beyond that, then government jobs aren't really for you to begin with.

As for "Why this has been acknowledged by the public but not realized as legislators is frustrating."

Its hard to get someone to understand something if their money requires them NOT understand it. You are talking about putting limitations on the same people who would have to willingly accept those limitations on themselves. They will likely NEVER adopt something like this unless drug kicking and screaming into it at which point you would likely see almost all the current crop either retire entirely or leave the political field just before it passed so they didn't have to follow it. At which point, better to weed them out then let them go because their heart wasn't into running the nation so much as it was profiting from it.

[Shadowferal]

Why pay some greenhorn to lobby for a business when that business can grab a former politician that already knows the players and processes in DC?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Talented or not, the conflict of interest and chance to exploit them returning to the private sector is too great and you can best bet all the worst ones will be chiming in about how they deserve that exemption. And if their talent is that great, they can use it doing public sector jobs as well. It's not like getting out of office and still receiving 90-100k a year for life on top of the next government job you get is a bad deal either. And if you are chasing a level of income beyond that, then government jobs aren't really for you to begin with.

As for "Why this has been acknowledged by the public but not realized as legislators is frustrating."

Its hard to get someone to understand something if their money requires them NOT understand it. You are talking about putting limitations on the same people who would have to willingly accept those limitations on themselves. They will likely NEVER adopt something like this unless drug kicking and screaming into it at which point you would likely see almost all the current crop either retire entirely or leave the political field just before it passed so they didn't have to follow it. At which point, better to weed them out then let them go because their heart wasn't into running the nation so much as it was profiting from it.

Agreed. To all of the above.


However, the other end, because you know they're will ALWAYS be a counter.


What aboutTalented people good honest people, who have huge student loans and what not who may not work in the public sector if they aren't allowed to honestly trade or work outside of government once they retire?

The reason I point this out outside of the obvious, I have seen and heard this argument going back as far as at least the 1940's. Just curious what would be the prudent rebuttal.

Because as I said I personally agree with everything you've said. But as shaky of a point as it might be, I can see those with reasons to, trying to fight any regulations about the said above.

[Breccia]

I hate to say it, but...yes. Kind of. I have retirement and 529 funds and have no fucking clue what's in any of them.

Many politicians are rich enough to have investments, and saying "no stock" really cuts them off.

That said, we should be looking into blind trust situations, and enforcing them, by now. The current situation is not working. Trump just said "fuck you, I'm going to push the FBI to keep their HQ by my hotel" and nothing happened.

[Fugus]

Agreed. To all of the above.


However, the other end, because you know they're will ALWAYS be a counter.


What aboutTalented people good honest people, who have huge student loans and what not who may not work in the public sector if they aren't allowed to honestly trade or work outside of government once they retire?

The reason I point this out outside of the obvious, I have seen and heard this argument going back as far as at least the 1940's. Just curious what would be the prudent rebuttal.

Because as I said I personally agree with everything you've said. But as shaky of a point as it might be, I can see those with reasons to, trying to fight any regulations about the said above.

As far as the student loans part, they have long had a program where student loans would be forgiven for public sector jobs after serving in those jobs long enough. Just extend that same program to this and even then, they are making 185k a year and up where even without the program their income wouldn't be an issue even if they were ivy league.

So the student loan part is a moot point either way.

So, they have their college covered, get 185k+ per year while working and at least 90k a year for life while not in office on top of any other public sector job they take and after age 55 they still get their full pay again.

Even if they retired after 1 single term and never worked again, they would still make over twice what an average worker did. There is no legit reason for them to NEED to go back to working the private sector again and the conflict of interest in that revolving door or them owning vested interests in things that they can impact through policy is too high.

Edit:
@Breccia

The thing is, with a 50% cut like I was mentioning, they are still making at least 90k a year anyways when they aren't in office while still being able to work public sector jobs, not much of an issue with them for life after that point so long as they don't pull an MC Hammer or something like that.

[Very Tired]

I honestly feel like we could clean up all of the corruption in government if we put laws into place requiring our elected officials to live at a standard middle class income and limiting sources of outside income. Get rid of all those asshats who are there to get rich. Don't like it? Then find another career to pursue. Representing your base and serving your country should be the only thing that you are there for.

Of course the people in charge in congress would also be the ones to vote on this, so it has no chance of happening

[WintersLegion]

I honestly feel like we could clean up all of the corruption in government if we put laws into place requiring our elected officials to live at a standard middle class income. Get rid of all those asshats who are there to get rich. Don't like it? Then find another career to pursue. Representing your base and serving your country should be the only thing that you are there for.

Of course the people in charge in congress would also be the ones to vote on this, so it has no chance of happening

I believe it was in the series The Tamuli by David Eddings there is a country where when you are elected as the ruler all of your weatlth is added to the treasury and to get it back the country has to have made a profit during your term and you can't just raise taxes. Most people really do not want to be elected and in fact as soon as some one is nominated guards are assigned to them just so they can't run away.

[The Stormbringer]

I hate to say it, but...yes. Kind of. I have retirement and 529 funds and have no fucking clue what's in any of them.

Many politicians are rich enough to have investments, and saying "no stock" really cuts them off.

That said, we should be looking into blind trust situations, and enforcing them, by now. The current situation is not working. Trump just said "fuck you, I'm going to push the FBI to keep their HQ by my hotel" and nothing happened.

I feel like retirement funds should be a separate thing that wouldn't be counted as stocks. But, I get where you're coming from. I voted No even for immediate family, but a blind trust situation I could potentially see, yeah.

[Gestopft]

I honestly feel like we could clean up all of the corruption in government if we put laws into place requiring our elected officials to live at a standard middle class income and limiting sources of outside income. Get rid of all those asshats who are there to get rich.

This would only make "turning my influence as a lawmaker into a lucrative private sector gig" worse. If anything, paying Reps more would be better at disincentivizing the revolving door. Although, I do think it'd be fun to tie a representative's salary to a multiple of the median wage in their district.

[D3thray]

Yes, just make them subject to the same regulations (i.e. insider trading) as everyone else since currently they exempt themselves. I don’t see how banning one asset class alone would be particularly impactful. They should however be required to be completely transparent with their finances and all elected positions should be subject to recall.

[Nymrohd]

They should still be able to hold stock as long as the stock is managed independently (i.e. a blind trust). What is needed is for that independence to be properly regulated. No contact from their side, only contact they get is reports and has to be copied to the regulatory authority. Any breach of independence is an ethics code violation and at minimum, reason for removal from all committees, at worse a cause of impeachment. Plus their friends and family should have heightened requirements for trade disclosures to prevent insider trading.
And they are barred from employment or contract work with any company that participates in public tenders or receives public subsidies at any level for about a decade.

[Kokolums]

you cannot kill capitalism.

if such a law was passed, a bunch of nations would spring up and offer very lucrative deals for ex-politicians to move there and bring their money and expertise to their capital markets. so lets say France offers a bounty for them to move there, congresspeople would move to France and put their money in their capital markets and take french jobs. so now youd not only have to ban politicians from the US private sector, youd have to freeze their bank accounts, take away their passports and effectively hold them in jail for however long the no compete lasts.

good effing luck.

no intelligent people would work for the federal government under those conditions.

[Endus]

you cannot kill capitalism.

It's not Sauron, or something.

if such a law was passed, a bunch of nations would spring up and offer very lucrative deals for ex-politicians to move there and bring their money and expertise to their capital markets.

Why? Ex-politicians don't get lucrative deals to teach at universities in those fields, because they're largely not particularly experienced or well-read in those fields. This doesn't even happen within the same country, let alone internationally.

Also, what money? Members of Congress aren't making that much money. If anything, we're back to the thread title; if you're using your position to make profitable trades on the market, that's corruption and should see you in a prison cell. It's insider trading. Literally. Same reason Martha Stewart went to prison.

so lets say France offers a bounty for them to move there, congresspeople would move to France and put their money in their capital markets and take french jobs.

Again, you don't have an explanation for why France would want to import failed American politicians to do non-political work. Seriously; nobody gives this much of a shit about American politicians except Americans.

so now youd not only have to ban politicians from the US private sector, youd have to freeze their bank accounts, take away their passports and effectively hold them in jail for however long the no compete lasts.

good effing luck.

None of this makes any sense. Particularly given how incredibly easy it is to freeze bank accounts and cancel passports. Both are basically a phone call or an e-mail and a few minutes of typing by a single licensed agent away from being completed.

no intelligent people would work for the federal government under those conditions.

It's pretty easy to argue most people who work as elected officials in the USA aren't particularly intelligent. Take Boebert, who's so dumb she failed her GED multiple times before getting a pity pass on it.

[Edge-]

if such a law was passed, a bunch of nations would spring up and offer very lucrative deals for ex-politicians to move there and bring their money and expertise to their capital markets. so lets say France offers a bounty for them to move there, congresspeople would move to France and put their money in their capital markets and take french jobs.

rofl what the literal fuck are you talking about

Their wealth isn't worth France doing shit about, nor would they necessarily invest it in the French market nor would it even have a significant impact on the French economy overall. What skills in particular are you talking about? They're legislators, something which France already has plenty of.

I'm honestly not sure how you see this working in your head here.