From article
Democrats are joining forces with the GOP to ban and potentially punish House members who trade individual stocks.
“Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas reintroduced the TRUST in Congress Act on Thursday,” CNN reported. “It would require members of Congress, their spouses and their dependent children to put certain investment assets into a qualified blind trust while the member is in office.”
We are long overdue for a vote on legislation to ban Members of Congress and their spouses from trading individual stocks,” Spanberger said in a statement.
“Our TRUST in Congress Act would demonstrate that lawmakers are focused on serving the interests of the American people – not their own stock portfolios,” she continued.
Politicians like former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have become extremely wealthy over the years by trading individual stocks.
It is hard to believe that an 82 year old member of the House could perform better in the stock market than qualified professionals and many Americans assume that Pelosi is trading with insider knowledge.
Pelosi “has been one of the most active investors on the Congress floor, attracting much controversy in the process,” Seeking Alpha reported. “When it comes to discussing the controversies surrounding the question of Congressional insider trading, it becomes almost impossible to glance over the subject of Nancy Pelosi and her trading record.”
So, is Pelosi trading with insider knowledge? The chances are extremely likely.
Let’s look at how her husband purchased call options for Microsoft and two weeks later the U.S. Army closed a $21.9 billion deal with them.
In March 2021, Paul Pelosi exercised options to purchase 25,000 Microsoft shares worth more than $5 million.,” the Hill reported. “Less than two weeks later, the U.S. Army disclosed a $21.9 billion deal to buy augmented reality headsets from Microsoft. Shares of the company rose sharply after the deal was announced.”
In the new stock trade ban bill, many lawmakers are calling on other members of the House to be punished if they are trading with insider knowledge.
“Any Member of Congress who has traded stock on the basis of inside information should be prosecuted,” Democratic Representative Adam Schiff said. “Proud to once again cosponsor @RepSpanberger legislation to ban member trading. Thanks, Abigail, for leading this effort.”
Going off of Schiff’s statement, there is reason to suggest that Pelosi should be investigated and potentially prosecuted considering the chances of her trading with insider knowledge is extremely high.
“Great! You can start with Nancy Pelosi,” I replied on Twitter.
CNN reports more on the TRUST in Congress Act:
Last year, lawmakers worked toward a possible agreement to get proposals to a vote but no breakthrough emerged. Even support from Democratic leadership was not enough to find consensus.
That development was still notable because then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – a longtime defender of lawmakers’ ability to trade stocks – committed to putting legislation on the floor that would restrict members from stock trading after public pressure grew and the Senate put forth its own proposals, which also stalled.
Thursday’s renewed effort is Spanberger and Roy’s third attempt to get the bill to the floor – but this time was introduced with 35 cosponsors ranging from conservative Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida to liberals such as Rep. Adam Schiff of California. It is the most cosponsors the legislation has received when introduced.
The problems aren't mutually exclusive. With term limits, new blood is forced in. Incumbents are known, and people are extremely likely to vote for them instead of the unknown.
The elections don't need to be rigged for a 40 year career politician to win against a 29 year old fresh on the scene, but with term limits the 29 year old fresh on the scene can come in with new ideas and then has to fight for their next election by serving the people.
Without term limits, people like Linda, Turtle, Pelosi stay in indefinitely.
Term limits removes that possibility.
I think it should be a requirement for all congress members to have worked in the private sector at some point before eligibility. Let's remember the Roman Republic, on which our democratic system is based. Imagine how much better representation for the working classes would be if their reps had once worked at a fast-food joint, a manufacturing plant, or department store, for example? Term limits are great, too, but wouldn't it be great to know our reps knew what it was like in the real world? Career politicians with no actual job experience or sense of reality are ripe for corruption. Even white-collar corporate professionals usually had part-time jobs after school, during summer breaks, or during college.
I respectfully disagree on the term limit issue. With a term limit in the house or the senate, you would be electing somebody who is automatically a lame duck and beholden to nobody because their time is limited.
Before all of the rigged election news broke, average voter turnout for an election was anywhere from 10-30%. People have been intentionally distracted from political issues and those that aren't distracted get frustrated by the way that laws and rules are being passed with little to no recourse on the elected. Attempting to read most bills is an extremely frustrating process.
The election problems need to be resolved; the voters also need a way to hold the elected accountable once in office. Bondsforthewin.com has a good idea. I'm not completely convinced that it would work but at least is has potential.