Support NeoGAF

[The Last Wizard]

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD LAWMAKERS BE VOTING ON ISSUES IF THEY POSSESS INVESTMENTS AND CAPITAL TIED TO THOSE ISSUES.

WHAT THE FUCK IS CORRUPTION

The good ol us of a where money rules all.

 

[shaowebb]

Time for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting US reps from voting on their financial interests?

Thats gonna stonewall some folks into either selling stock or not voting at all. Essentially it'd mean almost no politician could ever vote on any issue. It'd blacklist EVERY politician to a degree as most have portfolios of substantial note at the federal level. What this guy did was blatant and wrong but honestly it'd require a complete change in how folks can run for an elected office to begin with to eliminate all the vested interest millionaire stockholders. Frankly I'm not certain it can be done.

Something needs done though. Damned if I know what. Folks are just openly crooked now.

 

[Mohonky]

Didn't even register an eye brow raise, seriously as if you wouldn't already know.

 

[ahoyhoy]

That sounds nice in a vacuum. The actual problem is that to have competent people at the highest levels of government, the government needs to be able to pay them the market rate that they could get out in the private sector, or at least be competitive.

This would make it even harder to get talented people to leave lucrative private sector jobs and go work for the government.

Sure, there's tons of people that are moved by a sense of public service, but we'd be kidding ourselves if we don't think that the people who want to go to Washington will have some self-interest.

The question is, what's the best way to attract good people to government and make them financially well off enough that they are not easily influenced by legal insider trading, lobbying etc.

Simple. Forbid Congresspersons from voting on items in which they have a personal economic conflict of interest.

It won't stop them from influencing other Congresspersons in a quid pro quo style deal but it'll be better than what we have now.

 

[Netherscourge]

Really shouldn't surprise anyone.

Hell, most of the people in House/Senate/President that want to cut taxes on the rich ARE the rich.

If that's not self-serving interests, I don't know what is.

 

[Peltz]

Among the influential members with significant investments is Rep. Thomas MacArthur of New Jersey, who held between $834,000 and $2.3 million in health care investments in 2015. MacArthur made between $142,000 and $472,000 in capital gains and dividends on those investments, according to his disclosure forms.

Given his role in all this, that's a disgrace. Wow.

 

[gamz]

What a shit show. Shit is depressing as fuck.

 

[Jest Chillin]

That sounds nice in a vacuum. The actual problem is that to have competent people at the highest levels of government, the government needs to be able to pay them the market rate that they could get out in the private sector, or at least be competitive.

This would make it even harder to get talented people to leave lucrative private sector jobs and go work for the government.

Sure, there's tons of people that are moved by a sense of public service, but we'd be kidding ourselves if we don't think that the people who want to go to Washington will have some self-interest.

The question is, what's the best way to attract good people to government and make them financially well off enough that they are not easily influenced by legal insider trading, lobbying etc.

There isn't. Because people who are that driven by money will never, ever, have enough to refuse more money. Congresspeople make more than enough money to live comfortably, have great benefits and better work to vacation ratios than the vast majority of the average American. If that isn't enough for them to refuse the offer of more money in exchange for influence, then nothing will be.

 

[Brandson]

It's kind of surprising that elected representatives, and their families, are allowed to own stocks at all, given their ability to write laws that can directly affect publicly traded companies. That's probably something that should be addressed.

 

[SKINNER!]

It's kind of surprising that elected representatives, and their families, are allowed to own stocks at all, given their ability to write laws that can directly affect publicly traded companies. That's probably something that should be addressed.

Should be...but won't. US politics sure is corrupt as fuck.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Given his role in all this, that's a disgrace. Wow.

My thoughts exactly. This is a disgrace. We need some type of law or amendment to stop this kinda shit.

 

[GuyKazama]

It's kind of surprising that elected representatives, and their families, are allowed to own stocks at all, given their ability to write laws that can directly affect publicly traded companies. That's probably something that should be addressed.

"Addressing" this issue will just drive away more smart and qualified candidates from serving in government. We shouldn't punish people for wanting to serve in government. I'm for full disclosure, but nothing more.

 

[Ashuron]

I can only hope out the millions that will probably get fucked over, one gets a little trigger happy on the GOP

 

[Nepenthe]

"Addressing" this issue will just drive away more smart and qualified candidates from serving in government. We shouldn't punish people for wanting to serve in government. I'm for full disclosure, but nothing more.

This assumes the smartest and most qualified people only care about raking in as many millions as possible. If nothing else, the last presidential election proved the opposite.

Sorry, but if the money is all you're in it for, you can go into private trading. You're not owed the world for choosing to be in government. Your job is to serve the public at large, not the interest of private shareholders and big conglomerates.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

Maybe this is absurd, but perhaps congressmen and women shouldn't be allowed to own stocks? Seems like it would be a conflict of interest in too many situations.

I agree. No one in congress should be allowed to own stocks. Same for the President, governors and state legislators. It invites far too much corruption.

 

[Vegetable Lasagna]

And before someone mentions that "the article" states the medical device and pharm companies stand to benefit because of less taxes
I'll argue that the lessening of those taxes won't make up for the loses that will occur when all those people lose their insurance

What do people losing insurance have to do with anything? They're pretty much just dumping the people that are more expensive to insure and going to jack up the prices for everyone else. Win win. Be it insurance, meds or medical devices... The holy trifecta of price fixing and gouging. They all gain. Oh, and less taxes. I think they'll be fine.

 

[Vital Tundra]

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD LAWMAKERS BE VOTING ON ISSUES IF THEY POSSESS INVESTMENTS AND CAPITAL TIED TO THOSE ISSUES.

WHAT THE FUCK IS CORRUPTION

Honestly, this. You should not be able to vote on issues you have a financial interest in. Its pretty cut and dry.

 

[Horp]

At this point they could straight up change their name to The Evil Party, and things wouldnt change.