iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

STOCK Act: Senate Passes Insider Trading Ban Bill

By LARRY MARGASAK 03/22/12 07:06 PM ET AP

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday sent the White House a bill to explicitly ban members of Congress, the president and thousands of other federal workers from profiting from nonpublic information learned on the job.

While the bill lets the public see more of government officials' financial dealings, and view them online more frequently, it abandons an earlier proposal to require public reports from people who gather information from Congress – and sell it, mainly to investors.

President Barack Obama repeated his commitment to sign the STOCK Act, which stands for Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge. "It's a good first step," he said after passage. "And in the months ahead, Congress should do even more to help fight the destructive influence of money in politics and rebuild the trust between Washington and the American people."

The driving force behind the bill was Congress' need to boost its dismal approval ratings, and the perception from a television report that lawmakers are profiting personally from their work. Polls in the past several weeks indicated between 12 percent and 19 percent Americans approved of the job Congress is doing.

The STOCK Act would require that public reports of new transactions exceeding $1,000 be posted online either 30 days after the individual was notified of a transaction in his or her account, or 45 days after the transaction. The House currently posts disclosure information on the Internet, but the Senate still requires people seeking the data to appear personally in a Senate office building.

This would be in addition to the annual disclosure statements filed currently.

In an unusual move, the legislation passed unanimously without a vote on the measure itself. Passage was automatically triggered by a procedural motion that was approved, 96-3. Voting "no" were three Republicans: Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Richard Burr of North Carolina. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., did not vote.

Just prior to that vote, the Senate passed legislation to help startup companies raise capital by reducing some federal regulations. Some Democrats warned that less government oversight would mean more abuse and scams.

Not everyone in Congress bought into Sen. Joseph Lieberman's view that the insider trading bill was "the most significant ethics reform to pass Congress" in the past five years.

Grassley, who sponsored the abandoned proposal to regulate so-called political intelligence operatives, said, "This could have been a lot more significant. It's irresponsible for the leadership to have dropped the ball on requiring political intelligence agents to register. We could have exposed the secret flow of information between Washington and Wall Street."

The bill does include other reforms. It would deny federal retirement benefits to the president, vice president or an elected official of a state or local government convicted of certain felonies. It also would prohibit senior executives of mortgage giants Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac from receiving bonuses while the companies are under government control. And it would expand the definition of public corruption crimes and increase maximum penalties.

It also would require officials to disclose the mortgages on their primary residences, a provision that has been exempt from reporting requirements.

Lieberman, who managed the bill to final passage, said the plan to regulate political operatives selling information was dropped because of concerns it would violate free speech rights of people who meet with members of Congress. Instead, a one-year study of political intelligence operatives was ordered.

Despite that dispute, the bill's four main sponsors reflected its bipartisan support: Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut; Susan Collins, a Maine Republican; Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat; and Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican whom Democrats are trying hard to defeat.

Another provision eliminated from an earlier bill was designed to strengthen criminal laws in public corruption cases, including restoration of tools used by prosecutors that were limited by a Supreme Court ruling. However, that proposal could be added to other legislation or come back as a stand-alone bill.

Federal insider trading laws have no exemption for members of Congress and other federal officials, but there is little evidence that many lawmakers have been investigated.

Recently, it was learned the Office of Congressional Ethics was looking at the trading activities of Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala. In the two months surrounding the 2008 financial collapse and subsequent $700 billion economic bailout passed by Congress, Bachus made more than three dozen trades. The OCE is an independent ethics office of the House, run by a board outside Congress.

Bachus, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee but then the panel's senior Republican under a Democratic chairman, participated in closed briefings on the crisis by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. He's denied using inside information, and subsequent records show he incurred a net loss of $19,490.

Bachus has denied any wrongdoing.

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday sent the White House a bill to explicitly ban members of Congress, the president and thousands of other federal workers from profiting from nonpublic informat...
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday sent the White House a bill to explicitly ban members of Congress, the president and thousands of other federal workers from profiting from nonpublic informat...
Filed by Chris Gentilviso  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 100
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
publiknme
.....don't get me started!
01:50 AM on 03/23/2012
.........why are private traders unable to use the same insider info and disclose what they are doing ?
10:08 PM on 03/22/2012
Ding. dong, democracy's dead, behind closed doors, corruption spreads: Ding, dong, the Stock Act's guts were shred! Hi ho's and freedom foes, spread bribes high, and spread them low, Ding, dong, insider trading's 'GO" !

She's gone where the plutos go, oh ho, oh ho, ho, ho, below; our Congress works for them (not you and so just sing it); Ding dong, democacy's dead...

The Stock Act is gutted, bipartisan sham anti-corruption. What can compete with Congress's incentives, like self preservation, campaign donors, consultant contacts, and lucrative futures after supposedly serving the people?

Once their paymasters said to, the GOP leadership in the House gutted the Stock Act, allowing no debate nor amendments, behind closed doors, and then the Senate abandoned their DUTY to do conference committee reconciliation (Republicans threatened to filibuster any appointees). The Senate couldn't get even 60 of the 97 who had voted for the anti-corruption provisions in the Senate bill to vote for it, once donors and Wall Street applied pressure. Shows up Congress's excuse that anti-corruption could be taken up in a separate bill. It's about as believable as saying reporters could get snagged by the insider trading tips tracking provisions. This is the definition of plutocracy, not limited to Republicans nor Democrats. Wall Street and donors will stop anything that forbids looting, and pretend that deregulation creates jobs. No wonder Sen. Snowe quit, and said only transparency could fix DC corruption, but that she doesn't expect it soon.
07:14 PM on 03/22/2012
AHHH. Election season has come, finally when some stuff can get done.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Don Glenn
Tree Hugging Novelist With Guns
06:01 PM on 03/22/2012
Republicans like to cry about regulation. Here is one they have profited from for years. Makes you kind of wonder why it is only now being passed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Terri Skau
Se... sotto una splendida luna piena...
05:49 PM on 03/22/2012
I'm laughing because they passed a bill for themselves...But honestly there is no clear definition on insider's trading...

Example..If you were in an airplane flying over Shreveport Louisiana and you see an oil refinery on fire...And you know it's a Chevron refinery because you Uncle worked there and he took you there once.You land call your stock broker and ask him what is Chevron doing. He says it up 1/2 a point so you tell him to buy "puts" on the stock cause it will go down why when a refinery blows up what happens bad thing Stock goes down.. Now is that insider's trading?
photo
webwzrd
Reality is liberal indoctrination
05:38 PM on 03/22/2012
This is nice, but it will not boost Congress' approval rating. They would actually need to do something for VOTERS to make that happen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bob haschat
free speech is audible, not spendable
05:37 PM on 03/22/2012
What's a bill without teeth? While the bill prevents congressman from insider trading..thanks to house republicans it doesnt prevent companies from paying congressmen from insider information to trade on.....oh corruption and money in politics...how you distort the idea of government
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Truthiness4Me
Sick of republican men and their vagina obsession
05:11 PM on 03/22/2012
It's just sad that a bill like this has to be passed. What does that say about the morals of our senators and representatives??? :-(
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SelenicMagick
Old, grouchy, toothless, sub-human bridge-dweller
05:33 PM on 03/22/2012
Two of the most morally bankrupt groups in the world are the United States Congress and Senate.
04:40 PM on 03/22/2012
A quick definition of one the stripped out provisions:
"The second, which was more controversial, would have required registration and public reports – similar to those filed by lobbyists – by anyone selling inside information learned from members of Congress and their staffs.

The majority of these people are called "political intelligence gatherers". While they are not "lobbyists", as they do not have an agenda to push with Congress, they take information of upcoming legislation and peddle it to Hedge Funds.

The Hedge Funds use that information to position their clients (and themselves) in fortuitous positions well before the market catches a clue. They then clean up when the legislation is passed, leaving the average investor in the dust.

"Free Market"? LOL!

Another way the rich get richer.

Way to go GOP House. You guys are bought and sold, and have rings through your noses...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SaucyD
Can you hear me now!
04:36 PM on 03/22/2012
"...lawmakers who voted no were Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Charles Grassley of Iowa."

Note to their constituents: THEY ARE NOT THAT INTO YOU!
07:16 PM on 03/22/2012
I disagree: They are totally into (screwing) you (for every penny they can get).... of course subtext is subtext.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SaucyD
Can you hear me now!
07:45 PM on 03/22/2012
Point made....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Ernst Angst
Recovering Republican. Clean since 1980
04:30 PM on 03/22/2012
A step in the right direction, but window dressing nevertheless.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bad Cat
Last time the GOP cared about me I was a fetus
04:17 PM on 03/22/2012
It will never pass in Boehner's house of representatives....
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
04:05 PM on 03/22/2012
Its an interesting oversight by HP...they left out who the two Authors of the bill was..Scott Brown of Massachusetts was one of them...
03:57 PM on 03/22/2012
So who's going to determine if they disclosed fully or just partially? And why should we have to appear in person to get this information? They work for us.

I heard about this from my financial adviser about a year ago and couldn't believe that members of Congress were not subject to the same laws as the rest of us, especially considering the nature of much of the information they receive. I think this has been watered down so much that it may not be effective.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sammmo
03:50 PM on 03/22/2012
How many loopholes did the republicans write into it?
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
04:06 PM on 03/22/2012
Not many...they wanted to include the executive branch as well...