This week, Congress will finally hold a hearing on congressional insider trading. We’re grateful to our supporters for helping force the controversy when Washington didn’t want to discuss it.
Dear John,
We’ve all been outraged by the corporate corruption of Congress. It might even be why you joined our campaign!
It’s also why we’re so grateful to each of our supporters who’ve enabled our work calling out the congressional insider trading that invites and entrenches corporate rule.
This Thursday, the House Committee on Administration will hold a hearing on the ethics concerns raised by policymakers trading stocks. We’re eager to see where the discussion leads—and, having raised this issue for years, we’re also eager what issues it will predictably fail to address.
This week’s hearing is long overdue, and is also far from enough. We can’t let Congress slide by with the bare minimum while ultimately doing nothing meaningful to address the issue of corporate corruption invited by conflicts of interest and divided loyalties. If the debate continues as it has, any resulting legislation will include massive loopholes and fail to address the problem.
Having raised concerns for years over Pelosi’s legendary conflicts of interest, I’ve also identified several questions that remain unasked. These concerns have not only evaded the long overdue controversy that you helped us force, but also remain absent from the competing reform proposals introduced in response to it.
Among the several issues that should be at the center of the debate, only a few have been acknowledged, let alone resolved in any way that would favor the public, rather than oligarchs masquerading as policymakers.
Loopholes: Will the proposed ban on congressional insider trading include members of their families and their staff, as do existing laws constraining corporate executives? Pending reform proposals differ on this point, while entirely ignoring each of those below.
Underinclusion: What other requirements beyond a proposed ban on insider trading will prevent similar conflicts of interest introduced through other means beyond ownership positions (e.g. relationships with lobbyists, corporate executives, or billionaires)?
Correcting policy impacts: Which areas of federal policymaking have been skewed as a result of the divided loyalties of Members of Congress? On what schedule will Congress revisit previous policies addressing issues such as healthcare, climate justice, and social needs, on which their decisions were unethically influenced by conflicts of interest?
Other conflicts of interest beyond stock positions: Beyond insider trading, how else do the financial interests of policymakers undermine their independence and capacity to represent their constituents? For example, Nancy Pelosi’s substantial real estate portfolio introduces conflicts of interest beyond her stock positions that skew her decisions on policies related to housing and financial regulation. Similarly, laws intended to stop money laundering have long blocked transparency into private equity instruments and hedge funds, making them among the preferred methods of money laundering for oligarchs from America to Russia.
Consequences: Will the vulture-capitalists-masquerading-as-policymakers be required to return their fraudulent capital gains enabled by insider trading in the past?
The Emoluments Clause (for which Pelosi twice gave Trump a free pass) prohibits self-enrichment by public officials at the public’s expense. Have policymakers who have traded stocks, equities, commodities, and related derivatives have violated the Emoluments Clause? Who is poised, other than voters, to enforce that constitutional prohibition and hold corrupt politicians accountable?
Insider trading is the cornerstone of the corporate corruption infecting every single issue that Congress considers. Just a few weeks ago, members of Congress were caught making private trades to profit from energy prices in the days before escalation in Ukraine drove up the price of oil.
Private portfolio positions that profit from international conflict are a perfect example of a disturbing pattern poised to continue even under the reform proposals that have been announced. Media outlets have covered other examples of congressional conflicts of interest, but only voters can take the next step of forcing accountability at the ballot box.
Thanks for helping us inform the debate, force this controversy into the public, and hold Congress accountable!
Sent via ActionNetwork.org.
To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Shahid for Change, please click here.
