Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama edits STOCK Act to reduce transparency

Posted 9 years ago on April 16, 2013, 9:14 a.m. EST by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

29 Comments

29 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

Great guy Les Leopold breaks down congressional insider trading and how they hide their investments and wealth. Lack of transparency of congress makes us wonder how rick they are, how they make their money, who helps them make money, who manages their money for them, how insider knowledge might be spread from congress throughout Investment banks....

And Les Leopold breaks down how hedge funds and proprietary trading is unethical and often illegal. Certainly a lot of immoral behavior going on.

And he has a book. He sounds so smart. Might be a good book to take a look at.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

You were Right ... I didn't see the new story.

ACTION ALERT: STOCK Act Reversal Signed by President

By Dan Auble on April 15, 2013

President Obama has just signed a rollback of key transparency provisions of the STOCK Act.

Late Thursday night, as we reported last week, the Senate gutted the disclosure requirements by approving S.716, an act amending the requirements of the 2011 law. The House followed suit the next day, and the president signed the bill minutes ago.

The bill doesn't just eliminate a controversial requirement that personal financial disclosures of tens of thousands of high level federal employees be made publicly accessible online. It also reverses two critical components of the original STOCK act: mandatory electronic filing of PFDs by the president, his cabinet and members of Congress, and the creation of a publicly accessible database.

The elements of the STOCK Act that were removed include:

• Creation of searchable, sortable disclosure of the information contained in reports even for Congress, the president, vice president, the president’s cabinet and congressional candidates.

• Required electronic filing for Congress, the president, vice president, the president’s cabinet and congressional candidates, as well as high-level executive and congressional branch employees. Even images of the staffers' filings will not be available for viewing on the web.

Without the provisions, the STOCK act is made toothless. Insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees is still prohibited, but the ability of watchdog groups to verify that Congress is following its own rules is severely limited because these records could still be filed on paper -- an unacceptably outdated practice that limits the public's access.

This is not true disclosure.

Contact President Obama’s office today to signal your disappointment, and urge YOUR members of Congress to file their personal financial disclosure documents electronically and to propose legislation reinstating the database provision. (he has a link on the webpage to contact the President)

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/action-alert-stock-act-reversal-signed.html


Website OpenCongress.org show amazing speed for this Bill, S.716, which was introduced by Harry Reid on 10 April 2013, and was approved not only by congress but by the President on 14 April 2013.

Was that a Record or what? Remember Sandy Hook Legislation who lay unnoticed and debated for months .. only to expire when Congress went on Vaction!!@#%$

Well, we sure don't want higher ethics in the Senate, do we?????

All that Insider Trading has to be Streamlined to make sure their is no "Fallout", "Pushback", or "Blowback".

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

Rep. Peter King, R - If you are in public, you dont get privacy. Thats why we need cameras everywhere. We need them on the telephone poles and the street corners.

These fuckin republicans and their constant police state bullshit.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 9 years ago

Exactly...that's what I don't get. Republicans are supposed to be anti-government.....they're anti-government as long as you're not talking about invading other countries, setting up a police state in this country, or trying to force Christianity down the throats of every citizen. Basically anti-government unless it has to do with their personal interests....or monetary interests.......

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

True Dat.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

Exactly, just like the Dems. All serving their own interests.

Who the fuck elects these people?

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 9 years ago

I'm going to take a wild guess and hypothesize it's the very people down-voting us right now.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 9 years ago

Yes, the president has the ability to veto legislation. This was supposed to be a president about change and transparency:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4AJ843ERnU

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/04/action-alert-stock-act-reversal-signed.html

As president you have a responsibility to veto legislation which doesn't support the platform you ran on.

Is congress responsible for this also? Absolutely...they're the ones who passed it. But when you don't even have honesty at the top to stop congressional weasels from passing stuff like this....you have no one working for the people. That's a big part of the responsibility of the presidency...to make sure laws don't slip through that are screwing over the people.

I'm also definitely not saying if Romney was in office he would have done anything different....hell the guy would be doing every and anything to stop anyone from looking at his finances like he did during the campaign.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 9 years ago

And what checks would be in place for insider trading if investment transactions are not made public? Checks provided by the very people who have the incentive to insider trade! Execs with insider access in private companies make their transactions public.....and even with the public disclosure they still screw the system over every once in awhile. Here are chevrons insider transactions:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=CVX+Insider+Transactions

I don't think people realize that insider trading is literally stealing money from the 99%. When you insider trade and make money...someone else in the market place loses money...the schmucks without the information...us. Congress was legally allowed to insider trade and f'k everyone over up until a few years ago when 60 minutes (I think) FINALLY did a story about it. Now they're taking away the ability to effectively track whether these weasels are actually still doing this.

So if it is reasonable to assume we should afford congress the ability for privacy with their insider trading transactions...perhaps we should afford that same privacy to the private sector as well?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

The law DOES allow investment transactions to be seen by the public. Just not on the internet.

I think you are confused.

How did the vote go in congress? Who voted against the measure?

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 9 years ago

Great VQ....so lets apply the same logic to private corporate execs...lets let them file their transactions on paper so that 99.999% of the people in the country have no idea what the hell they're doing. You good with that? It's only fair.....government shouldn't have extra benefits over the people right? Over the 99%?

Lets take insider corporate exec trading back to paper....no longer publicly posted on the internet for all to see.

No, we wouldn't do that...because it's incredibly f'd up. Insider trading with execs still occurs EVEN with publicly visible transactions....wonder what it would be like if they were all recorded on paper and stashed away in the company some where....hmmmmm

Besides that I'm done talking to you...I'm choosing to not waste time on partisan plant hacks.

[-] -3 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

False comparison.

I support progress, making govt investments visible is the goal, they've done it.

The Pres signed it because that is the best we could get now.

You are the partisan plant hack. The title of this post is a blatant lie. And reflects your blind partisan goal to bash one party, even one politician.

Cause you ain't interested in the truth, only partisan attacks.

[-] 2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 9 years ago

2 hours ago:

[-] -2 points by john32 (-246) from Pittsburgh, PA 4 hours ago

Exactly...that's what I don't get. Republicans are supposed to be anti-government.....they're anti-government as long as you're not talking about invading other countries, setting up a police state in this country, or trying to force Christianity down the throats of every citizen. Basically anti-government unless it has to do with their personal interests....or monetary interests.......

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 9 years ago

See, You would be stumped about such matters if you did not understand, truly, the American system. Republicans believe in Nobles Oblige; therefore, social issues are their prerogative, After all, they are the party of the winners of Capitalism.

The Democrats are the party of the runner up. That is how America works. And a lot of people don't mind that.

The way I see it: i will live with these economic shackles capitalism places on my ankles, but I wont keep quiet. It is not my fault that this is the best they can aspire, the winner and the runner up.

[-] -2 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

What the fuck do you think this proves?

You've hidden the repub efforts on this investment issue, & you've lied about Pres Obama editing the law.

I don't buy the crap your selling.

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 9 years ago

I think it proves you're a fucking liar that has a 100 different screen names on this site which you use to upvote your own f'd up factless comments all day long with.

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

Just imagine what he does on dating sites....

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

Then you have further lost your grip on reality.

I use 1 ID, and your title is a blatant lie! Laws are not "edited" by the Pres. Are you a moron?

You're so stupid you can't see how stupid that title makes you look.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

If the law was vetoed their would be NO transparency of the govt employee investments.

The change only removed records from the internet.

You are clearly just bashing Obama for passing a law that makes govt employee investments public.

Why don't you tell us who watered the bill down? Do you know and have hidden that name? Or did you not bother to research.?

Do I have to tell you?

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 9 years ago

the government of the corporate system that can hire and fire at will

[-] -2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 9 years ago

it really is a government of the corporate system.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 9 years ago

So they fucked this up, and they just gave Monsanto a free pass to do whatever they want to our food supply, and they just choose 7 sites for drone "tests" in the country...

This thing is out of fuckin control and the people have no fuckin clue where this type of shit ends, over and over again throughout history.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

You do know that laws are not changed (edited) by the Pres right?

You Russian TV clip says the stock law was changed but that occurs by congresspeople.

Do you know which congresspeople proposed the change from "searchable internet records" to merely public availability to their stock records.

Or is this just another dishonest bashing Obama session?

LOL.

Do you suggest Obama veto the bill?

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 9 years ago

This would be the Senate Version:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2038

S. 2038 (112th): STOCK Act
Introduced: Jan 26, 2012 (112th Congress, 2011–2013)Sponsor: Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]

Introduced Jan 26, 2012
Reported by Committee Jan 26, 2012
Passed Senate Feb 02, 2012
Passed House with Changes Feb 09, 2012
Passed House Mar 22, 2012
Signed by the President Apr 04, 2012

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2038/text (Here is the Text)

An original bill to prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes.       

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s2038#summary/libraryofcongress (This is probably the Final Version with Changes)

Requires the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, by August 31, 2012, or 90 days after the enactment of this Act, to ensure that financial disclosure forms filed by Members, candidates for Congress, and congressional officers and employees, in calendar year 2012 and in subsequent years be made available to the public on the respective official Senate and House websites within 30 days after filing.

Terminates such requirement upon implementation of the following public disclosure systems.

Directs the Secretary, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Clerk to develop systems to enable the electronic filing of such reports as well as their on-line public availability.


Here are Related Bills or Similar Bills:

H.R. 4054: Restore Public Trust Act
Referred to Committee
Last Action: Feb 16, 2012

H.R. 1148: Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act
Referred to Committee
Last Action: Mar 17, 2011

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

Very thorough. thanks. I thought this was all old news.