SAVE Act snuck into the Stop Insider Trading Act

Jul 23, 2026 5:13 PM

Stop Insider Trading Act already wasn't perfect, but the "poison pill" was that they snuck in voter ID requirements. 13 Democrats voted for this.

So they PASSED the essence of the SAVE Act then? JFC you all are fucked (even more).

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It sneaks it in as an amendment to an existing vote-related bill.

"Title III of the Help Amer13 ica Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 303 the following new section SEC. 303A"

In there it says if you have a religious objection to being photographed you can vote provisionally and then return an affidavit within 3 days.

1 week ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

If we can’t have single item votes, can we get the ability to see who ads what? I’d love to be able to ask “who wrote this section” and then “WTF is wrong with you?”

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1 week ago | Likes 30 Dislikes 1

Kaptur's been useless for years now, wish we had someone in the district to primary her out

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Done on purpose, they don't want to stop trading but it's so unpopular they have to look like they're trying to do something.
It's like everything else, intended to quell the uprising and let people move on to the next news item

#releasethefiles

1 week ago | Likes 76 Dislikes 3

Very convenient that it specifies members of congress and doesn’t mention the president

1 week ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

It didn't SNEAK in, it was PURPOSELY put in there by Republicans to make it a poison pill. They forced Democrats to either vote YES on the SAVE act or Democrats vote NO and Republicans get to go "Look, Democrats don't want to stop insider trading!" They know it works because the average person is dumb as fuck and even IF they can be bothered to look at the vote result, they'll only look at the title and the vote and go "The Republicans are right, Democrats want insider trading!"

1 week ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

You’re right. You’re not getting a downvote from me despite your username

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Knew they'd try to sneak it in somehow

1 week ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 2

That kind of thing shouldn't be allowed. Who thought it was a good idea to make it so that you can amend a bill by tacking another entirely unrelated bill to it?

1 week ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

Nearly everyone in Congress.

6 days ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1 week ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

#politics #us_politics ....

4 days ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

It's more than just ID to vote, didn't screenshot the whole thing. Here's the full text it starts on page 8 https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20260720/RCP2_STOPINSIDERTRADING_xml.pdf

1 week ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 5

Sounds like it is just ID to vote unless you're doing it by mail, and its just ID which doesn't have to match birth certificate

6 days ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

They appear to no longer be requiring that the photo ID match the birth certificate if I am reading this language correctly.

1 week ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I don’t mind ID to vote. I already have to do that. As long as it’s easy to get an ID and there’s no other weird bullshit in the law. The SAVE Act isn’t just ID. There’s all kinds of BS in there.

1 week ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 12

There's more than just what I took a screenshot of. Here's the full text, voter ID stuff starts on page 8 https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20260720/RCP2_STOPINSIDERTRADING_xml.pdf

1 week ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

It looks like an ID requirement. I already have to do that. It’s incredibly easy.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 7

Either they didn't read it, or they're assholes.

1 week ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 4

[deleted]

[deleted]

1 week ago (deleted Jul 23, 2026 5:43 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

It's literally their job to read these bills before voting on them, bud.

1 week ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 3

I can't say if most read it or not, but there have been instances where politicians have admitted to not reading what they are voting on and supporting.

1 week ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

Haha, they deleted it before more people could tell them how dumb a take this is

1 week ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 3

True, they *should* read it themselves, but i think it's commonly thier staff who read through the full bills and then give a summary to the Reps.

1 week ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

Heaven forbid they should be required to actually do their own jobs themselves.

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

It's not uncommon that it is impossible for one person to read the full act between the text being released and the vote is scheduled. And you need competence in the area the law covers to understand the ramifications of each change.

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0