Insider trading in Congress — and it’s legal

The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting item on its front page today, explaining that some congressional Dems are proposing a ban on [tag]insider trading[/tag] on the Hill.

Amid broad congressional concern about ethics scandals, some lawmakers are poised to expand the battle for reform: They want to enact legislation that would prohibit members of [tag]Congress[/tag] and their aides from trading stocks based on nonpublic information gathered on [tag]Capitol Hill[/tag].

Two Democrat lawmakers plan to introduce today a bill that would block trading on such inside information. Current securities law and congressional ethics rules don’t prohibit lawmakers or their staff members from buying and selling securities based on information learned in the halls of Congress.

Reading the report, I kept thinking, “This is legal now?” Apparently so. Officials in the executive branch are already prohibited from trading on inside information, but in the legislative branch, there’s only a weak disclosure element. Lawmakers and their staffs can review legislation, see which companies will be affected by legislation and/or regulations, and take full advantage of their position. In some instances, they can buy and sell themselves, and in other circumstances, they may be in a position to tell other investors, possibly in exchange for [tag]kickbacks[/tag].

Of course, the concerns about congressional insider trading were prompted by actual events. Naturally, they involve Tom DeLay’s office.

The two Democrats who wrote the bill say they were motivated by the trading activity of a former top aide to Rep. [tag]Tom DeLay[/tag], the onetime Republican majority leader in the House. The aide, [tag]Tony Rudy[/tag], bought and sold hundreds of stocks from his computer in the U.S. Capitol in 1999 and 2000, according to financial-disclosure forms and other DeLay aides.

Neither Mr. Rudy nor his lawyer returned calls seeking comment. It is impossible to tell from the disclosure forms whether Mr. Rudy traded stocks based on information he gathered while working as deputy chief of staff and general counsel to Mr. DeLay, then the No. 3 Republican in the House.

Rep. [tag]Louise Slaughter[/tag], the New York Democrat who wrote the bill, said: “Top leadership aides know what is happening before anyone else. The potential for abuse there is incredible.”

Rep. [tag]Brian Baird[/tag] of Washington, the bill’s co-sponsor, said there are “hundreds of billions of dollars on the line on congressional activity. If there is a way to make a profit on that, somebody has probably already figured out a way to do it. And it’s not illegal.”

It should be. We’ll see if the congressional majority embraces the Dems’ proposal.

This is amazing. Isn’t this what Bill Frist is in trouble for? Didn’t he sell his company stock when he had issues related to the industry in front of the Senate?

  • Insider trading tis but a juicy sliver of the entire corporate-congressional love fest . Real reform would make candidates financially independent and insulated from big money, The gesture of insider trading reform is like the current lobbyist reform bill… political cover as a shallow gesture designed to protect congress from real thing but keep the influence money flowing.

  • If it wasn’t such a good opportunity to make a lot of money and be set for life, then what would be the incentive for good qualified people to run for Congress? Public service?

    (/snark)

  • And in more shocking news, the Harper’s Index for February 2006 shows that on average, a US Senator’s portfolio outperforms the stock market each year by 12%. No word on the same average for non-Senators.

    The truly amazing thing is that people outside the Hill can be imprisoned for this behavior. It is obviously taken very seriously by, um, THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. So how it isn’t even against the rules for one group of Americans, but other Americans can go to jail for it is beyond me.

    If Dems don’t win at least one house back in November my name ain’t Chief Osceola.

  • Did anyone else besides me notice this little blurb?

    “The aide, Tony Rudy, bought and sold hundreds of stocks from his computer in the U.S. Capitol.”

    Is that a computer at his home in the capital, or his work computer? On top of activities that are already ethically challenged is this guy using company equipment for personal use. Most companies have workplace rules against doing that, doesn’t the government.

  • Does anyone think anyone in the GOP will act to “disturb the operations of the free market”????

    The GOP is living proof of the accuracy of Anatole France’s comment that “behind every great fortune is a great crime.”

    They’re traditionalists, and the stock market has always been the “respectable”version of Las Vegas for people with “serious money” – why would they change??

  • “Is that a computer at his home in the capital, or his work computer?” – MAA

    If you put the ‘o’ in the last syllable of Capitol, it means the building itself.

    So yes, at work.

    On the wider issue, this is hardly the only place where Congress exempts themselves from the laws that apply to the rest of Americans (even the Bush Administration?). And as Chief Osceola noted, there are advantages to them by that.

    In my mind, that makes them all crooks, essentially.

  • I wonder if anyone here is still upset at the Clinton’s for making $100,000 in cattle futures. It was obviously a bribe since the broker appears to have assigned the best trade prices of the day to the Clinton’s account.

    While I am picking on Democrats. Former Speaker Foley also made a lot of money, somewhere near $35,000???, from investments that were akin to bribes.

    Trying to show that far too many people in Washington are guilty, it is still absurd that it is perfectly legal for someone in Washington, like Jack Abramoff, to ‘suggest’ to a member of Cogress to invest in a business that will make a ton of money.

    I saw a study a few years ago that the investment performance of the average member of Congress was far better than the average investor. The only POSSIBLE way for the Congressmen to do so much better was either by INSIDE information or being given investment opportunities that the regular guy couldn’t get.

    Don’t forget that our fantastic President used his MBA to fail in every business he ever touched until he was given a piece of the Texas Rangers because the seller wanted to suck up to the sitting VP. (This is the Wall Street Journal’s view of W’s business record. No one every accused the Journal of being part of the liberal media.)

    Something needs to be done to stop all these sweetheart deals.

    Stopping people from using inside information is a good first step but so much more needs to be done.

  • Comments are closed.