My best guess, the people are idiots. With the buy option disabled the sell option is now in that button location.
My best guess, the people are idiots. With the buy option disabled the sell option is now in that button location.
Really? Strange design. Would expect the button to be where it always was and the buy one missing or greyed out.
I don't ascribe motivation to others; I have no idea why they did it. It's easy to imagine that they're trying to placate powerful funds that have shorted these stocks, but the reality is that their connections to the financial industry are to different players, not these kinds of funds. My guess is that their motivation isn't altruistic per se, but more an exercise in damage mitigation and trying to avoid suffering irreparable reputation damage. It's really hard to walk the fine line between truly providing these investing options to the masses and low cost and allowing them to be fleeced willy-nilly by more experienced traders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
For that matter, I have doubts about the real impetus behind all of the noise on these stocks on reddit. I have no doubt that the masses who are buying this are thumbing their noses at institutional investors and thinking they're being 'contrary' (and relishing the casualties of the short squeeze). But I wouldn't be shocked if some of the people who have identified these targets and pushed their popularity themselves have either long positions or more complex agendas wrt weakening those shorting the stocks. It's hardly the first time that enthusiasm for an investment has been drummed up by people with an ulterior motive.
I'm not really sure how a Democrat buying shares in an electric car firm are as much of a conflict of interest as you think. And I certainly think that the more despicable members of Congress who e.g. made substantial profit from early briefings on Covid are a far more serious problem. But I do agree that in principle there should be a law that officials who are sufficiently senior in government so as to allow them to substantially affect policy should be required to put their assets into someone else's control for the duration of their service.Quote:
The the problem is that it's an enormous conflict of interest. She's in a position to help influence & pass laws which she will then personally profit from, which is what usually get's called 'corruption'. Legislators should not be allowed to trade and invest, period.
I wonder if this whole thing will lead to more retail investment in stocks or if it will dissuade people. I haven't personally traded stocks on an individual basis in several years (Roth is in a mutual fund, 401(k) doesn't even allow individual stock trading and is in a target date fund) but the whole thing kind of makes me itch to throw some fun money at it.
Yeah, there's an easy motivation to find without involving altruism here. RobinHood only gets paid if their users keep trading. You're probably not going to keep trading if you just lost most of your life's savings on trading in just the span of a week. They could be looking to protect their bottom line by keeping their customers in a position to drip feed them trading fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I am not saying this is definitely why, or it's the only reason why, but I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't come up at least once in their internal conversations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
And yet, encouraging market volatility on large scales is still not a good thing and the work platforms and yes, the government and its regulatory agencies, take to reduce volatility should be appreciated for what they are: efforts to protect the general public from getting screwed over even harder, regardless of who else benefits in whatever ways.
And bearing in mind this forum's original origins out of a gaming forum, is there anyone here who really appreciates actions which protect Gamestop from getting regular kicks to the ass like it so richly deserves?
Twitter Link
In this particular case it is known that Robinhood has a connection with Citadel capital, the firm that bailed out Melvin.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I also would not be shocked. Still, there is a lesson to be taught here.Quote:
For that matter, I have doubts about the real impetus behind all of the noise on these stocks on reddit. I have no doubt that the masses who are buying this are thumbing their noses at institutional investors and thinking they're being 'contrary' (and relishing the casualties of the short squeeze). But I wouldn't be shocked if some of the people who have identified these targets and pushed their popularity themselves have either long positions or more complex agendas wrt weakening those shorting the stocks. It's hardly the first time that enthusiasm for an investment has been drummed up by people with an ulterior motive.
It's a clear conflict of interest because they're going to (hopefully) be passing environmental laws that making owning EV's (and other associated Telsa products, like the powerwall) more desirable, thus making the line go up.Quote:
I'm not really sure how a Democrat buying shares in an electric car firm are as much of a conflict of interest as you think.
Not only is this completely unethical, it also opens up environmental legislation to attack from bad faith actors (like the Republican party or the entire fossil fuel industry and automobile industry and, now that I think about it, just industries generally), saying she's only doing it because she wants to get rich off her Tesla stock, and what's your counter argument there? 'it's ok, she wouldn't do that' ? Not only is that inaccurate - she absolutely would do that - even if it were not it's hardly going to convince people who are, again, acting in bad faith and frankly I could do without it.
As I've said before, we should hold our elected representatives to higher standards than we hold games journalists writing for kotaku.
The good thing about my proposal is that it solves both of those problems.Quote:
And I certainly think that the more despicable members of Congress who e.g. made substantial profit from early briefings on Covid are a far more serious problem.
I would want to go further than that. Elected representative responsible for passing legislation = no stonks. Most of those fuckers are rich anyway.Quote:
But I do agree that in principle there should be a law that officials who are sufficiently senior in government so as to allow them to substantially affect policy should be required to put their assets into someone else's control for the duration of their service.
Given that the government and regulatory agencies have shown absolutely zero interest in protecting the general public from getting screwed over by any one of the following: dying through lack of health-care, going bankrupt from medical bills then dying form lack of healthcare, student debt with predatory interest rates, unemployment and eviction due to a deadly global pandemic, being killed by the police for no reason, wage theft, mass shootings, stagnant wages and the rising cost of living, homelessness, monopolistic broadband providers, poisonous drinking water, ridiculous sentences for minor crimes (and much more) and every interest in protecting the rich and advancing their interests, then when we have a situation when they're doing something ostensibly about protecting people from being screwed over which coincidentally also advances the interest of capital, then I become intensely skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Gamestop are a trash company who deserve what they get (I still haven't forgotten that time they tried to claim they were an essential business so they could stay open during the pandemics early months), but the people who work for them not so much, so if it's Gamestop or a hedge fund, I'll take Gamestop.Quote:
And bearing in mind this forum's original origins out of a gaming forum, is there anyone here who really appreciates actions which protect Gamestop from getting regular kicks to the ass like it so richly deserves?
I don't actually agree with your proposal or your assertion. For the second point, the median net worth of a member of Congress is about $1 million. That's a lot of money, sure, but for a well educated professional you're likely to have net worth on the order of $1 million by the time you're 35-45. Hardly unreasonable for Congressmen whose median age is somewhere around 60. Are there wealthy members of Congress? You betcha, and that includes Nancy Pelosi (to the tune of $100+ million). But your typical Congressman is well off, not truly rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
And that brings me to my objection to your first point. Investing in equities is the way that most professionals in the US build wealth (for middle classes, it's typically house equity). I don't think it's fair to ban your typical Congressman from investing in equities; essentially you'd be saying that you can only reasonably plan for your future and also be a Congressman if you start out independently wealthy, which is not an outcome I desire. I think it's fine to force them to give up decision-making capability over their assets while they are in office because of the aforementioned conflicts of interest and potential for insider trading.
I'm not really sure what to do with government leaders who are major owners of companies that the government or people in power do business with (e.g. Trump, Bloomberg, etc.); even if they technically hand off control, the reality is that they can still enrich themselves further through policymaking, and it's often impractical to unwind their ownership in an orderly manner without substantial disruptions to their business. I suspect this is an issue that we will continue to wrestle with in the future.
And their spouses? I was as livid as you could have wished/liked about the senators who did stock sell-offs after being briefed on Covid last winter, including Feinstein. But it wasn't really her stock being sold off, it was her husband's. He's the rich one, running an investment firm. Are we requiring those passing our legislation to have their partners also sell off their investment assets and give up their jobs? What about their kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
LF, there are rules on the books preventing trading on insider information as well as having people trade on your behalf from insider information, or people trading on the basis of insider information you give them. It's sometimes challenging to prosecute, but the rules exist for insider trading. I'm not sure why you couldn't set up a similar system for people privy to non-public information from the government, including family members. My wife and I routinely have to refrain from sharing details of our jobs with each other because we would be disclosing non-public material information. Certainly our policymakers can be asked to do the same - especially since much of that non-public information is in fact classified.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The question of conflicts of interests is more challenging - e.g. you can't really require all of an official's extended family to divest themselves or put their assets into blind trusts. So at some point policymakers can always create policy that benefits those close to them. Hell, that's the case even if they don't own a single share of a company. I'd say at that point you have to rely on as much transparency as is possible wrt to beneficial relationships and potential conflicts of interest. The press can help here, even if it's not a legal remedy.
That based on data, or just your circle of acquaintances?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
It seems like including 'house equity' i.e. owning a house and paying off your mortgage in the same category as shorting gamestop is a little disingenuous there.Quote:
And that brings me to my objection to your first point. Investing in equities is the way that most professionals in the US build wealth (for middle classes, it's typically house equity). I don't think it's fair to ban your typical Congressman from investing in equities; essentially you'd be saying that you can only reasonably plan for your future and also be a Congressman if you start out independently wealthy, which is not an outcome I desire. I think it's fine to force them to give up decision-making capability over their assets while they are in office because of the aforementioned conflicts of interest and potential for insider trading.
Nevertheless, if the only way to reasonable prepare for your future in the US even for the well trained middle class is to make bets on abstract mathematical models about fictitious capital/what drunk idiots think abstract mathematical models will say about fictitious capital, then that seems like it might be bad. We should probably do something about that, like make wages go up or something.
To be clear, problem I have with letting them to continue to trade but have someone else actually make the decision is it's honestly too easy to pass information back and forth in ways that are completely deniable. "Thinking about making it so all new cars have to be EVs by 2030" "Say no more", etc
These guys can put their money in an ISA or something.
Ineligible for public office. Why do you think I was so down on Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee all those years ago? Other than him being terrible, obviously.Quote:
I'm not really sure what to do with government leaders who are major owners of companies that the government or people in power do business with (e.g. Trump, Bloomberg, etc.); even if they technically hand off control, the reality is that they can still enrich themselves further through policymaking, and it's often impractical to unwind their ownership in an orderly manner without substantial disruptions to their business. I suspect this is an issue that we will continue to wrestle with in the future.
For spouses: yes to assets, no to jobs. Not sure about kids, that is genuinely a good point; I would probably lean towards drawing the line at restrictions on adult children. Spouses tend to share assets, but once kids grow up they're ostensibly independent individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Can't vouch for quality of data but here's one possible answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
https://ofdollarsanddata.com/average...and-education/
So if you make some specific assumptions about type of education and subsequent career, and say that you're actually talking about household net worth for a highly educated professional couple then sure.
Twitter Link
Lalalala
Yeah, but the median net worth of congressers is $1 million as individuals. Not sure how they factored household wealth into that, but that's the number we're dealing with.
That's really not disproportionately a lot for well educated professionals in their 50s or 60s.
Yes, you have to make some specific assumptions about the type of education and their subsequent careers—assumptions that may be so specific that it may well be fair to describe most Congressmen as being wealthy at least. I personally don't believe it's all that relevant to a discussion about whether or not Congressmen should be allowed to trade individual stocks. If you're not wealthy and you want to get into politics while being able to secure your financial future, get index funds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Although note that you haven't considered payoffs to mistresses and prostitutes.
You can just embezzle campaign funds for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Look, if congress people are concerned about putting food on the table after I ban them from trading stocks, I do have some useful tips for them:
1) Eat out less
2) Consider working a second job at McDonald's or Starbucks
3) Sell your iPhone, you don't actually need a state of the art smart phone
4) Downsize from your enormous mansion to something more sensible, and you can always share a home with another congress person and their family to save even more
5) Put on a few layers and turn the heating down during the winter months to save money on gas and electricity
6) Carpool with other congress people to and from Capitol Hill, potentially even from the opposing party
I do think that with sensible budgeting they could make their starting salary of $174,000 go a *long* way.
But this would mean that only people who aren't independently wealthy would become congressmenQuote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
On A lighter note
Data. My circle of acquaintances in my age bracket isn't that wealthy yet, I'm only mid-30s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Let's look at the Fed's data. Median net worth for the 35-44 demographic by household is only $91k (see here). But if you stratify it by college educated and the 75th percentile (I think it's reasonable to expect that your typical Congressman will be in the top 25 percent of college graduates in terms of capability and earning power, especially since 2/3 of them are lawyers), a 35-44 age bracket has a net worth of $600k. If you go out to typical Congressman ages, the 55-65 bracket, you're looking at $1.9 million net worth. If you don't like my use of the 75th percentile for the college educated, go with the median value of ~$700k. But remember that even those politicians who are technically 'of the people' went to pretty fancy schools like BU (AOC, cum laude) and U of C (Bernie), elite institutions that have much higher lifetime earning expectations than a low end 4 year college.
This Fed data also has useful other information, including stuff like how most households with higher than median net worths own equities of one sort or another, suggesting that stock ownership is quite broad among the middle classes.
Sorry, my language was imprecise, I meant to distinguish between 'equities' as in tradable securities like stocks and bonds and 'house equity' as in how much of your house you own vs. the bank. Middle class households have most of their net worth tied up in their house (or, if they're very luck, their pension); higher income households have a much bigger percentage tied up in other securities.Quote:
It seems like including 'house equity' i.e. owning a house and paying off your mortgage in the same category as shorting gamestop is a little disingenuous there.
The US has moved away from DB pension schemes for 40 years, and Social Security benefits aren't enough to cover expenses for people who make much above median income. It's pretty standard for any salaried position (and some hourly ones) to have tax advantaged retirement accounts that are invested in a mix of stock and bond mutual funds/ETFs and directed by the individual who owns them. I agree that there are downsides to shifting market and other risks onto the individual but that's the reality we live in, so it's only prudent for most middle class to upper class workers to start investing in equities or funds thereof early on in their careers. And if one is to buy relatively boring assets like index funds or target date funds, the risk is relatively manageable. I wouldn't recommend that people, say, invest large proportions of their assets into funding a short squeeze that will leave them holding worthless stock they overpaid for, but most retail investors are smarter than that.Quote:
Nevertheless, if the only way to reasonable prepare for your future in the US even for the well trained middle class is to make bets on abstract mathematical models about fictitious capital/what drunk idiots think abstract mathematical models will say about fictitious capital, then that seems like it might be bad. We should probably do something about that, like make wages go up or something.
Uh... I'm no expert on UK rules, but isn't an ISA just like a 401(k) or an IRA? You still generally invest inside an ISA in tradable securities like stocks and bonds, and you can still direct the investments. So I don't understand how that helps...?Quote:
To be clear, problem I have with letting them to continue to trade but have someone else actually make the decision is it's honestly too easy to pass information back and forth in ways that are completely deniable. "Thinking about making it so all new cars have to be EVs by 2030" "Say no more", etc
These guys can put their money in an ISA or something.
Please see my comments above to LF about the parallel to insider trading. I think you can make it a crime to tell your buddies about the new policy/law/circumstance that is coming down the line, and illegal for your buddies to act on that information. You can still let them have beneficial ownership (though not direct control) over stocks and bonds.
Well, you and I disagree. I do not think that there should be tests for office other than the basics of citizenship and age as described in the constitution.Quote:
Ineligible for public office. Why do you think I was so down on Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee all those years ago? Other than him being terrible, obviously.
Not really sure how this solves your problem? Parents often bequeath substantial assets to their kids in their lifetimes, and it wouldn't be very hard for them to give a nudge and a wink in the right direction for trading.Quote:
For spouses: yes to assets, no to jobs. Not sure about kids, that is genuinely a good point; I would probably lean towards drawing the line at restrictions on adult children. Spouses tend to share assets, but once kids grow up they're ostensibly independent individuals.
Yes it is. Its just an investment mechanism that exempts certain taxes on the investment in order to encourage more investment to occur, but within only a certain tax-free allowance per annum.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I don't know how it works in the USA but in the UK Parliament there is a "register of interests" that politicians have to declare their interests on - so if they own significant stock in a company, or are paid as an advisor to that company etc then it has to be publicly declared.
I think that transparency mechanism is good. Let people do what they want, but hold them to account for what they do. Failure to declare an interest then is an offence, but if its declared then let the public decide. People will generally avoid dodgy behaviour if they know it will come out.
Twitter Link
Sad but probably true.
That is one reason why I suspect people are gonna be indicted—on several sides.
Isn't this more or less exactly what I said?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes. Pretty much.
The US has a set of financial disclosure rules for elected officials (mostly at the federal level); that's how we know things about e.g. financial moves before the pandemic lockdowns and Nancy Pelosi's position in Tesla. Clearly transparency alone (even with a robust press) is not going to do the trick. I think there's no reason why we shouldn't have a law requiring people to relinquish trading control of their tradable securities when they reach certain offices, and a similar law forbidding people to communicate non-public information such that it causes a beneficial trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Given we're talking about it, maybe transparency is doing the trick?
Didn't stop them from doing it. AFAIK there haven't been any real consequences. There was a DOJ investigation of the post-Covid briefing trades but they investigations were closed after two months. Honestly I don't think they were doing anything illegal under current law. Certainly it doesn't look like there were any e.g. ethics investigations or changes to behavior.
The difference for me with the Covid briefing issue was that it bore a remarkable similarity to insider trading. Pelosi trading does not since there are no inside secrets.
But also quite frankly the transparency did its job for Senators doing dodgy post COVID briefing trades. Without that news story and the ample publicity it gave to John Ossoff might Senator Purdue not have found the few extra votes he needed to win in the first round? Indeed weren't both Georgia Senate nominees roundly attacked for this?
Certainly Ossoff crucified Purdue over the trades, narrowly scraped getting a run off, then won election. Transparency working in action, let the voters decide.
Without that scandal might we not now have a GOP controlled Senate?
I'd prefer that people be expelled from Congress and jailed, but that's just me.
Transparency might work for the like of the Pelosi trades - trades that are themselves only problematic in potential. But even better would be to eliminate the potential conflict of interest by stripping these officials of trading power over their assets.
Disclosure of conflicts is a pretty standard practice in business, academics, etc. But it only works when you can reasonably circumscribe your activities to limit your decision making capabilities that might affect your conflict. In the case of a lawmaker, they can't recuse themselves from voting. They are GOING to have a conflict, and just knowing about it isn't as good as eliminating it as much as possible.
I prefer transparency as it hands the power to the voters and if you refuse a transparent way for people to act then they just find a way around the rules and act covertly, which is worse.
Oh, I don't think we should get RID of transparency, just supplement with laws and actual consequences.
Transparency only works if the activity is legal and has no actual consequences.
But if you have laws and actual consequences that mean its illegal to trade or own stocks for instance, as opposed to legal but transparent to do so, then my contention is that instead of doing legal and transparent activities people will do covert and more dodgy activities instead.
Maybe if we take legislators stocks away, they'll be motivated to do something about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
To be honest, this doesn't seem like an unsolvable problem but rather an ad hoc justification for keeping things exactly as they are.
Oh yeah, that's right. Well, they can just use one of those basic saver accounts you get when you open a bank account. Mine has an 0.01% interest rate.Quote:
Uh... I'm no expert on UK rules, but isn't an ISA just like a 401(k) or an IRA? You still generally invest inside an ISA in tradable securities like stocks and bonds, and you can still direct the investments. So I don't understand how that helps...?
Sorry, man, I don't see why we should be bending over backwards to make sure congress people's financial interests are secure in exactly the way they'd like while attempting to solve this problem. It's not as though they're ever going to return the favour :o
Yeah, but... we have to know what policies are coming down the line so we know who to vote for and weather or not we should be protesting etc. Can't really keep that information private.Quote:
Please see my comments above to LF about the parallel to insider trading. I think you can make it a crime to tell your buddies about the new policy/law/circumstance that is coming down the line, and illegal for your buddies to act on that information. You can still let them have beneficial ownership (though not direct control) over stocks and bonds.
If they're serious about running for office, they can untangle their affairs from their former company before they make their run, perhaps allowing a grace period for freshman legislators to get their affairs in order since when they're running for office for the first time they can't really know if they're going to actually win a seat. We can be flexible, but in general we don't want people with massive financial interests helping to make laws.Quote:
Well, you and I disagree. I do not think that there should be tests for office other than the basics of citizenship and age as described in the constitution.
Guess what I've suddenly decided congress people can't pass on to their kids?Quote:
Not really sure how this solves your problem? Parents often bequeath substantial assets to their kids in their lifetimes, and it wouldn't be very hard for them to give a nudge and a wink in the right direction for trading.
Anyway. The wider point is that just because the problem cannot be fully and completely solved, doesn't mean we shouldn't grab some of the low hanging fruit. I honestly find it breath taking that politicians are allowed to own investments and take donations from large companies, this level of conflict of interest would never be allowed to exist anywhere else
"We have to be able to invest in and trade securities because we made it impossible for anyone to have a comfortable retirement any other way by indulging in unconstrained capitalist avarice for 40 years!"
sounds like a 'you' problem, guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Okay, but this is obviously a much bigger policy issue than the much more narrow question of addressing the potential for Congressional corruption. I should note that lifers in Congress actually have pretty decent DB pensions through FERS, but it really is only a good deal for people who have been there for a long time... so your non-professional politicians still need assets outside of FERS or Social Security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
There are a lot of reasons for shifting to a personally managed DC system, and while it's far from perfect I don't view it as uniformly evil as you seem to.
Look, doing this kind of thing punishes those Congressmen who don't have lots of assets. I'm sure that those who do have lots of assets can live off their near-cash assets if they sold their tradable securities, or maybe they can just squirrel the money away with relatives and the like who can let it continue to grow. But your typical junior member of the House isn't particularly wealthy and will see no pathway to save for retirement if it's completely forbidden. I am also troubled by the conclusion that it's okay not just to ban this activity for the politician but also their spouse. I am very happy that so many political spouses these days have impressive careers of their own, and some of those are going to involve substantial investment positions that are difficult or impossible to unwind for their jobs. Why should the spouse be forced to sacrifice their career (let alone financial security) just because they are married to a politician or senior official?Quote:
Oh yeah, that's right. Well, they can just use one of those basic saver accounts you get when you open a bank account. Mine has an 0.01% interest rate.
Sorry, man, I don't see why we should be bending over backwards to make sure congress people's financial interests are secure in exactly the way they'd like while attempting to solve this problem. It's not as though they're ever going to return the favour :o
On a more philosophical note, I prefer the policy that is least intrusive and coercive. It seems like the same goals can be achieved without outright bans, and possibly also reducing a lot of the unintended consequences.
Once the information is public, our hired money managers can act on it like anyone else. The issue arises when the money managers get information that is not YET public, such as, for example, the government's projections as to the severity of a looming pandemic.Quote:
Yeah, but... we have to know what policies are coming down the line so we know who to vote for and weather or not we should be protesting etc. Can't really keep that information private.
So you'd like someone to tear apart a company they built over their entire life on a small chance that they'll win a series of primaries and a general election? Or force them to make a hurried disposition in the ~2 months between the general and the start of their term? That seems both unfair and, frankly, destructive. I do not think that doing nothing is a good solution either - certainly the conflicts of interest are substantial for something like this - but it's not clear to me that I've heard a good solution.Quote:
If they're serious about running for office, they can untangle their affairs from their former company before they make their run, perhaps allowing a grace period for freshman legislators to get their affairs in order since when they're running for office for the first time they can't really know if they're going to actually win a seat. We can be flexible, but in general we don't want people with massive financial interests helping to make laws.
I'd also like to raise the point that this needn't be the province of the mega-rich. I currently own stock and stock options in a privately held, venture backed company. It's not worth much now, but if I do my job and get very lucky, it could conceivably be worth as much as a couple million dollars in the future, easily increasing my net worth by several times. But I can't sell it now - there's no market for the securities, and actually there are rules as to how I can dispose of the stock and/or options. If I were elected a member of Congress (heh, unlikely), I would have no easy way to dispose of these. I'd be taking a massive potential loss on something that was part of my compensation for a lengthy and difficult education and years of working long hours with extremely uncertain job security; how is that equitable?
You can only imagine how much harder it would be to dismantle various large positions in larger enterprises. I am not comfortable just saying that 'you must have less than X amount of assets to work in government'. I'd prefer to think through the issues and try to come up with a workable plan.
I am not a huge fan of allowing corporations, large or small, to make political donations. I do not fully understand the constitutional arguments in Citizens United, but it seems wrong to me and corrosive to democratic institutions. It seems like the main way to fix this would be through constitutional amendment, though, which hardly seems like 'low hanging fruit'.Quote:
[...]
Anyway. The wider point is that just because the problem cannot be fully and completely solved, doesn't mean we shouldn't grab some of the low hanging fruit. I honestly find it breath taking that politicians are allowed to own investments and take donations from large companies, this level of conflict of interest would never be allowed to exist anywhere else
I do not have a problem with politicians owning investments per se, especially given that large swathes of the US population do the same and it's an integral part of most household's financial security. I do think that steps should be taken to minimize the temptation and ability of politicians or other senior officials from profiting from their positions or knowledge; a blanket ban might work but seems unfair and unnecessary to me.
The idea is that you shouldn't have less speech just because you pool your resources. People never look at the other side of the coin on this issue, if companies can't contribute what stops them from just running the ads themselves? Or do you then somehow pretzel logic justify the idea of a sitting government stopping private citizens from passing along their political messages in a way that reaches a lot of people? Opposing Citizens United is pretty much saying you don't like freedom of speech. Which is a pretty progressive thing to do nowadays as most progressives are firmly against freedom of speech (waaah hate speech should be illegal).
If they run the ads themselves it might fall into the category of in-kind contributions and be regulated by statutes that cover that instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski