you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (15 children)

That’s not true. It’s still illegal even though they get away with it. You’re thinking of bribery lobbying.

According to the STOCK Act of 2012, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock, prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Just to clarify. Insider trading is illegal but it is not illegal for politicians in Congress to use the information they obtain from their jobs (such as through classified meetings) to engage in stock market trades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    It’s not a failure of the law. It’s a failure of the SEC for not enforcing it.

    MYTH: Members of Congress are exempt from insider trading laws.

    FACT: Both a Congressional Research Service Report and House Administration Committee memo indicates that Members of Congress are subject to the same insider trading rules as the general public.

    https://perry.house.gov/how-can-scott-help/myths-about-congress.htm#:~:text=FACT%3A%20Both%20a%20Congressional%20Research

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    That’s simply not true. They have no exemption to insider trading laws. It simply comes down to trade timing.

    The way the law is written, they could be brought up on charges for a trade performed after gaining knowledge of a pending change in legislation that would affect the value of a stock prior to the legislation being publicly enacted. The SEC just hasn’t charged them.

    What they do is not legal, they just live above the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (11 children)

    If everyone doing it gets away with it, then is it actually illegal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Yes. It is. They just need to be arrested and prosecuted. I agree that it should be taken more seriously, considering that it’s against the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    No one has ever been prosecuted in the decade and change that it has been illegal, despite frequent violations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    That doesn’t change the law. It’s simply evidence that Congress lives above it. Seven Democrat Senators cosponsored a bill in September to ban the practice entirely. It died at introduction.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2773/all-actions-without-amendments

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    That doesn’t change the law.

    Oh you sweet summer child.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    Now you’re wrong, and condescending. Lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    You have a philosophy around what laws are and what they mean that is incongruent with reality.

    What is the word we use when people have believes that don't match up with the previous or future state of things?

    Laws on paper are only one aspect of what a law is. How those laws are interpreted and how they are enforced matter far, far more. Law is what is applied and enforced. If something is a 'law' but is not enforced, then its not really law.

    And its fine that you have a different philosophy around what the law means. I just don't find it particularly useful because it doesn't predict the past, present, or future states of the world.

    In other words:

    spoiler

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    People who don’t understand the problem typically have little success in fixing it. You should consider reading more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    While I’m flattered that you’d take the time to make a meme for me, it probably would’ve taken you far less time to research insider trading law as it applies to members of Congress.

    I’ll give you a little head start.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2020/05/26/how-senators-may-have-avoided-insider-trading-charges/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago*

    You make it easy considering you are making my points for me. If you are trying to make a point about hubris by just being more arrogant, what exactly is the argument you are making?

    And on that, you haven't outlined anything that's worth even discussing. I made the argument that laws are only as meaningful as they've are applied. Its likely you don't even recognize the assumptions of your argument being an extension of legal positivism, theoretically described by legal philosophers like Austin and Hart. But the problem with Austin and Hart? Their philosophy (legal positivism) doesn't predict the past, the future, or even the present. Legal positivism isn't how the world works. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."

    This is called legal realism for those in the cheap seats, and its an effort to understand the law as its applied: which is to say, to understand the law as it actually works.

    Whats on the books is irrelevant. What matters is what happens. It doesn't matter if there is a law preventing anything if it doesn't get applied.

    Edit response to your edit response: Please, keep showing me that you don't understand what you are talking while you make my points for me.

  • source
  • parent