SquaresUnfiltered
35031
2057
9
In fact, any public office should not have a money incentive. As we see, this draws the wrong type of people, the wrong type of governance, and really plays to the whole entire greed component of the human condition. This is why we are where we are. Too much money in politics, and too little attention paid by the American people until it was too late.
Do you support taking money out of politics?
http://stevens.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-stevens-introduces-congressional-stock-trading-ban-additional-measures
nothingunused
This would be a great first step of many.
chuckaholic
I guess I'll ask again, because they always do this when it's meaningless. The only time in the last decade this legislation had a remote chance of becoming law was 2021 & 2022 when Democrats held both chambers and POTUS. Why didn't they introduce it then?
Donfolstar
Democrats are great at introducing meaningful, necessary legislation to fix our country... when they are not in power. Then it's right back to business as usual when they win.
DonaIdJ
They’ll just sell their insider info to proxies. Unless the penalty for getting caught is complete and utter liquidation of all assets, public flogging and life imprisonment for anyone and their entire family, there’s no way to stop this type of corruption in the current worldview
judyblue
This needs to be accompanied by strict campaign finance reform to work.
pokiman
Not a perfect fix; still a lot of bribery going on in legislation... but it's a start.
YeastInfectedWhiskerBiscuit
Even without this law a good chunk of members should already be in prison.
Chereazi
Just makes getting bribed more attractive. Legitimate highly qualified people won't really be attracted by a high publicity job that might end up getting net negative income, so you get even less competition at the voting booth for people on the payroll of palantir.
I'm not saying it's not a problem, I think it's the wrong problem to focus on that could make things much worse then "fixed" on its own in a vacuum.
spattr
The way to take the money out of politics that drives large scale corruption is to publicly fund all elections. Ban donations to campaigns.
TeelMoobeel
also maybe disallow campaigning until 1 month before elections, that'd turn down the volume of money that can be spent.
BobJones786
It's called Insider Trading and I think Martha Stewart should be made Special Prosecutor for it!
Sunshine12345
Hakeem Jeffries, the man standing beside Stevens, killed a stock trading ban last year. It is speculated that he did so because bans on stock trading are popular and he wanted to keep the issue alive for campaigns. Both he and Stevens take AIPAC dollars. I'm pretty sure Jeffries also trades stock.
The two people running against Stevens don't take PAC money and don't trade stock. But they did call Gaza a genocide. Stevens is establishment, takes PAC money, and has more ambition than morals.
crypticpurpose
The proposed ban was rejected primarily because it explicitly would not have applied to a number of very important positions, such as the president and vice-president. If it had passed in that state, it would have realistically been impossible to ever pass another to impose such restrictions on those offices.
FreePalestineAndTheWorldFromIsrael
Needs to also introduce a No More Billionaires act. If anyone makes $100m, you must then be fired and never hold another job or a political position ever in your life. Fuck off and die with more money than any human should ever have.
irisewithredeyes
Mr. Jeffries doesn't seem to approve...
SPE825x
Yes. But Citizens United still needs to go too.
crypticpurpose
Also, water is wet.
PlatypusLancer
They need to loose all their physical properties, all their money, All their assets, all their families money and then spend the rest of life in prison. Their kids can start over like the rest of us poor people.
Which is why they will kill us all before admitting fault.
NonMAGA
Markwayne Mullins is a multimillionaire US Senator. He's actively seeking a department head role, which usually has far less pay and power. The system of grift and lawlessness we've created makes Head of the DHS a more appealing job to a certain type of individual (violent, lawless, grifters). Something needs to change.
yqpqfrdp625772
Don’t like the idea of a complete ban. I’m in favor of allowing them to keep investments in a blind trust managed by someone they have no personal connection to where they have no idea how their investment is allocated between stocks/bonds/real estate/etc. So not like trump with his kids, or pelosi with her husband, but an investment firm like the foster group or something similar.
BrickSprickly
Lol no
FailureFactory
The thing is that if you do a full ban, savy lawyers always find little holes in the law to still do it a little. If you leave a little, they'll find ways to do it a lot.
miked854
That's nice, but you've just made lobbyists the ONLY source of wealth for congress people and given them more power.
crypticpurpose
It's a marathon, not a sprint; the system is so broken that there is no possible way to address every source of corruption at once without outright shattering it completely and starting over from scratch. Don't get too caught up on one single step - we still have a several hundred thousand to go after this one.
buddhanature
IT needs to have a plan for managing money coming from Lobbyists as well
SquaresUnfiltered
How about we just make a lobbyist illegal?
buddhanature
TheLastSpaceman
YES! IT'S A FUCKING CONFLICT OF INTEREST
pancreas
you're right. this act would conflict with their interest in getting rich
CombatWombatBlend
There is no way to entirely stop corrupt politicians from being corrupt, the only thing we can do is vote them out and try to find someone who isn't corrupt (or at least less corrupt). IMHO it's time to start from scratch.
IvoryAS
Or 𝘢𝘴 𝙘𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙚 to "from scratch" as possible. The 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 systems in place won't exactly go down without a 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, and I'm not even talking about violent revolution...
torquemada90
this will never pass. Both sides are too corrupt to even contemplate implementing this
UncleMartha
I kind of love how Jeffries is giving her side-eye already.
kyndo
Seems to be working in Montana: the Montana Plan aims at removing all corporate money from politics. It's only a step, but at least it's one in the correct direction.
apoliticalpanda
For this to pass, 218 people would have to vote they want a smaller bank account. Try going to your office and convincing 1 person to turn down a Christmas bonus or a annual raise
CombatWombatBlend
It's almost like they shouldn't be the ones deciding this...
mafiacarstarter
No income allowed from any source except the government. No investments allowed except US savings bonds.
$3 limit on gifts.
Each violation should be one count of treason.
PorterPickUp
My concern with limiting the money source to only the government is you are essentially saying only the rich can represent us. Congress critters do not get paid enough by the job to have an office in their home state, and in DC while also paying for a staff in both places.
mafiacarstarter
You think that the staff of members of congress is paid for out of the congressperson's salary?
You think that their travel is paid for from their salary?
You think their office is paid for from their salary?
They get roughly $2 million a year to cover that.
You don't need to be rich to be in congress.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30064
PorterPickUp
Senators do get that. Representatives get about half that.
mafiacarstarter
That's not how the Members' Representational Allowance works.
Unlike salary, it does not differ between the House and the Senate. It does vary some based on how far away from D.C. a member's constituency is, as distance is included in the calculations for travel expenses.
There is a link up above that has all of the details you ignored.
B3N15
Shouldn't be treason, insider trading should be more accurate. I'm also fine with them having investments, they should just be placed in a blind trust for the duration of their time in office. I also think you should raise your gift limit to something like $1000 and/or exempt personal gifts from family/friends; it become too much a political tool if you can get someone called up on charges for accepting a tie from their kid on Father's Day or their spouse buying them lunch.
Mikeiller
Let's say immediate family "friends" leaves far too much wiggle room.
B3N15
You do need wiggle room for this. It's clearly good intentioned, but if you have no wiggle room whatsoever, it a) doesn't stop the grifting, because those who want to grift will just go underground and/or b) it'll just become a selectively enforced based on whoever is in power. It be better to have the exemption, but make reporting, disclosure, and conflict of interest laws much stricter and enforceable
custardandfishfingers24
You had me till the last part. It trivializes treason.
cykes
I guess it would need to be judged in a case by case? Some contractor buying lunch and coffee to a government employee may be frowned upon but a foreign country granting patents, building permits, jets, buying virtual currency, etc. for political favors is certainly serious enough to warrant swatting down hard on the politician in question.
mafiacarstarter
A thing can not trivialize itself.
CallMeCourierSix
"Making it treason trivializes it! It doesn't matter that politicians are literally committing treason by selling state secrets that get people killed! That politicians do favors for other nations, which then causes the US financial harm! That politicians are constantly putting our national security in danger for money! THAT'S NOT TREASON!"
That's what you sound like.
1stDrunkJoe
Treason is a capital offense in war times; it seems like a great way to make an example to me.
Bobbobbobobbananafanafobob
Only because we've been conditioned to be lenient with politicians and corporate bigwigs. If a black man gets 10 years for repeatedly being caught with $3 of pot, then by your logic it exaggerates possession.
I don't remember what comedy show did it, but the idea of being tried as a black man is what you need to fix a lot of problems. There shouldn't be a three tier legal system (POC, citizens, and the rich).
OnlyWantToSayOneThing
Someone getting a $370m bribe from a middle east source in order to get them to betray the united states an act against the wishes of the american people should surely be on part with treason? The fact is that if a soldier defects and joins the enemy, even as an advisor, its treason however a politician spying, selling secrets, or selling political favors to other countries being seen as treason 'trivializes' it? I can't post where my active military family is stationed but politicians can?
idothingsheren
I think broad market investments, such as the S&P500, are reasonable for them to own. It's not specific to any sector, it's just the market as a whole
mafiacarstarter
Their *ONLY* vested interest should be the prosperity and success of their constituents.
If they have any other investment options, they will do as they have done, and get rich screwing their constituents over.
MendoncycleSmith
Cool, no "buying", but that really doesn't scratch the surface of the issue. Rescinding Citizens United, is ESSENTIAL, to underpinning this move. Otherwise, corporate lobbyists will simply step in and lavish the newly "poor" members of our government with even more effusive gifts, in even more elaborate work around schemes.
crypticpurpose
That is certainly essential, but even that barely makes up the first millimeter of the hundred mile journey needed to start fixing things😐
FiftyShadesOfTiramisu
Or they'll simply promise congresspeople a handsomely paid board seat or corporate lobbyist position at the end of their term. Which is already happening. 50% of senators become lobbyists after leaving congress.
Peden1
Money in American politics should be removed or regulated imo
KleptoKea
The fact it hasn't been yet says so much about what the American People are able to tolerate and normalise, on top of bowing to a child rapist they elected to lead them, twice.
CallMeCourierSix
I'm going to say this again.
GIVE. US. A. PLAN. Give us a workable, feasible plan to fight back against the hyper-rich that now control everything. This is not unique to the USA. And yet somehow WE THE COMMON PEOPLE ARE THE BAD GUYS.
GIVE US A FUCKING PLAN TO FIX IT! THAT ACTUALLY WORKS AND CAN BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE 99%. WE WOULD *LOVE* TO FIX THIS SHIT!
KleptoKea
You the People are complicit because there are 350 million of you, and if we are to assume the majority of you are passionately against fascism, and would do anything to protect your kids from growing up in a Nazi dictatorship run by a child rapist (right??? You WOULD fight against that....?). We haven't seen the Americans act in the appropriate numbers or fervour to convince us.
CallMeCourierSix
Yep. That's what I thought. You have no idea how to fix this either.
KleptoKea
That's peak American, outsourcing spines and responsibility to your democracy out to foreigners.
JohnSmithterms
Only braindead American people would dissagree with you. So a good 60% of the population.
IncognitoPanda
It's fucking crazy that this isn't obvious to every American. It is to everyone else watching you
crypticpurpose
That's the thing - the majority of Americans are kept extremely insulated from knowledge about the rest of the world, not by any direct restrictions like in China or North Korea, but by generations of upbringing and education reinforcing a cultural worldview that essentially excludes anything outside of US borders. They objectively know the rest of the world exists, but, subjectively, it lacks any proper sense of reality, because they lack the tools and perspective necessary to make sense of it.
CyberHexx
Fuck regulating it. Regulations are practically made to be reduced.
pgdave
It's already regulated, though likely not enough. How would you remove it, though? Campaigns employ people, and pay businesses for things like transportation and advertisements, so they need money. And people who aren't rich should be able to run for office, so pay should be at least median wages (plus stipends if you require them to live away from their home).
crypticpurpose
Governments of most other countries allot qualified candidates a budget for their campaign, and they are restricted from using any other funds. Nice and simple. No lobbyists, no PACs/Super-PACs, no third-party political advertisement campaigns, nand no propaganda sessions masquerading as TV appearances. The US spends more on elections in a year than the rest of the world combined does in a decade.
pgdave
We do that here in the US, too - and other countries absolutely do have lobbyists, and third party political advertisements (though potentially not third party political candidate advertisements). Any time J. K. Rowling tweets about how much she hates trans people and thinks they shouldn't exist, that's a political advertisement from a non-candidate, trying (and succeeding) to influence UK politics.
Thorketil
And that should start with the election campaigns. There are more modern democracies where politics isn't bought by hundreds of millions in campaign donations from the top one percent.
SquaresUnfiltered
exactly my thoughts
boxbackknitties
Removed is good. It’s literal “rules for thee but not for me.”
Peden1
I understand private individual donations (though I'm not completely comfortable with that either) but corporations providing significant amounts to push their agenda is really messed up
boxbackknitties
I guess I was focusing more on the insider trading aspect, however the donations are literal bribery. The pac money should be so wildly illegal it should be a “right to jail” situation.
Peden1
I agree with the insider trading as well. It needs to be addressed.
roughingupthesuspect
So if it passes, who enforces it?
rydecker
what about his orangeness's "Presidential immunity"
pancreas
well, congress of course
petpet3d
That's the neat part!
Shadam
Guys... You are so far away from Europe... In France we have a website where we can check all of the properties of a public personality, and they are forced to declare all of their shits
Schreckenshase
almost the same over here in Germany. Our politicans have to give information about their incomes in estimates.
crypticpurpose
As a German-American dual citizen living in the US, believe me when I say that the average American is kept ignorant of foreign political and societal structures to such a degree that, not only would they not believe you if you told them how things work in other places, they would subconsciously dismiss the information as irrelevant even if they did. The rest of the world has been hammered into them from birth as so fundamentally different and alien from the US that it barely seems real to them.
Hoiloidl
We had friends from the US come visit us in Germany. First evening out for dinner the youngest asked 'how do we do tips?' and the one with more experience just answered very dryly 'You don't have to worry about that here, this is a cilized country, they pay their people'.
Just shows how ingrained the tipping culture is when you automatically assume it's like that everywhere else.
ShereeAnderson
Great but we’re a little late
KleptoKea
Nothing will get fixed if you Americans keep thinking like that. Seems to be no end of ways to excuse yourselves from demanding better from your government and acting accordingly. Other populations rose up against their leaders for far less.
CombatWombatBlend
Is this a step in the right direction? Sure. Only ten billion more steps to go (if we keep trying to fix the current system it will ALWAYS be one step forward, ten steps back). It's time to burn it down and create a system that actually works FOR the people (not just the billionaires).
UsertubeBandwagon
it’s never too late to do the right thing.
BrickSprickly
We've got maybe 10-15 more years until a global catastrophe from climate change shows us all what we've been doing wrong. It's all too late.
PurpleMoonFlower
But you won't actually do it
tbmchristopher
Or at least it's never to late to try and do better
CombatWombatBlend
It's too late for THIS fix to work, but not to late to burn it all down and make something better.
ShereeAnderson
You are correct.
CombatWombatBlend
He's correct in the sense that it will NEVER pass (it's too late), because almost everyone is corrupt now.
Zirze
What a seriously stupid attitude. I get everything isn't in a good place right now but let's try to fix it and not mock the fix like a useless person.
KleptoKea
You got downvoted just as I do when there's any mention of Americans DOING something and not just being useless spineless defeatists.
ShereeAnderson
You have a nice day angry person.
BrickSprickly
They're not wrong at all. Introducing new laws is useless when they ignore current laws.
KleptoKea
Everything's useless when the American People spinelessly take a defeatist attitude instead of uniting and fighting for better.
InTangier
Pretty much. Also bears mentioning that a lot of the same people who were dragging their feet, or directly opposing similar initiatives, are still in Congress. In her own party, actually, which makes it even worse.
StubbornSlug
Absolutely! Martha Stewart went to prison for less. Hold them all accountable. None of them should be becoming millionaires or billionaires because they have insider knowledge.
gobblinal
Not just insider knowledge, but the power to manipulate the entire market by just spewing whatever random shit they want.
Might also want to do something about their family (immediate AND extended) and "friends" getting rich off of insider knowledge.
weallfloatdownhereeee
'Prison" she went on a nice retreat
zHurk777
Senator rick scott R-FLA didn't go to prison after his company committed the largest medicare fraud in history. In total, civil lawsuits cost Columbia/HCA more than $2 billion to settle, which at the time was the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history. Prior to the settlements, scott was forced out but received $350,000,000 worth of stock options plus millions more in payments. After getting elected, scott tried to whitewash the fraud settlement.
Timesarrows
stewart went to prison for lying. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/jan/28/broadcasting.pressandpublishing something even the fascist corporate media has counted trump has lied 20K times. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/jan/28/broadcasting.pressandpublishing
justiPumpkinTaker
Because it was a bitch hunt.
They wanted to punish a woman for something. Make sure they know they can't get too powerful.
BrickSprickly
They dont care about laws tho
thinkybrainpains
Ban them from “predictive markets” too.
thinkybrainpains
How’s about a citizen led constitutional amendment to ban political contributions by an individual or entity that exceeds $100, makes PACs list all donors and board/staff members and undoes Citizens United while preventing any politician from making a dime in any type of wheeling and dealing while in office or before and out of office for 8 years? How’s about term limits?
TheDaharMaster
Extend it to Supreme Court justices as well.
tinydog
Only way any of that's happening is unpleasantly.
thinkybrainpains
Timesarrows
our best Dem politicians that would do this have campaigned they'd do it were all targeted and AIPAC has spent billions to defeat them! AIPAC is the Enemy of US Freedom and Democracy! https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/17/pro-israel-lobby-defeat-democrats-palestinians-2022
stonecw
Yes and yes and yes … but maybe no on term limits, only because of the risk of losing institutional knowledge and experience of those actually doing good work. Instead, implement ranked choice voting to make it easier to oust incumbents that need to go.
sylkysmooth
Eh. The term limits aren't a bad idea. Like, just because someone can't do a job any longer doesn't mean they can't still be on staff to help guide and work with the new representitive.
invisiblemaniac
It's not brutal enough. They also need to remove themselves from any corporate boards they are a part of, as well as any consultations, partnerships, and practices where they may also seek profit. I get that you don't want people starving in office, but you don't want it to be only made up of people who have enough money to run as a hobby. Which is where we are now. Blind trusts for everyone. The way it's SUPPOSED to be. And arrest any that violate it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_trust
DocNitro
Arrest and literally hang them in front of their main residence.
cyclone0619
A feelings as well. This isn't "brutal". An act of brutality causes damage. This bill is trying to put a stop to the damage politicians are doing to the economy and public for their own personal gain. Fuck the "News" and the way they fram shot for their business daddy. And Fuck you business daddy. https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1eHh6c2d5aHVrdGd4MmQzNXJiam8yOTFnOTNweWY5YnNjN2h3ZHE0eiZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/mTBUI4EUMg4Hfj5yFn/200w.webp
thinkybrainpains
And no lobbying for 10 years before and after holding office
crypticpurpose
No lobbying, period. Not for them, and not for anyone else, either. It's with good reason that the rest of the world doesn't differentiate lobbying from attempted bribery, and most other languages don't even have a separate word for the concept.
WireWynaut
Hell, I say that if you're an elected official, your assets should be entirely frozen. No accumulating interest, no gaining value. Your needs are taken care of, but you're in the same position when you're out as wehn you went in.
Freemage69
I'd ditch the blind trusts. Instead, the ONLY investment vehicles an elected or appointed official can still own when they take office should be government bonds, be they federal, state or municipal. Anything else has to be sold off and cannot be purchased until 6 months after they leave.
pgdave
That would make them *very* susceptible to bribery - letting them at least put money into the TSP funds (like 401k, but for government workers) would be better.
Freemage69
Sounds reasonable.
Fahrenheit536
They should also be banned permanently from becoming lobbyists, and should have a period of like ten years following any official post where they cannot consult on profitable ventures related in any form to government actions/policy changes/etc. (including with companies with large/controlling interests), or form any business partnerships with government contractors/employers, projects, current officials, etc. Don't let them become government OR corporate influencers after they leave office.
kadaeux
Add on that *any* money sourced from overseas is grounds for immediate impeachment and removal from office.
Margrave9000
Yup.
Like they do in Europe. The EU is successfully combatting corruption and sets the global standards in the field.
crypticpurpose
Lobbying itself should be banned. I realize a significant percentage of people in the US are fairly (intentionally?) insulated from the goings-on of the rest of the world, but we are the ONLY developed nation where this sort of thing is even remotely legal - pretty much everywhere else, including most developing nations, they call it what it is: bribery. Related: more money is spent on elections in the US than the rest of the world, combined, by a massive margin 🤔
PirateArrrgument
Starving in office? The president and members of congress all receive a paycheck and it's a fuckload higher salary than 95% of the country earns annually. Members of either house of congress get $174,000 annually. House leaders (majority or minority alike) earn $193,400. House Speaker earns $223,500, vice president $235,100 and president earns $400,000. Now while I sympathize with them for scraping by on poverty wages (sarcasm) I think they'll just have to just save up for their next yacht.
whatsisname
Even $200k is not "next yacht wealthy" for living in DC, especially if that person has a family.
PirateArrrgument
It's not meant to be. Congress is not supposed to be five yachts wealthy. It's not even meant to make congressmen one yacht wealthy. It's meant to be comfortable enough to live on so they can focus on running the country and making meaningful, just laws instead of wondering where they're going to earn the money for food and housing.
marsilies
The compensation for most Senators, Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico is $174,000/year. That's not exactly a "starving" wage. While we're at it, we should make any raises to that pay tied to the minimum wage. You want a higher wage in Congress? Raise the minimum wage. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30064
DarthGoodguy
They & their spouses should have no income besides this, all investments in a blind trust, and very strict audits with mid-security federal prison is they break it. And it spoils continue for at least one term length after their term is up.
Ac1dBurn72
There are housing stipends that they get to assist with this.
I say they are all given the median income of their constituents. And are audited annually. All assets. Refusal to submit is punishable by removal from office.
JoeDonBobby
Audits are key.
CycloneSP
make it equal to 6x the current minimum wage, and have it also set the minimum wage to $15/hr
Lutki
Most political appointments are considered part time salaried positions. So I don't know how exactly you would actually enforce this
CycloneSP
$15/hr is roughly $30k/yr. 6x that is roughly $180k/yr. after that, do whatever adjustments needed for part/full time, etc etc
martineb72
Except they do need 2 houses. One in DC and one in their district. Not saying that isn't still good money, but they do have a little more expenses than you would think.
ThePostPenultStraw
Dorms? They could all stay in dorms when in DC. 100 unit apartments for senate. And house gets row housing.
whatsisname
And if any of them have family?
Badprenup
Yeah that's what I think should be done. A couple apartment complexes off of the capitol for congress, supreme court justices, etc.
MajorasTerribleFate
Probably don't want to concentrate the housing of a branch of government quite that much, for security reasons.