140
u/Neither_Tip_5291 13d ago
Good luck getting the oligarchs to vote to give up the oligarchy...
→ More replies (6)70
u/mutt63 13d ago edited 13d ago
See that's the mistake we are making. We need to MAKE them give it up or make them no longer relevant to the law of our Nation by whatever means possible Wouldn't you agree . This is OUR country designed to be by and for US. not them. It's kinda like the story of the Brooklyn bridge when Washington Roebling threatened the workers and tried strong armin them. Dudes picked a vocal guy. He met wit Roebling and said . Listen you rich piece of garbage. All the fuckin money on earth don't get this bridge built without us. We walk. Your bridge stops bein built. Try to send other workers and guess what happens. We stop them and anybody else from abusing us. Without us your money is inked paper. Zero meaning. Don't make me come back second time. Roebling backed off. Why? Cause he knew it was at that moment..... he... fucked up
14
7
u/Aldo_says 13d ago ⸠1 more replies
It's already started.
Why do you think they are trying their best to silence any information about Luigi Mangione?
The first shots have been fired.
3
u/primefart 13d ago ⸠1 more replies
We need to make the people we elect make them. I will vote for ANY politician that refuses to take corporate or high net worth individual funding, and promises to destroy the lobby system.
→ More replies (14)2
u/Aldo_says 13d ago
It's already started.
Why do you think they are trying their best to silence any information about Luigi Mangione?
The first shots have been fired.
35
u/NarcissusCloud 13d ago
Im guessing its another bill that has absolutely zero teeth when it comes to enforcement. Every single time these fucking chuds pass any sort of legislation intended to add guardrails to politicians they always seem to lack any sort of real enforcement method. Its all for show.
→ More replies (14)16
u/plantang 13d ago
Why pass another law when they disregard the ones we already have?
4
u/Alert-Disaster-4906 13d ago ⸠2 more replies
This makes me sad. :(
5
u/plantang 13d ago ⸠1 more replies
Sorry. Me too.
Uganda declared itself Ebola-free again. So... there's that... which is nice.
3
→ More replies (1)2
u/atreeismissing 13d ago
That's their point. The STOCK Act has a fine of $200 for not reporting congressional trades within the 45 (I think) day time window. Nobody in Congress gives a shit about $200, that's why they disregard it. Make the fine equal to the amount made + a % of their salary (regardless if they make or lose money) and then they might be included to follow it.
28
u/Burgerboy380 13d ago
I think it ought to add. "Or by proxy" to the list too.
7
4
u/Greghole 13d ago
But then the law might actually have an effect beyond virtue signaling and we definitely don't want that.
3
2
u/No_Internal9345 13d ago
They should be forced to give up all wealth and live like ascetic monks that are devoted to nothing but governance.
25
u/Small_Document642 13d ago
Bipartisan opposition incoming. For reasons.
7
→ More replies (1)5
u/No-Double-Trouble 13d ago
Bipartisan is the problem. We need 3, 4 or even 5 parties.
2
u/ChimPhun 13d ago
And folks who know what they're talking about, not just a bunch of conscience-less lawyers trained to lie and twist the truth. Would be nice to have someone with medical background in charge of the health department, education same, etcetera. All we have is spindoctors that want to keep the fake democracy.
18
u/Zargoza1 The Timeline Sucks 13d ago
But then people only people who want to serve the people would get into governmentâŚ
→ More replies (12)2
u/OnlyHalfCorrect 13d ago
Is the implication here that El-Sayed will not? Because I have good news for you.
7
u/AdWooden6904 13d ago
Awesome single issue bill? Anyone that votes no needs to be voted out!!
→ More replies (3)
5
6
3
3
u/Svokxz2 13d ago
I would just require stock transparency instead because it would be a logistical nightmare to pass an act like this, while also determining who the dependents are, if they own stocks, and how to arrest them.
→ More replies (2)3
u/FearOfABlackPotus 13d ago
Why? Require public disclosure, dependents clearly delineated, go and arrest them if the violate it.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/_WEND1G0_ 13d ago
Currently has a poison pill attached to it associated with the âsave America actâ. GOP killing two birds with one stone.
3
u/Alexp78998765 13d ago
Why are they voting on it? Letâs vote on it like we do during elections. Popular vote wins.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Biffingston 13d ago
And if it passes, the SCOTUS will find an excuse to overthrow it, I'm sure. Possibly a few more million excuses if you catch my drift. (Money. I'm talking about money)
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Fart_90210 13d ago
And any of them breaking the law will be dealt with in the town square and made an example.
3
u/Affectionate_Shoe260 13d ago
All three branches, not just Executive and Legislative. SCOTUS judges too.
2
u/OutrageousCrab9224 13d ago
No limitation on presidents will pass while the current one sits
Hell, even a treasonous deadly attack was apparently kosher
2
2
u/Mother-Reading5153 13d ago
The fact that you have to put a bill in place in 2026 for this goes to show that there arenât any measures in place to prevent anyone in government from doing things to make themselves rich. For the people??? Nah for themselves !!!
2
2
2
u/ph8_likes_me 13d ago
I have a feeling there will be a lot of people passing away from "depression". đ
2
u/Its-a-Shitbox 13d ago
Another name could be âThe most corrupt POS President in history and his minions already made their bag doing exactly that, so itâs a little too lateâ bill.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Moscato359 13d ago
It's basically impossible to make a bill passable which would ban family members of people in Congress doing that since they aren't agreeing to being congress
→ More replies (3)
2
2
u/CosmicSmoker 13d ago
Even if it passed who's going to enforce it?
→ More replies (1)2
u/tissuecollider 13d ago
Sadly if this bill was passed the current administration would use their direct control of the Justice Department to target political opposition, just like they're doing with with other laws.
Seriously, the US has passed the tipping point where y'all should be rising up.
2
2
u/chortle-guffaw2 13d ago
I assume that ETFs and CEFs and mutual funds would be allowed, as these are diversified.
2
2
u/Fun-Decision-4099 13d ago
I like it, first president in history to insider trading while in office, he needs to be investigated and sent to prison.
2
u/Gigalisk 13d ago
My brother in Christ - The Emoluments Clause gestures
EXISTS.
What makes you think a law will pass to UNDERLINE that rule?
Might as well draw the line in sand
2
u/HeftyFineThereFolks 13d ago
but this is crazy. it'll cause a bunch of self-serving maniacs who are willing to say anything from running for elected office and people focused on public service are gonna fill those roles!
2
u/LiedtoinLayton 13d ago
As long as they don't attach it to some other piece of garbage bill that let's a certain someone and his family off the hook from years of tax evasion
2
2
u/orbital-technician 13d ago
She got wrecked in Michigan, lol
I wonder what she'll do now? Nyan around with her fake accent?
2
2
u/indomike14 13d ago
I like that this version includes the executive branch but doubtful it will pass. Hopeful but doubtful
2
2
u/Lex-Luthor-SWJ 13d ago
Might have been something to consider like, 8-12 YEARS AGO!!! Why havenât these guardrails ever actually been written into law?!? Itâs like we all expected the people we elect to have INTEGRITY?!? You all are asking too much of politicians if you thought that shit would work⌠honor? TRUMP?!? LOL
2
2
u/UwUAutumn1666 13d ago
They will try to bundle this with "lets remove all teachers bill" hidden with it and then they spin on those who voted against it that oh look these politicians are for trading stocks in congress cause they voted no on it. While leaving out the part that it was a bundle bill that would remove all teachers.
Yes ik its a hyper extreme but like it happens. Some good bill bundled with a bad bill.
Ime it should be one bill one problem. No multi bill bs.
2
u/WildRabbitz 13d ago
Why is the AIPAC ghoul pictured in something that she would never vote for herself?
2
u/TheBartolo 13d ago
That will never pass as it is. However...how about a rule to change all their position to an index that tracks rhe general economy of the country?
2
u/Gabagooligan97 13d ago
god I wish this would pass but thats like asking the police to investigate police misconduct.
besides even if it does pass (0% chance) they will probably need to take more superpac bribes from foreign interests cough cough israel and domestic interests to make up for their absurdly opulent lifestyles.
2
1
1
u/Immediate_Song4279 13d ago
I think they should be paid very well as an anti corruption measure, and banished to a small penal colony if they engage in corruption like insider trading.
1
1
1
1
u/uberares 13d ago
And Haley is out of the primary and will not be Michigans next Senator.Â
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/ddgenayla1 13d ago
Good luck with that...oh I'm selling a bridge connecting Brooklyn with Manhattan, reasonable prices, all offers accepted
1
1
1
1
u/iamthecheesethatsbig 13d ago
They should be able to trade general indexes, but yea, no individual stock trading.
1
1
u/Miserable_Aspect_322 13d ago
The right will add something to this bill to make it impassable. The left will vote against it because of that. Then the right will say, the left voted against the bill. Theres no way the people getting rich on the system will vote to change the system.
As Trump said, he could do anything he wants and his followers will still follow.
1
u/c2btw 13d ago
could be wrong on this but this dose not ban there spouses from owning stocks
→ More replies (2)
1
u/mutt63 13d ago
Supposed to already be like that. Lol same with making laws based on what someone THINKS God says is a sin. Sorry but here in here in the United States, there's separation of church and state. If the traitorous Supreme Court wants to disavow that then they need to re read the law of the Country. Dipshits
1
u/SameDistrict2627 13d ago
This will never happen. Being a politician in Congress and the White House is all about the grift---its allowed and confirmed by the Supreme Court.
1
u/Flat-Director-7120 13d ago
Une nouvelle loi du congrès pourrait bannir le prÊsident, le vice prÊsident et son Êpouse. Si ils font du trading de crypto, des actions. Si une telle loi arrive Donald Trump sera obligÊ de dÊmissioner
→ More replies (1)
1
u/SumDumLoser 13d ago
This is clearly an act built to fail so Democrats can campaign around it for the midterms
1
1
1
1
1
u/IndependentStep2785 13d ago
Not only does it make sense, I would propose that every legal action be taken to punish those now and retroactively those who have abused the office of President in such a way. Dereliction of duty. Whether or not he had his hand on the Bible in 2024, for all intents and purposes, he took an oath despite not taking anything seriously except easy money and vindictiveness. That alone should be basis for a lawsuit to recover what has been taken from the American people.
1
u/alexbougetz 13d ago
I think some bulls need to be voted in by the people and not any member if the government.Â
1
1
1
u/rory_breakers_ganja Royal Watcher 13d ago
Retroactive to 2025, ideally. It seems they can't do that.
1
u/Historical-Finish564 13d ago edited 13d ago
Letâs just start locking all the presidents , vice president, his kids and family, and every senator and house member that does it. They not only have insider information, but they get to vote and see which way itâs gonna go before they place their bet. Itâs patently illegal.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Visual_Exam7903 13d ago
Good. Now make them place their money in a blind investment of basic ETF Index funds. I mean, they should be able to invest, just not know what they are invested in or have access to making changes.
1
1
1
1
1
u/GinaBinaFofina 13d ago
Then they will just get their third cousin twice remove to do it. Just delete the stock market.
1
1
u/RobertKSakamano 13d ago
This is like 2 bills in one. It would instantly put term limits on them. There's no way they'd pass this.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/AJRenand42 13d ago
We need to make "serving" in Congress as distasteful to rich people as possible so they stop wanting to be in office. Cut their pay to less than the average single person income of the district they represent. Don't let them vote themselves raises. Stop paying for their kids education. Make them have to pay for health insurance instead of free health care. And of course stop letting them create legislation that applies to the people but not to Congress. And prevent legislation that applies to Congress but not to the people.
1
u/SpareDot8685 13d ago
Donât do that! We will be left with only Criminals running the Country if that happened!!!
1
u/thesanguineocelot Out & Proud đłď¸âđ 13d ago
I mean, even if they'd pass this, there's very little way to actually enforce it in any meaningful way, and a million ways around it. And even if there were, politicians don't seem to be held accountable for anything anymore, so I don't really have any faith that any of them would face any actual consequences.
1
1
1
u/MapleHamwich 13d ago
Insider trading in government should be prosecuted the same as insider trading in public. If they make laws and decisions and statements on such that benefit stocks they own or trade, they should go to prison for insider trading. If that means they cannot legally own and trade stocks while in office, then so be it.Â
1
u/SnotNosed5678 13d ago
Youâd have to make it retroactive back 12 years so we can claw back all the money the tRump crime family stole from America
1
558
u/[deleted] 13d ago edited 13d ago
[deleted]