By Rita Cook
Correspondent
Texas Metro News
WASHINGTON D.C. – In the ultimate “I know before you know and I am definitely going to sell my stock” game in D.C. the U.S. House of Representatives made a show to pass the Stop Insider Trading Act (H.R. 7008) on July 22 in a 232-198 vote. The vote was a near perfect partisan split with Republicans in favor and Democrats saying no way.
There were 13 Democrats who voted “Yes” mainly consisting of the moderate and swing-district lawmakers, not surprisingly Nancy Pelosi, voted “No.”
The main part of the bill included banning new individual stock purchases by members, spouses, and dependent children, requiring a 7-to-14-day advance public notice before selling existing holdings, and attaching a controversial federal voter photo ID mandate.
If you just did a double take on that last federal ID part of the bill so did I.
Turns out, politicians just can’t help themselves because the game is so juicy.
So, the House Republican decided to attach an unrelated mandate requiring voters to show photo identification to cast ballots too.
This forced lawmakers to choose between supporting the stock ban or opposing the voter ID measure.
Oh, and as for why the Democrats criticized the bill they feel it is a “sham” and does not force lawmakers to divest their current stock portfolios, and they added strong criticism of the inclusion of the voter ID requirement as a partisan “poison pill.”
Not surprisingly, the inclusion of this provision very likely means the bill is expected to stall in the Senate, it will not have bipartisan support.
And you are right; these two issues have nothing to do with each other. Stock trading is an ethics issue and photo ID is an election rules issue. But it is a common congressional tactic called procedural bundling with two strong purposes. One is the creation of a strategic trap in this case Republicans set up the Democrats.
It can also be used as campaign leverage since even conservative Thomas Massie said the addition wasn’t meant to pass a law, but rather to force Democrats to vote “No.”
In the Senate the lack of bipartisan support this bill will find is primarily because it requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. That means 10 Democrats must agree with the Republicans, unlikely since the Senate Democrats absolutely disagree with the attached voter ID provision.
What if both sides talked and said let’s pretend we care about this bill getting through Congress. Let’s pass the drama off to the Senate and besides, we know it won’t pass there with the photo identification add-on.
It is politics after all and even if that is not the agenda, it still allows the Republicans to run campaign ads stating the Democrats voted against a stock trading ban.
Watchdog groups have said of the entire mess that Congress should have rejected it because “It fails to address the two inherent problems with congressional stock ownership: the appearance of insider trading and members’ ability to profit from their official position” because it allows them to keep existing portfolios.”
They also pointed out conflicts of interest since Congress executes millions of dollars in trade annually. Allowing lawmakers to hold onto their original stocks does not fix the problem not to mention the bill excludes the President, Vice President, and Cabinet members.
Basically, a lot of “We are getting a lot of nothing done while it looks like we are busy as hell.” Meanwhile if caught, lawmakers face a minor fine of either $2,000 or 10% of the investment’s value (whichever is greater), alongside giving up their realized profits. That is the legal equivalent of a gentle slap on the wrist while laughing all the way to the bank.
Rita Cook is a world traveler and writer/editor who specializes in writing on travel, auto, crime and politics. A correspondent for Texas Metro News, she has published 11 books and has also produced low-budget films.
