Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s battle to ban members of Congress from using private information to enrich themselves scored a stunning victory on Thursday when the U.S. Senate voted 96-3 to pass the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act.

While the bill was widely hailed as an essential first step to begin repairing Congress’s abysmal approval ratings, three senators voted against the measure outlawing congressional insider trading.

One of the dissenters was Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).  According to Sen. Bingaman, an amendment by Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) to the STOCK Act would subject 300,000 federal worker to the bill’s 30 day public disclosure reporting requirements for investments.  Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-AL) aides dispute this figure and say the amendment would only apply to 28,000 workers.  Still, according to the New Mexico Democrat:

I can’t support a bill that places unreasonable and burdensome reporting requirements on over 300,000 federal workers.

Also voting against the STOCK Act was Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).  Sen. Coburn said his opposition to banning members of Congress from engaging in the kinds of insider trading revealed in Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s New York Times bestselling book, Throw Them All Out, and the much-discussed 60 Minutes investigation his book sparked, is that he is not convinced any such instances of insider trading even exist.

(more…)

The Chicago Tribune editorial page believes that legislative efforts to ban congressional insider trading, such as the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, are simply an exercise in “damage control” and “window dressing” to shield Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and others mentioned in a 60 Minutes investigative report, based on Breibart News editor Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book, Throw Them All Out.

From the Chicago Tribune:

The measures under consideration strike us as window dressing. We suspect the push for new rules is about protecting the reputations of Bachus and others spotlighted in the news.It sure does seem that being a member of Congress carries benefits beyond the salary. The New York Times reported this week that the median net worth of the members rose 15 percent from 2004 to 2010, when the median net worth for all Americans dropped 8 percent.

But spare us a phony effort to “reform” the rules. The public won’t buy it. And the public has even greater reason to be disgusted with Congress, starting with a national debt of $15 trillion and climbing.

A Breitbart News exclusive report revealed that Rep. Spencer Bachus’s options trading records during the summer and fall of 2008’s debates over the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) were curiously well-timed with market trends.  Specifically, from July to November 2008, Rep. Bachus executed at least 40 options trades that resulted in as much as $50,000 in capital gains.   As Peter Schweizer revealed, Rep. Bachus’s position as the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee gave him access to high-level private meetings and phone conversations with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, as well as other senior financial officials.

(more…)

Yes, says Yale Law Professor Jonathan Macey in an article in today’s Wall Street Journal.

From WSJ:

On closer examination, it appears that what Congress really wants is to keep making the big bucks that come from trading on inside information but to trick those outside of the Beltway into believing they are doing something about this corruption. For one thing, the rules proposed for Capitol Hill are not like those that apply to the rest of us. Ours are so broad and vague that prosecutors enjoy almost unfettered discretion in deciding when and whom to prosecute.

Congress’s rules would be clear and precise. And not too broad; in fact they are too narrow. For example, the proposed rules in the Stock bill are directed only at information related to pending legislation. It would appear that inside information obtained by a congressman during a regulatory briefing, or in another context unrelated to pending legislation, would not be covered.

(more…)

Yesterday, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin outlined a four-part solution to end congressional insider trading and vowed not to “give up until we get the sudden and relentless reform we deserve.”

Citing the numerous deficiencies in the versions of the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act currently under consideration, Gov. Palin wrote in a USA Today op-ed that official Washington’s response to the congressional insider trading scandal has thus far been disappointing and “predictable.”  As Palin notes:

First they denied it, then they dismissed the problem as much ado about nothing.  Some said there was no need for new laws or action because the Securities and Exchange Commission could prosecute members of Congress under existing laws against insider trading.

For these reasons, Palin argues a comprehensive four-step reform measure is desperately needed.

First, writes Palin:

We must reassert the rule of law through strong new legislation that holds Congress accountable and prevents retaliation against whistle-blowers and regulatory agencies investigating corruption.

This provision is especially important given the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) reticence to prosecute members of Congress for fear that they will slash the agency’s budget in retaliation.  In 2006, the Justice Department suffered a similar threat from Congress when the FBI searched Rep. William Jefferson’s office after it received evidence that the former congressman was taking bribes.  Absent whistle-blower protections, says Palin, the SEC could suffer a similar fate by investigating members of Congress for insider trading.

Second, Palin argues that members of Congress must submit to immediate disclosure of all trading activities.

The bills by Sens. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., are particularly weak. Members of Congress should disclose all trading activities immediately, not after 90 days as their bills propose. More immediate disclosure deadlines (similar to the strict deadlines corporate executives adhere to when trading certain amounts of stock) are imperative for real transparency.

A House bill introduced by Rep. Sean Duffy embodies the spirit of Palin’s disclosure rule.  Specifically, the bill requires members of Congress to either set up a blind trust or submit to a three-day disclosure rule for investments.   Palin says that while Rep. Duffy’s bill is a “step in the right direction,” she would nonetheless prefer to see members of Congress abide by “even stricter deadlines like the ones for corporate executives.”

(more…)

Saturday, I had a post on Big Government in which I argued that Gov. Rick Perry’s continued defense of tuition waivers for illegal immigrants had opened the door for Gov. Palin to enter the race. And facts being facts, he was dominating the field until the most recent GOP debate, where the audience booed him when he said: “If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought there, through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.”

Well, consider me heartless because I still believe it’s wrong in principle and in practice to waive any part of tuition for illegal aliens. (And it seems the Floridians who voted in Saturday’s straw poll agree with me, because they handed Republican Herman Cain a whopping victory over Perry – 37% to 15%.)

As I wrote Saturday, Perry’s stance on this asinine practice is nothing less than an albatross around his neck.

Of course Perry has his supporters here, like the Democrat legislator who sponsored the bill – the Texas Dream Act – that made the tuition reductions for illegal aliens possible to begin with. That legislator, Rick Noriega, believes the bill has been a great success and offers a defense of it that sounds very much like the kind Perry has been making:  “The alternative is to slam the door on any hopes and dreams. How are they going to perform in high school if they don’t even have a chance at higher education?”

So if conservatives oppose giving tuition breaks to illegal aliens we either “don’t have a heart” or we’re slamming a door on “hopes and dreams.”

Yet there’s no escaping Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s observation that this kind of legislation is just a “magnet” for illegal aliens (that’s costing someone a pretty penny).

For example, the Dallas Morning News reports that “the number of illegal immigrant college students paying in-state tuition and receiving financial aid at Texas’ public colleges and universities continues to climb.” And between fall 2004 and spring 2008 alone “Texas awarded about $33.6 million in state and institutional financial aid to those students.”

You read it right – the number of illegal immigrant college students getting waivers on their tuition continues to climb so high that “those students” received $33.6 million in state and financial aid.

(more…)

Until the most recent GOP debate took place, I was starting to think that perhaps Gov. Sarah Palin had waited too long to get into the race (if, in fact, she is getting in). Everything seemed to be solidifying around a match-up between Gov. Perry and Gov. McRomney, and it appeared that everyone else was simply fighting for their place on the periphery.

But a strange thing happened on the way to deciding who the Republican nominee is going to be, and that strange thing was Perry’s inexplicable refusal to recant his support for a Texas tuition waiver for illegal aliens. No matter how you slice it, his ongoing defense of giving nearly $100,000 (over four years) to pay for an illegal alien to go to college is an albatross around his neck that’s so big even McRomney can see it.

Perry is good man, and in my opinion, has been one of the greatest governors to ever hold the office in Texas. But all that gets overshadowed when his response to criticism about using taxpayer monies to pay tuition for illegals is: “If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought there, through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.”

First, somebody on Perry’s team needs to understand that illegals who go to college aren’t “children” – they’re 18 years old or older (that’s why they’re going into college instead of pre-K).

Secondly, even if they were children, on a matter of principle the whole idea is wrong (and it’s definitely not indicative of conservatism).

Think about it this way: What if someone breaks into my house and their kid tags along because it’s too hot for the kid to wait in the car. The argument could then be made that the kid ended up in my house “through no fault of [his] own.” Now, does the fact that the kid had no choice obligate me to provide him with a cool drink and a snack while my house is pillaged by his father?

No, no, no.

(more…)