STOCK Act Opponent Richard Burr Stands To Gain From Natural Gas Investments

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Richard Burr's vocal opposition to the STOCK Act raised some eyebrows in Washington this week, and with good reason.

Burr, a North Carolina Republican who was one of just three senators to vote against the ban on congressional insider trading Thursday, owns investments in the natural gas industry that would benefit from legislation he co-sponsored offering tax credits for natural gas-fueled vehicles.

Burr has investments in the gas industry valued from $133,298 to $219,337, according to his 2010 filings. His portfolio includes $36,000 worth of stock in Chesapeake Energy Corp., the second-largest U.S. producer of natural gas. He also holds more than $25,000 in shares of Loews Corp., a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in the exploration, production, marketing and transmission of natural gas.

He was on the losing side of Thursday's 96-3 passage of the STOCK Act, that would tighten rules for lawmakers and their aides using inside information for personal investments. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said he'll bring the STOCK Act to the House floor next week.

Burr's investments pose "a very clear conflict of interest," said Craig Holman of the advocacy group Public Citizen. He said the STOCK Act "will make members of Congress much more cautious in any particular sector, including natural gas." While the STOCK Act wouldn't prohibit such investments, "members of Congress will have to think twice about any kind of trading activity they do," Holman said.

Burr was unavailable to discuss his investments, his office said. He opposed the STOCK Act "because there are already laws in place to address this critical issue," said spokesman David Ward. "Laws regarding insider trading that apply to the American people also apply to members of Congress and their staff. Members of Congress are elected to serve the people, not make money for themselves, and any member or staff member who breaks the already existing insider trading laws should be held responsible."

Burr, along with Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, and two other senators introduced S-1863 in November with bipartisan support. The measure would offer individuals and businesses tax credits for buying natural gas-fueled vehicles or converting existing fleets to run on the fuel. President Barack Obama on Friday said he supported the bill.

Chambliss has $15,000 in the BlackRock Growth Fund, according to the most recent documents available. The fund, with an estimated $1.9 billion in assets, bet heavily on coal and natural gas in 2011, targeting what it saw as an expected rise of the price of energy in both sectors.

Chambliss' office declined to comment.

Despite his STOCK Act opposition, Burr has said he supports the ban on congressional insider trading. In a recent interview with Jerri Jameson on News Radio 570- WWNC, Burr called the STOCK Act "ludicrous" and "political theater."

"We should be focused on jobs, the economy," he said. "We should be taking up real legislation. It’s like me saying to you, 'Jerri, before you come to work this morning and you’re going to drive your car, I’m going to pass a law that says you have to have a driver’s license' ... The laws that are currently on the books apply to all members of Congress and all staff, not limited staff."

Comments

[Mollyj]

01:55 PM on 02/09/2012

STOCK Act Opponent Richard Burr Stands To Gain From Natural Gas Investments;

Put him in jail! He is worse than a Drug Dealer!

[upset1]

12:11 PM on 02/09/2012

It is amazing that the exemption of Politicians from the laws regarding Insider trading that applies to the rest of the country has taken so long to come to attention of the American public. Who knows when our elected representatives passed the bill creating an exception for themselves?

I believe this is a great first step in exposing the unethical practices that exist in our government on all levels which favors the elitist in Washington. We need to keep exposing these laws which only benefit the politically connected and force our representatives to focus on passing bills which benefit our country as a whole. Stop worrying about favorite political parties and start replacing those who fight to maintain the statue for the status quo.

[JudMiller]

10:22 PM on 02/07/2012

It's a shame this wasn't law back in 2008, so Pelosi would be behind bars.

[Grichde]

07:46 AM on 02/06/2012

Left wing attack, when Bingaman gets free ride.

[Tara Wright]

12:33 PM on 02/07/2012

This is NOT a left-wing attack. He is only one of the THREE Senators in a senate who has almost unanimously seen Republicans vote down everything Reid has brought to a vote, but even his fellow Republicans voted en masse for this Act. Only two, on being Burr, broke ranks. The 3rd was Democrat Bingaman from New Mexico, but the other was another Republican, Tom Coburn from Oklahoma and they didn't mention him either. All have ties that allow them to profit off of insider information, but Burr has never voted for a single piece of legislation that didn't profit him personally. He's the universal "no" vote except when it comes to his own pay raises and heavily lobbied/fundraiser connected profits. He's one of the most corrupt people on Capitol Hill, and the people of my state keep voting his good ol' boy corruption in. It's disgusting. Not a left-wing attack unless it's the first one to leave a Republican untouched who was fully exposed too. Grow up!

[Grichde]

07:37 PM on 02/05/2012

Bingaman (D) voted NO, the bearer of much pork back home -- during 2008-2010, he sponsored 47 solo earmarks worth $36 million and supported 442 co-sponsored earmarks worth $973 million, and that doesn't count earmarks requested by President Obama.

He wields real power in committee assignments -- chairman of Energy and Natural Resources, member of the Finance Committee; the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; and the Joint Committee on the Economy.

Bingaman financial disclosure reports show a man who entered the Senate in 1983 considerably less than a millionaire, inherited a Texaco oil and gas well in Gregg County, Texas, worth all of $15,000, and yet is retiring with investments worth possibly as much as $50 million.

Bingaman 40th richest of the 535 members of Congress his investment portfolio of the senator was unusually active, "racking up nearly 600 separate purchases and sales of stock in 2009, worth a combined total of more than $20 million" not counting their book of untraded stocks.

The range is so wide because federal disclosure law frustratingly requires reporting investments only in nearly meaningless categories, like $6 million to $25 million, hiding even the approximate value of any asset or debt.

[Tara Wright]

12:39 PM on 02/07/2012

Again, they didn't mention Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, either. Quit crapping yourself over this....they focused on Burr because Burr is the most egregious no in the bunch. He's corrupt. He's never voted for anything, either to help his state or his constituency (I know, I live here), that didn't give him a specific kick-back. He's only there because so many Republicans in NC vote that automatic party line vote. They press one button and leave, and he gets in under the radar. The only reason Kay Hagen is there is because she got in during the year that everyone did that for a straight party line Democrat vote. If she had her reelection in 09 like Burr did, she'd have never survived. Burr is not a good senator, and his no vote here, even when all but 1 other Republican in the senate voted yes, is extremely telling about HIM....not his party....HIM.

[Grichde]

01:23 PM on 02/07/2012

HP didn't have enough dirt on Coburn to make a good story. They intentionally left out Bingaman who is worst than Burr.

[Sigger]

06:19 PM on 02/05/2012

"We should all be focused on the economy" - what he said. What he was really saying "Let's focus on the economy, not my unethical behavior". That's common gop "bait and swithch" tactics on just about everything.

[Rocket448]

05:41 PM on 02/05/2012

Submitting and supporting a bill favoring a position you hold in your stock portfolio is a totally different class of unethical behavior than insider trading.

[XB2500]

08:22 PM on 02/06/2012

So true!

[mrJJ]

05:07 PM on 02/05/2012

Source: The Hill

At 11th hour, vulnerable GOP members back insider-trading bill

A slew of politically vulnerable Republican lawmakers are backing a popular insider-trading bill days before it will be debated on the House floor.

Members have been racing to back the bill since a “60 Minutes” report in November highlighted members who have allegedly invested in stocks based on their knowledge of the inner workings of Congress.

Some members have been quicker to back the bill than others.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1007-other/208735-at-11th-hour-vulnerable-gop-members-back-insider-trading-bill

[Paul Robertson]

05:04 PM on 02/05/2012

"[...]Burr called the STOCK Act "ludicrous" and "political theater."
"We should be focused on jobs, the economy," he said. "We should be taking up real legislation."

Can we quote you on that Burr, next time congress decides to sink to boot into gays, women or the unemployed?

[pursang]

02:20 PM on 02/05/2012

It's about time that a Citizens Oversight Committee is enacted. Congress has proven they can't oversee their own corrupt ways so it's time the public does it for them. Anyone on the Citizens Oversight Committee can't earn more than national average and have no ties to any corporation or politician.

I know there's the partisanship issue (among other possible problems) but there comes a time when we have to put aside politics for the good of the country. I don't care if there's a D or an R after a corrupt member of Congress' name, I want them out and if they are bounced they can't lobby either.

[upset1]

12:31 PM on 02/09/2012

You are right on.

We talk about which political party is the worst but, underneath, they are made from the same cloth. Politicians want the American Public to fight each other over which party to support which shields them from uncovering how corrupt the system has become. Since both political parties work basicly the same neither is really interested in major change.

[silverball]

02:07 PM on 02/05/2012

gee...a republi-CON governing based on him or his close friends profiting from it....shocking...truly shocking....

[JDZSB]

01:21 PM on 02/05/2012

Burr has a point in that he questions why additional legislation is necessary because those in Congress should be prosecuted just like anyone else for insider trading, do what is really going on here? My understanding is that there is a document written at some time in the past that actually exempts Congress from persecution for "insider trading" and there must have been a good reason this was done, even though it could never be justified to me. My feeling is that all elected officials at any level of government should go to prison for insider trading. Their jobs give them access to all forms of sensitive information and also makes them big targets for "influence" by companies and activists pushing their own agenda. It is so easy to succumb to indirect nonpublic data about an upcoming IPO or merger and then take advantage of that information through stock market transactions. My guess is that it is happening all over this country and the government discovers very little of it. It happens routinely prior to a company becoming public all of the time which is making a very small number of investors that are "on the inside" extremely wealthy. Most small investors are left out of the mix, but it is a form of insider trading that for some reason is allowed by the government. Also, there must be a reason many congressional members, over time, become wealthy far above what would be possible based on their salaries. Can they

[redrigs]

01:12 PM on 02/05/2012

Dick, you said his name is Dick? That is an apt description.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

11:27 AM on 02/05/2012

This is NOT insider trading, and it is not evidence that Congress engages in such. It's called insider TRADING because you TRADE your stocks - buy or sell them which he did not. Holding stock in company is at worse a conflict of interest, it's not insider trading. __ He holds stock in companies that could be affected by bills he votes on. Guess what - that's ALL US corporations. By that standard, Congress owning any stock is a conflict of interest. And holding bonds is even worse. Bondholders gain from deflation, they will vote against stimulus and try to kill the economy (like Perry threatening Ben not to cause inflation through QE). Government bonds are the last things we want Congress to own. __ Face it, you are saying members Congress can own no investments. I think solar is the future so I own solar stock. He thinks it's natural gas, so he owns those. The only question is whether Congress should have less rights than us citizens.

[syhersch]

12:28 PM on 02/05/2012

Creating laws that specifically benefit your financial interests or investing in companies that will benefit from your particular vote in Congress qualifies for insider trading status in my mind. Making laws that specifically will increase your personal wealth, often at the expense of others, should not be the purpose of our lawmakers. It is one of the reason the majority of Americans have such low opinions of them. I give you that that is the way it is, but I think the majority of Americans will agree with me when I say that it is also pretty pathetic. And I don't think it becomes any American to say "oh that's ok".

[Bizmark]

04:04 PM on 02/05/2012

The only question is whether Congress should have less rights than us citizens and the answer is yes, they should have less rights.
When you become the maker of rules rather than the follower of rules your influence over policy is matched by your responsibility to make decisions that benefit society not your portfolio.
Why is that so hard to understand?

[ChicagoBob]

11:22 AM on 02/05/2012

When was the last time a goper put the interest of the American people and the country ahead of his or her personal interests?

I can't think of a time. Can you?

[redrigs]

01:09 PM on 02/05/2012

or a name of one of them!

[Grichde]

07:38 PM on 02/05/2012

Bingaman (D) voted NO, the bearer of much pork back home -- during 2008-2010, he sponsored 47 solo earmarks worth $36 million and supported 442 co-sponsored earmarks worth $973 million, and that doesn't count earmarks requested by President Obama.

He wields real power in committee assignments -- chairman of Energy and Natural Resources, member of the Finance Committee; the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; and the Joint Committee on the Economy.

Bingaman financial disclosure reports show a man who entered the Senate in 1983 considerably less than a millionaire, inherited a Texaco oil and gas well in Gregg County, Texas, worth all of $15,000, and yet is retiring with investments worth possibly as much as $50 million.

Bingaman 40th richest of the 535 members of Congress his investment portfolio of the senator was unusually active, "racking up nearly 600 separate purchases and sales of stock in 2009, worth a combined total of more than $20 million" not counting their book of untraded stocks.

The range is so wide because federal disclosure law frustratingly requires reporting investments only in nearly meaningless categories, like $6 million to $25 million, hiding even the approximate value of any asset or debt.