They're all hacks:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522434188603198.html


By BRODY MULLINS, TOM MCGINTY and JASON ZWEIG

WASHINGTON—Chris Miller nearly doubled his $3,500 stock investment in a renewable-energy firm in 2008. It was a perfectly legal bet, but he's no ordinary investor.

Mr. Miller is the top energy-policy adviser to Nevada Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who helped pass legislation that wound up benefiting the firm.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid's office, initially defended Mr. Miller's purchase of shares in the company, Energy Conversion Devices Inc. He said the aide had no influence over tax incentives for renewable-energy firms, and that other factors boosted the stock.

But on Sunday, Mr. Manley added: "Mr. Miller showed poor judgment and Senator Reid has made it very clear to Chris and all his staff that their actions must not only follow the law, but must meet the higher standards the public has a right to expect from elected officials and their staffs."
...

The aides identified by the Journal say they didn't profit by making trades based on any information gathered in the halls of Congress. Even if they had done so, it would be legal, because insider-trading laws don't apply to Congress.
...

"Congressional staff are often privy to inside information, and an unscrupulous person could profit off that knowledge," says Vincent Morris, a spokesman for Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), a leading backer of the "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act," or STOCK Act. "The public should be outraged there is no law specifically banning this."


....



I've got no love for the banks making deals with insider info (piecing out the failed banks, the tarp withdrawal accounts, skirting bankruptcy riding the gov bailout but still not addressing the root issues, etc.), but this, from an ethics standpoint, is just as bad (while the magnitude is much lower).

FYI - Congress is exempt from insider trading laws.

So, I don't see what the issue is here.

(just to get this post out of the way).

FYI - Congress is exempt from insider trading laws.

So, I don't see what the issue is here.

(just to get this post out of the way).

That's in the section of the article I quoted.

The aides still sit in on meetings and can execute trades based what was decided. The article shows aides pushing trades through based on closed door meetings.

That's in the section of the article I quoted.

The aides still sit in on meetings and can execute trades based what was decided. The article shows aides pushing trades through based on closed door meetings.


Oh, I know.

But, invariably someone will defend Congress on this since Nancy Pelosi called it the most ethical and transparent Congress ever.

When private companies cook the books, you call them Enron or Worldcom. When politicians cook the books, it's called passing a balanced budget.
When wall street bankers take part in insider trading, they're investigated by the SEC. When politicians use insider information from closed door meetings to make a return, they're exempt from those same SEC laws.

It's a nice little game they've got going...

It's time to put politicians in check... This crap needs to stop... another thing these jackasses need taken away from them, is the ability to give themselves raises.

It's time to put politicians in check... This crap needs to stop... another thing these jackasses need taken away from them, is the ability to give themselves raises.

Definitely. This crime is no different from the versace suit wearing wall street banker.

Except, the democrats have the Wall Street criticism niche cornered quite nicely.

Does anyone here think that insider trading is less of a crime when politicians do it?

I'm not sure Congressional staffers should fall under the term "Congress". This is disturbing, but it's not illegal, and in fact there might be legal implications to whether or not you can even restrict it. Can your employer regulate how you invest your money? I know they can for things like conflict of interest, for example if you work for a ratings company you can't invest in any stock or fund that they rate. But can they restrict for no official reason?

Stocks in general have doubled since 2008. I don't own a single stock that hasn't doubled from the lows of september and october.

I'm not sure Congressional staffers should fall under the term "Congress". This is disturbing, but it's not illegal, and in fact there might be legal implications to whether or not you can even restrict it. Can your employer regulate how you invest your money? I know they can for things like conflict of interest, for example if you work for a ratings company you can't invest in any stock or fund that they rate. But can they restrict for no official reason?

Of course they can. Many companies that relate to the financial services industry prohibit trading any individual securities without going through a compliance committee first.

Of course they can. Many companies that relate to the financial services industry prohibit trading any individual securities without going through a compliance committee first.

Right, for legal issues. If those issues don't apply to Congress, then there might be a question there. Do you know for sure that it's legal? I don't, I'm asking.

Right, for legal issues. If those issues don't apply to Congress, then there might be a question there. Do you know for sure that it's legal? I don't, I'm asking.

Why wouldn't it be? There are very few things employers cannot require as a condition of employment. Making employees take an IQ test or polygraph test are two such examples.

Why wouldn't it be? There are very few things employers cannot require as a condition of employment. Making employees take an IQ test or polygraph test are two such examples.

I'm pretty sure my employer can't place arbitrary restrictions on my stock portfolio, why would they be allowed to do that? Why would I even have to divulge that information? There has to be an underlying reason, such as conflict of interest if you work in the industry, no?

I'm pretty sure my employer can't place arbitrary restrictions on my stock portfolio, why would they be allowed to do that? Why would I even have to divulge that information? There has to be an underlying reason, such as conflict of interest if you work in the industry, no?

In an at-will employment situation, they can do pretty much whatever they want. If they want to tell you that you can't hold Coca Cola stock because the owner prefers Pepsi, that is their right.

In an at-will employment situation, they can do pretty much whatever they want. If they want to tell you that you can't hold Coca Cola stock because the owner prefers Pepsi, that is their right.

Can they compel me to divulge my stock holdings to begin with? There are privacy issues.

Can they compel me to divulge my stock holdings to begin with? There are privacy issues.

Sure. They can say that if you don't like it, you can find somewhere else to work.

I'm pretty sure my employer can't place arbitrary restrictions on my stock portfolio, why would they be allowed to do that? Why would I even have to divulge that information? There has to be an underlying reason, such as conflict of interest if you work in the industry, no?

All employees of the Big4 accounting firms have significant amounts of limitations on investments, loans, etc. because of the work performed, 90% of the time that information would be worthless from a trading perspective.

Sure. They can say that if you don't like it, you can find somewhere else to work.

What is this strange concept you speak of?

Your employer works for you.

All employees of the Big4 accounting firms have significant amounts of limitations on investments, loans, etc. because of the work performed, 90% of the time that information would be worthless from a trading perspective.

I understand that, there's a clear reason for it. Can restrictions be placed upon you if you DON'T work in the industry, and it's not a matter of legality? People are saying they can, but clearly there're privacy issues in play. Does anyone actually know the law? Clearly it's not as simple as an employer simply being able to fire you for not divulging what is otherwise private information, he certainly can't compel you to divulge health records.

I understand that, there's a clear reason for it. Can restrictions be placed upon you if you DON'T work in the industry, and it's not a matter of legality? People are saying they can, but clearly there're privacy issues in play. Does anyone actually know the law? Clearly it's not as simple as an employer simply being able to fire you for not divulging what is otherwise private information, he certainly can't compel you to divulge health records.

Right, but that is explicitly written into statute. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from demanding records except if the results are necessary to determine whether someone can do the job.

There is no similar protection for your stock portfolio.

Consider also that congressional staffers are employees of the Federal government, which means that unlike most employers for which some issues may not apply (i.e. the first amendment), it could apply here. Does the Federal Gov't have the right to "search" you without just cause, forcing you to divulge otherwise private information?

Between this and not paying their Taxes or student loans they must be rich by now.

Between this and not paying their Taxes or student loans they must be rich by now.

Congressional staffers are typically highly qualified and are earning far less than they could in the private sector, so I don't think they're doing this to be rich. The one guy in question invested $3500. That's not exactly a king's ransom.

Consider also that congressional staffers are employees of the Federal government, which means that unlike most employers for which some issues may not apply (i.e. the first amendment), it could apply here. Does the Federal Gov't have the right to "search" you without just cause, forcing you to divulge otherwise private information?

If these staffers have security clearances (pretty likely, since they are handling sensitive information), then absolutely the government can pry into their lives essentially at will. The gov't can pull a security clearance for a number of reasons, not just disclosure of protected information, but also based on your finances.

Lose your security clearance, lose your job.

Congressional staffers are typically highly qualified.

Where in the world did you get that info from? While some are highly qualified I have never seen anything which would make me think as whole they are “typically highly qualified”. Too often there only qualification is who they, or their family, knows.

Would you mind sharing whatever info you have which makes you think they are “typically highly qualified”?

and are earning far less than they could in the private sector,.

Same question as above … WHY would you think that (don’t forget to add all the “perks” to their salary).

Stocks in general have doubled since 2008. I don't own a single stock that hasn't doubled from the lows of september and october.
Citigroup hasn't doubled since Sept/Oct 2008.

Wait what?
The aides identified by the Journal say they didn't profit by making trades based on any information gathered in the halls of Congress. Even if they had done so, it would be legal, because insider-trading laws don't apply to Congress.
WTF? I just love how they pass laws that don't apply to them.

It's definitely unethical. That staffer should be fired and the law should bar all government employees from doing this.