With the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee having advanced a bill explicitly banning congressional insider trading in a 7-2 vote, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is receiving well-deserved praise for offering significant improvements to the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act.

“The American people deserve the right to know their lawmakers’ only interest is what’s best for the country, not their own financial interests,” said Sen. Gillibrand.

In addition to banning insider trading by members of Congress, Sen. Gillibrand’s improvements to the bill ensure that so-called “tipping” of nonpublic information will be explicitly barred, shortens the time period for public disclosure of investments by members of Congress from 90 days to 30, closes a major loophole that would have extended the law only to pending legislation, and brings the insider trading laws governing elected officials, their staffs, and family members into alignment with those governing citizens.

“In sum, Senator Gillibrand and her staff are to be highly commended for coming up with a ban on Congressional insider trading that is simple, effective, comprehensive, and workable,” says insider trading expert and UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge.

(more…)

With the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee set to begin congressional insider trading hearings today, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, whose husband trades stock options, has proposed a bill that would legalize, not ban, insider trading by members of Congress.

“This is just nuts,” says UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge.

The controversy surrounding Sen. Gillibrand’s version of the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act involves a curious omission of a conjunction that  CNBC.com editor John Carney calls “shocking” and a “scandal” because it would “gut the law” entirely.

In Sen. Scott Brown’s version of the bill, the law reads:

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, by rule, prohibit any person from buying or selling the securities or security-based swaps of any issuer while such person is in possession of material nonpublic information relating to any pending or prospective legislative action relating to such issuer, if–

(A) such information was obtained by reason of such person being a Member or employee of Congress; or

(B) such information was obtained from a Member or employee of Congress, and such person knows that the information was so obtained.

Sen. Gillibrand’s version, however, contains a critical difference:

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, by rule, prohibit any person from buying or selling the securities or security-based swaps of any issuer while such person is in possession of material nonpublic information relating to any pending or prospective legislative action relating to such issuer, if–

(A)(i) such information was obtained by reason of such person being a Member or employee of Congress; or

(ii) such information was obtained from a Member or employee of Congress, and such person knows that the information was so obtained;

(B) the person acted with the intent to assist another person, directly or indirectly, to use the information to enter into, or offer to buy or sell the securities of such publicly traded company based on such information.

As UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge notes, while the omission of the conjunction “And” between clause A and B appears to be a typo, Sen. Gillibrand’s insertion of clause B would mean that a member of Congress would be free to make stock trades using material, nonpublic information so long as they didn’t also help another person make a similar stock purchase.

(more…)

Prior to the release of Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster book, Throw Them All Out, legislative efforts to pass a bill banning insider trading by members of Congress had floundered.

But all that is changing—and fast.

Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN) says that before the 60 Minutes report on Schweizer’s book, his STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, H.R. 1148, had only garnered four cosponsors in Congress since he and Rep. Louise Slaughter  (D-NY) re-introduced the legislation on March 18, 2011.

In the two days since the 60 Minutes program aired, Walz says the number of House members supporting the bill has shot up to thirty-five, and climbing.

“I’m coming from the perspective of ‘Are you kidding me?  This isn’t a law already?’” Walz told Minnesota’s Mankato Free Press. (more…)

Wall Street Journal opinion writer Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. has cavalierly dismissed the explosive congressional insider trading scandal uncovered this week by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer and 60 Minutes.

Jenkins calls the fact that members of Congress are abusing their political power and knowledge to make millions trading on Wall Street a “non-scandal”–and then concedes the point:

What’s right about the furor over congressional “insider trading” is the sense that congressmen let themselves behave in ways they wouldn’t permit for the rest of us, indeed would denounce as greedy.

Jenkins goes on to argue, in elitist tones, that “CBS and Mr. Schweizer are taking advantage of the audience’s naivete” and that he is “nonplussed” and “mildly contemptuous over the newest fuss” about the nation’s outrage.

Yet Jenkins’s response should come as no surprise; he is a well-known opponent of insider trading laws, and apparently has a soft spot for those accused of the crime.

In a November 24, 2010, Wall Street Journal column, Jenkins made clear his disdain for insider trading statutes:

Beating a dead horse in argument is frowned upon, but sometimes it takes a good thrashing to reveal the absurdity beneath the surface of reasonability.  So it has been with the evolution of insider trading law…Insane is what happened to insider trading law over the past generation…Insane is treating the information as the offender.  Insane is seeking serially to expand the circle of people who can be criminalized for trading on it, as if it were desirable to keep accurate information out of stock prices.

At times, Jenkins’s skepticism of insider trading law reaches near-alarmist proportions:

The day is coming when a plumber will be prosecuted for trading on what another plumber heard through the wall when fixing the pipe in an apartment neighboring the apartment of somebody who knows somebody who works at an investment bank.

During the insider trading trial of Galleon hedge fund group founder Raj Rajaratnam, Jenkins wrote an April 2011 piece that was dismissive of the prosecution’s case.  The next month, Mr. Rajaratnam was found guilty on all 14 counts of conspiracy and securities fraud. (more…)

From CBSNews:

A bill to stop “insider trading” in Congress is gaining momentum with two new Senate sponsors.

Sens. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., today are introducing the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2011, which would prohibit members or employees of Congress, as well as executive branch employees, from using nonpublic information obtained through their public service for investing or any attempt at personal financial gain.

Like everyone else, members of Congress are subject to current insider trading laws. However, current insider trading laws do not apply to nonpublic information about current or upcoming congressional activity — that’s because members of Congress aren’t technically obligated to keep that information confidential.

(more…)

As if the $10 billion “public education bailout” wasn’t enough to stomach, U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has introduced a bill, titled Education for All Act of 2010, which would spend American tax dollars on education systems around the globe.  It’s S.3797.

U.S. Rep Nita Lowey (D-CA) has introduced similar legislation as H.B. 5117.

I think Washington has officially lost its marbles.

While no dollar amount is contained in the legislation, the bill states, “Credible estimates indicate that approximately $16,000,000,000 per year of financing assistance is necessary for developing countries to achieve universal basic education by 2015.”

Is Sen. Gillibrand really proposing to spend an additional $16 billion of our hard-earned tax dollars elsewhere?

Does spending money in other countries imply that our system is okay?  Or that it’s on a course of improvement?  Because in case these members of Congress haven’t noticed, our system kind of stinks.

(more…)

From The Hill:

Democratic leaders and major party donors plan to hold a lavish 80th birthday gala for Charles Rangel at The Plaza Hotel in Manhattan next month, despite 13 ethics charges pending against the veteran lawmaker.

Lobbyists and other party donors received invitations this week to join Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and New York Gov. David Paterson at one of New York’s finest hotels to celebrate Rangel’s birthday.

Gubernatorial candidate Andrew Cuomo and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg are also listed as featured guests, according to an invitation viewed by The Hill.

Some potential guests received the invitation a day after the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued a report accusing Rangel of multiple ethics violations.

(more…)

In the first (and still best) “Austin Powers” film, a United Nations representative makes a faux pas and calls the film’s villain “Mr. Evil.”

“It’s Dr. Evil,” he huffs. “I didn’t spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called ‘mister,’ thank you very much.”

This is how I feel when I’m referred to as a “blogger,” sometimes with a political qualifier like “liberal” or “conservative” attached. I’m a reporter. I’ve been a reporter since high school. Like a lot of other people, I lucked into some reporting jobs that took advantage of the speed of the web — thus, I blogged. And I left the Washington Post because I was intoxicated by this medium by and the privileges of reporting. The leak of my private e-mails wouldn’t have been possible 10 years ago; but then, neither would have my career been possible.

Let’s go back to the start. I started in journalism in a fairly typical manner, by discovering how much I liked writing articles and doing interviews at my high school paper. I chose to go to Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. It was there that I became editor of the campus’s weekly conservative paper, and became plugged into the campus conservative journalism network.

Was I really that conservative? Yes. (more…)

Remember Joe and Eileen Bailey?  They are the imaginary friends of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) who accompany him wherever he goes. He talks about them often.

This year, New Yorkers may finally realize that it’s only Schumer’s imaginary friends who benefit from his presence in the senate.  Businessman Jay Townsend may be the person who convinces them of it.

Townsend – who announced his candidacy against Schumer last Saturday – opened his campaign with a speech which featured the Baileys. Townsend said, “Senator, instead of inventing a family that does not exist, perhaps you could find some time to listen to real New York families that are struggling to make ends meet, put their kids through school and pay the taxes and fees you impose upon them from your throne on Capitol Hill.”

He said of Schumer, “One person, more than any other, stands as a stark symbol of what is wrong with Washington.  Chuck Schumer is considered the most powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill.  He is the head financier, the architect, the enabler, the avatar, the cheerleader-in-chief of an Imperial Congress that turns a deaf ear to those begging to be heard; the back of a hand to those who dare disagree.”

Schumer appears to be more vulnerable than many assume.

(more…)

Facing what could become a bruising primary battle, appointed U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is embracing one of President Obama’s best known communist appointees, former green jobs czar Van Jones.

The Hill reports Gillibrand will share the stage with Jones at a panel discussion sponsored by the Advocacy Project at the Harvard Club in New York. Jones, a self-described “communist,” was pushed out of the Obama administration five months ago following the embarrassing revelation that he was a 9/11 “truther” who had signed a petition accusing the U.S. government of orchestrating the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

For a time, Jones had been politically radioactive to Democrats but Gillibrand’s decision to work alongside him appears to bring Jones’s political exile to an end.

(more…)

On November 30^th, the same day the Food and Drug Administration was scheduled to issue a statement regarding the long-used plastics additive Bisphenol A (BPA), the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editors urged the agency with the headline “Get on with it!”  They charged that “the agency blew its own self-imposed deadline for issuing a ruling on the safety of the ubiquitous chemical,” and went on to complain that “The FDA is taking more time to have its scientists analyze studies of the chemical’s effects.”

The Milwaukee newspaper, along with the Los Angeles Times health blog, called on Congress to ban the product.  Then, on December 14, the examiner.com reported that Democrat Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand had proposed a bill outlawing the use of BPA in food container linings for infant and toddler food.  Washington, with its Senate vote on Friday, is the latest among several states that are not waiting for federal bans.

But as reported here, in the fall, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) had announced the award of $30 million in research grants, $14 million of which represents Obama administration stimulus money, to study BPA further.

What might account for such odd behavior?  There are enough peculiarities and strange connections to suggest that the media, the academy, and liberal political forces are working together to pursue an ideological agenda—with the help of stimulus funds.

(more…)

Because of the resignation of Hillary Clinton from the U S Senate and the subsequent appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand, both of New York’s U.S. Senate seats are on the ballot this fall. While most of the focus has been on a potential dust up between the Junior Senator and former Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., no one has emerged as a potential candidate to oppose Senator Chuck Schumer, who’s campaign coffers contain more than $30 million.

But a candidate might emerge. New York Tea Party leaders are talking up the potential candidacy of CNBC Talking Head and former Reagan Advisor Larry Kudlow. A graduate of the University of Rochester, Kudlow is one of the architects of the Reagan tax-cuts that sparked one of the great economic boom in modern times. Kudlow who also worked for New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is recognized as a leading anti-tax supply side economist. Kudlow is also know as one of the most effective debaters on the Right.

Kudlow is  known to have beaten an addiction to cocaine which almost derailed his career. Kudlow was addicted to coke and he beat it, Schumer is addicted to special interest campaign contribution and that’s a bigger problem today. Kudlow is the kind of candidate who could raise tea party money across America . Kudlow could also command the Republican and Conservative nominations and might even be able to petition his way on the ballot as the Libertarian party nominee.
(more…)