Congressional Staffers Gain From Trading in Stocks

[SB Shock]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522434188603198.html

WASHINGTON—Chris Miller nearly doubled his $3,500 stock investment in a renewable-energy firm in 2008. It was a perfectly legal bet, but he's no ordinary investor.

Mr. Miller is the top energy-policy adviser to Nevada Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped pass legislation that wound up benefiting the firm.

The article points out this is happening for both democrat and republican.
Is not that called insider trading? Oh wait, guess what

The aides identified by the Journal say they didn't profit by making trades based on any information gathered in the halls of Congress. Even if they had done so, it would be legal, because insider-trading laws don't apply to Congress.

How nice that Congress is above the law.

[1979Shocker]

Here's some more information.

Congress Refuses to Outlaw Insider Trading For Lawmakers

Even a cynic can find Washington's hypocrisy shocking at times. The Wall Street Journal reports today a House bill that would force lawmakers to make greater disclosures on financial transactions and disallow them from trading on nonpublic information is going nowhere fast.

That's right. Members of Congress are currently allowed to profit on insider trading!

The bill, which has been languishing in the House for four years, would require elected officials "to make their financial transactions public within 90 days of a purchase or sale" and "prohibit lawmakers from trading in financial markets based on nonpublic information they learn on the job," the WSJ reports.

[pogo]

I have no idea why we the people are so skeptical about anything that comes out of Washing DC from either party. You know now that I think of it why are they called parties? In the old days for me a party meant alot of drinking and trying to get lucky. Doesn't look like things are much different now only now there are a bunch of people having a good time on my dime and trying to put it to me. Hmmmmm

[SB Shock]

I guess that why u have guys spending hundred of millions of dollars of their own money to get elected. They are not doing it out of good citizenship but they expect a good return on that investment.

[Maggie]

I guess that why u have guys spending hundred of millions of dollars of their own money to get elected. They are not doing it out of good citizenship but they expect a good return on that investment.

There is no doubt that some politicians and their operatives, from the beginning of time, have taken advantage of their position for financial gain. And there is no doubt that the collusion between government and private enterprise is always of great concern. And further, there can be no doubt, as least to any reasonable observer, that the “green energy”, “green jobs” nonsense we hear out of Washington is ripe for exploitation (e.g., see Al Gore, et als).

But don’t you think you are painting with a very broad brush? It could be argued that those candidates who seek political office, those that are largely able to self-finance, would be less likely to be unduly influenced by any particular business interest.

[SB Shock]

I guess that why u have guys spending hundred of millions of dollars of their own money to get elected. They are not doing it out of good citizenship but they expect a good return on that investment.

There is no doubt that some politicians and their operatives, from the beginning of time, have taken advantage of their position for financial gain. And there is no doubt that the collusion between government and private enterprise is always of great concern. And further, there can be no doubt, as least to any reasonable observer, that the “green energy”, “green jobs” nonsense we hear out of Washington is ripe for exploitation (e.g., see Al Gore, et als).

But don’t you think you are painting with a very broad brush? It could be argued that those candidates who seek political office, those that are largely able to self-finance, would be less likely to be unduly influenced by any particular business interest.

Sure they won't "owe" anybody, just means that don't have to worry about sharing with anybody else when they are stealing.

[Maggie]

Look I get the frustration, anger really. And I share your feelings.

But, for example, there are couple of GOP candidates out in California who are self-financed, another in Connecticut, the governor’s race in Florida (full disclosure, I am familiar with Rick Scott – so I am a bit biased). Should they be disqualified from running or should their motives be questioned, without empirical evidence supporting such an accusation? Not that you are doing so but you are generalizing – assuming ulterior motives. Believe it or not, some people do want to serve the public. In fact, we are seeing an influx this election cycle of people running for political office who are not “typical” politicians.

It is, in my judgment, perfectly acceptable to be cynical – perfectly justifiable actually. But I think we should judge each candidate on their own merits, or lack thereof, and hold them accountable at the ballot box should they disappoint.