>

I hate this man. But it’s about time
Great, pass that shit. >

I'd say I'll vote against anybody who votes no on this bill, but...let's be honest, they all will. Abusing the public for personal profit has bipartisan support. >

We'll see. There's definitely gonna be some kind of poison pill in the bill. He wouldn't have named it that way if he actually wanted it to pass. >

It shouldn't be legal to have multiple unrelated motions in a single bill. Like poison pill shit is fucking evil. >

It’s the only way a lot of things can get passed (including good and important things). The system is pretty fucking broken. >

It's beyond broken. Stuff that's broken looks at the system & goes "damn, that shit's all fuckered up." >

I wonder if Pelosi could play the old Uno Reverse card and claim ownership of the bill. 
“This is something the American people support, and I’m proud to have my name on it.” >

I don't think she would be down for it, as she just sold Google stock right before the announcement that they will be questioning Google. Hawly is a pos, but why dress a turd with Pelosi? >

Kinda wild that people keep such tight tabs on Pelosi, but the 5 republican politicians who are doing it worse and some far worse are totally ignored and not spoken of. >

Yep. All  of them should have been pilloried in the media over these things. >

She's not even the top 10 in 2022 and people still keep railing her. >

They can all be crooked, ya know. >

Worth pointing out how reddit is obsessed with her in particular >

She’s the face of the Democratic Party, she gets about as much air time a McConnell in terms Reddit outrage. Which fits. >

When it comes to the stock trading thing she gets almost all the flack now adays despite not being the worst offender on either side of the aisle >

Yes because she is a high ranking official and a major figure of the democratic party.
To draw a comparison. Suppose that a rando republican house member and Obama during his presidency both got caught murdering their wife. Who do you think is gonna get the most media attention?
Leader figures are under more scrutiny than rank fillers. News at 11. >

Tragedy. The worst person I know just made an excellent point. >

But made it in the most asshole-ish way he could think of, of course. >

Who cares? Put my fucking name on the bill and then walk me through the streets yelling shame. This shit should’ve happened decades ago and is one of several absolutely essential changes to save our democracy >

True, but I am convinced this guy wouldn't have introduced this bill if he thought it had a snowball's chance in hell of passing. He probably checked to be sure McCarthy wouldn't bother to allow it to hit the House floor before he even ~~wrote it~~ paid someone to write it. >

Just a few months ago McCarthy said Republicans would pass a bill to change the current congressional stock trading behavior, and he noted he only owns mutual funds. >

Hell, maybe I'll be proven wrong and this really will happen. That would be great! >

He's not wrong, but this will fly like a lead balloon.
Naming it that just proves it's nothing more than political theater. >

Well good thing that mythbusters proved lead balloons do fly it just requires effort >

A mythbuster of culture I see >

Been doing a binge on discovery plus! >

Can you stream all the episodes there? >

Yup! I’ll cancel it once I finish I thought there’s be more on it that I’d want to watch but nope ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >

But but but Crocodile Hunter!!! >

Ok, sure. But go the extra step further. Ban immediate family as well. At least household members. Let the government investigate suspicious trades by congressional members family. What, you thought progressives would just jump in and whine to defend Pelosi because you called her out? We're not a cult of personality here bud. Fuck any politician screwing us. >

It's difficult to justify that. An immediate family member may have nothing to do with the concerned politician. To ban them just because they happen to be related is not fair. >

Companies ban immediate family members from winning sweepstakes all the time. Why can't the same logic apply here? just avoid the appearance of impropriety >

Bingo. And if you want to ride that political train, immediate family has to play by the same rules. Don't like it? Don't run for office. >

Heartbreaking: the worst politician you know just introduced great legislation >

He’s had a lot of good proposals. Worked with Sanders on pandemic relief checks and proposed a $15 min wage for large corps. He toes the GOP line when it comes to the performative culture war stuff, but his politics are actually pretty economically progressive >

I've said it before, but..
Fake-fighting corruption is going after individuals, your political enemies.
Real-fighting corruption is going after systems, that both political sides are exploiting. >

Fake standing up to corporations is criticizing them for putting rainbows on their products in June. Real standing up to corporations is criticizing them for fucking over workers and consumers. >


Real standing up to corporations is criticizing them for fucking over workers and consumers.

which neither party is willing or able to do. The railroad strike ban was approved by democrats and forced through by Biden himself, in order to sAvE ThE eCoNoMy >

And they call democrats leftists. >

meanwhile actual leftists criticize the democrats' pro-corporate policies and the dems call leftists Trumpists for not toeing the Dem party line >

I don't think I've seen them call actual leftist Trumpist.  They usually just ignore them and conservatives erroneously call them Tankies. Though there are some Tankies on reddit. (People who support authoritarian left crackdowns like Tienamen Square or some Stalin bs.) >

i remember when some the more extreme/hardline Bernie supporters got called every name under the sun for refusing to support crooked Hillary. It's tough for principled folks who just want to campaign on pro-working class policies.
Meanwhile, although tankies do exist, they're more likely to abstain from voting in elections altogether >

I agree with Josh Hawley? OK. Odd but OK. Now do other good stuff. >

It should be banned, but his blatant naming of it shows he's not really interested in the issue as much as scoring a political point. 
Oh, and fuck Hawley to hell and back. >

I'm fine with the name, just stop the bullshit insider trading, if it gets enough idiot right wingers to vote against their ability to do that it passes let's get it done >

But by naming it that you lose a lot of Ds who would have been supportive. If they truly want it banned, then name it something else and put it to a vote. Hawley naming it this is purely political because he knows the Ds won't go for it, and he can then turn around and say, "See the Ds don't care." >

Hmm... The Democrats should instead take ownership of it and have Pelosi herself start doing interviews in favor of it. Either get it passed out force the Rs to torpedo their own bill. Unless it's somehow written so poorly as to make things worse, which wouldn't exactly shock me... >

I haven't read enough about it to know holes, but I don't think the GOP would sink it, instead when Pelosi and others come out saying they are in favor of it, the GOP will scream, "See! We told you would could rein in the Ds! That's why you elected us." It's a massive propaganda win for the GOP.
My thought is the Ds should do what you say, but do it around a tighter, more appropriately named bill. >

I don't think I agree. The Rs might try to spin it that way, but it would be hard to do ("we stopped the corrupt politician... With this bill that she supported" doesn't seem very effective). A different bill would not have a chance of paying right now, so it's a moot point, unless your only goal is grandstanding without effect.
What's more important, scoring a propaganda point or closing an avenue of corruption? >

But who supports a bill is largely lost on the public. Look at the GOP Reps and Senators singing the praises of the Infrastructure bill - a bill they voted against. They realize the average voter isn't paying attention to the details. So Pelosi saying she voted for it will get lost, and the prevailing narrative will be, "GOP closes avenue for corruption." 
Obviously closing corruption is more important in an even split, but I don't think this is that simple. Put it this way, if there was a bill before Congress that was to better criminalize sex trafficking, and the Ds named it the Matt Gaetz bill, I wouldn't support that. Bill naming is already squirrelly enough, we shouldn't support using the names of bills as ways to personally attack fellow Reps and Senators. >


Look at the GOP Reps and Senators singing the praises of the Infrastructure bill - a bill they voted against.

You contradict yourself here. If people don't pay attention to who supported the bill, why would they give credit to the GOP? If anything, they'll end up crediting Pelosi.
I mean, partisans predisposed to crediting the GOP for anything they happen to like will continue to do so, but you can't let that stop you from voting for good bills. >

It's not a contradiction because everyone knows it as the inflation reduction act, or the infrastructure bill. The individual votes are largely unknown to the general public. Sure, some paid attention, but it is the name that is known. So if it's called the Pelosi Act, that will be not only how people refer to it, but every time it's mentioned, the newscaster will likely say, "it was named such because..." It creates a narrative this was a Pelosi problem, or more likely a D problem. 
The Ds simply don't have the media machinery to change the narrative to, "this was named this way because Pelosi led the charge in creating the new rule." 
And again, I don't agree we should be naming bills to personally hit opponents, as with the Gaetz example. >

Instead, we'll have "the Republicans proposed an anti-corruption bill which the Democrats killed because they're corrupt". Which honestly makes more sense than "because they thought the name was insulting".
Anyway, the last time Republicans tried it, we got Obamacare. 
I'm not saying it's a good naming practice, but voting against it just because of the name would be a huge own goal. >

I mean he’s right on this one.  It should be banned >

Terrible news: worst person you know makes a good point 😔 >

This is implying that there are people in politics that are decent enough to actually support this bill. This is never passing because none of them actually give a shit about serving us and just use their position to get themselves richer. >

It's good in theory, but what's the point of banning stock trading when lobbying is perfectly legal? This is only a small portion of the problem in Washington. >

I agree. I don’t think this bill was ever intended to pass anyway, but we should start passing bills like this one by one. Baby steps. Probably won’t happen though because nobody can get along anymore. >

She did sell $3m in google stocks a month ago prior to the regulation and investigations sooooooo. Like yeah it’s for sure political theater but also it’s right on the money >

DOJ brought up the charges in August 2022, she was way late if she sold last month >

Justice department and 8 states filed an antitrust suit this Tuesday… this isn’t the first time Google is being sued. >

This is purely a political stunt. He knows this will get zero support from Congress.
It's a bit hypocritical, too, considering his own considerable stock holdings. >

They'll never be able to pass this! What other government employees can become millionaires just after a few years on the job on a salary 170K? >


What other government employees can become millionaires just after a few years on the job on a salary 170K?

Any that are well know. They can write a book and easily make it. You forget that people getting elected or appointed to high/national level positions gives them a national platform to become known and then cash in on that fact with books, touring, etc.
Someone who doesn't become a millionaire in this position has no idea how to leverage their identity for their own benefit. >

Its unworkable as a rule, instead just remove the exemption from them in the insider trading laws and update to include passing laws or rules to enrich yourself: which I am fairly certain is already illegal in some way but just not enforced by the weak ass fuckers in the justice dept. >

Heartbreaking: The worst person you know just made a really good point. >

Haha.  As if politicians would be willing to agree to ethical, sensible regulations that apply to themselves. >

If you were going to try to pass this you wouldn’t name it the Pelosi act. Both sides have played this game for years. >

You think that regardless of the name, a group of politicians will vote to make less money? Red or blue, idgaf, won't pass in this corrupt ass country >

I don't think he truly wants to pass it. The Republican Caucus was against previous iterations of this bill. This is just grandstanding. >

I don't like him, but I support this 👌 >

please don't make me agree with this douchenozzle on something >

Broken clock, etc. >

This needs to get done for real. It's such a gross conflict of interest. >

I don’t care what side introduces it, we NEED this to pass. There’s so much corruption that needs to be untangled but we gotta start somewhere. Hopefully this can pass with bipartisan support but for some reason I’m not holding my breath >

I guess even a slimy puddle of toxic waste like Hawley can be right once a decade. >

Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point >

Tell his ass to also introduce an Anti Sedition Act while he’s at it. >

Add mental health checks for prospective candidates and I'm happy to support this. If jobs in the FBI & military require mental health screenings, elected officials should. >

That's a heck of a lot of power you're giving to whomever is tasked with performing those "mental health checks", not to mention the tremendous potential for ambiguity around what conditions are disqualifying. 
Seems like a better route is to trust voters and try to make elections themselves more fair. If we occasionally make a bad choice, that's fine, because our government should be robust enough to handle that. >

Let’s tack on a mandatory retirement age too! >

Watch someone introduce a bill and vote against it. >

Pandering.  Congress will not shoot themselves in their own foot.  Bread and circuses for the masses. >

His party will eat him alive over this, they do the same shit. >

Is Hawley gonna adhere to that too? >

What a shite article. It does nothing to describe the contours of the proposed legislation. 
Also, fuck Hawley.
Also, I don't give a shit what it's named. If it has a real enforcement mechanism and prevents my elected officials from this brand of conflict of interest and profiting off insider knowledge, then vote for it and fucking campaign on having done so. >

Next can they pass an amendment banning lawmakers from running for re-election? >

Well there goes half the funding for the next generation of GOP candidates >

Broken clocks may be right twice a day, but they're still fucking useless the rest of the time. >

Lol I’m sure his party is gonna love that one… they definitely wouldn’t be pissed about losing their stocks >

Why does this read like a tricky move to get back at democrats? I'm not American, but if I was I'd vote Democrat.  But when I read what this bill does, it seems to m3, that this would be an awesome move for the people and, for once, not help the rich get richer.
What am I missing? >

r/fuckjoshhawley. >

I hate this guy, but I agree with the ban. >

For all the people who want legislation like this, Hawley is playing you. >

He's going to introduce it, it'll get a vote, and he won't vote for it.  I guarantee it. >

I hate him but I agree with him on this particular issue >

Look who’s doing their fucking job for once >

Great, now ban lobbying if you've got the stones. >

WoW never thought I would agree with Hawkley >

PLEASE for the love of christ pass it >

Won’t affect her. Her husband does the trading. She just shares confidential information with him to help him win at the stock market every time. >

Good. >

The reason that American politicians are allowed to trade stocks is because it was viewed as necessary.    
If you have a politician whose got a financial incentive to not pass a law as it would impact their personal finance, e.g. share price goes in company, down that's a problem. >

Where's the Hawley act about senators who supported an attempted coupe, or the Gaetz act about representatives that are pedophiles? >

If you eliminated pedo politicians, you’d have to disband the entire Republican party. 
— so go for it. >

Let’s introduce the Hawley act that makes it illegal to support insurrectionists and then run like a coward when they are banging down the door. >

This from a party that spent 6 years screaming trumps financials were private >

Right idea, all the wrong reasons.  Can't expect much more from Josh "Fight The Power But Not While I'm In The Building" Hawley. >

The bill will never get a floor vote because all of Hawley’s homies are making bank with the status quo. >

Stupid name, they all do it, but banning it is correct. That being said, they'll just become more corrupt to make their money >


Stupid name

User name does not check out >

Has Hawley released his tax returns? I would think you should have a clean slate before embarking on this war. >

Pelosi is insider trading in broad daylight and you’re upset someone called her out on it? >

Can they introduce a non-sex-trafficking rule for congress and call it the Gatez law? >

You mean the Guarding Adolescents from Exploitation, Trafficking and Zero Accountability Act of 2023? >

Dick Chenney would accidentally shoot this guy in the face for suggesting this. 
Ixnay on the Oxstay. >

Prime example of the right thing for the wrong reason.  First, I don't believe for one second that Hawley doesn't trade stocks.  Hawley is a piece of shit, the only reason he even introduced this was to be a jab at pelosi. He knows damn well that it'll never pass, that's why he named it what he did, but this will get him some back pats by the other GOP morons. >

Broken clock ect ect >

"the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act" - lol >

Didn't they already try to introduce something like this and Republicans voted against it? I feel like it was in the news sometime last year. 
More political theater and nothing of substance.. >

Someone should introduce the Hawley Act, banning lawmakers from fomenting insurrection, then running away when the insurrection happens. >

Call it the Halting Annoying Whining from Losers in Election Years Act. >

Josh Hawley is the epitome of trash politicians. I will never forget what he did on January 6th either. To me, he is nothing but a traitor >

Ok now do term limits for all government jobs including the courts! >

Good I hope it gets passed. Corruption personified! >

Why did they have to name it that?! Now they won’t pass something that should be passed. >

Sounds good to me. >

funny coming from Hawley but I'm actually not opposed to this >

Don’t care who is putting this forward — would love to see this go into law and I hope it has hearty bipartisanship support but let’s be honest, never gonna pass >

Not enough. It needs to be that while in office they aren't allowed to even own individual shares of any stocks. They are allowed to invest in wide ranging mutual funds though. >

Stupid ass "own the libs" name, perfectly fine idea. >

This guy's is a huge piece of shit but I support this legislation at face value. >

I’m a democrat and I support this. >

I don't give a shit which party supports this bill, I just want it to pass. >

Good. However even if it was passed (which it never would), these disgusting politicians would just find some other way to get rich >

don't worry, if this ever makes it through congress it would be to ban everyone except congress from trading stocks
fucking thieves >

Is it bad that it makes me hate him more for doing something that I agree with? Lol. >

Interesting how this bill will likely never pass as it will be voted on by the very people exploiting the insider information. 
They really need to get after the SEC and FINRA.  Naked short selling, darkpool abuse, logarithmic trading, offshore short interest not being reported, routing of trades, and PFOF just scratches the surface of the corruption that occurs on a daily basis.
FINRA has people on its board that work for hedge funds.   Total conflict of interest.
Most first world countries have banned some of these practices. >

Has he sold all of his stock then? >

I'm curious. How do people feel about politicians holding index funds? I don't think they should be able to stock trade but I'm fine with them having index funds. >

The gamesmanship to specifically name someone after this bill is astonishing.
Like, you fuckers have been playing this game forever. It crosses both party lines. And as far as I’m concerned, just because of the name, it should die.
I’m all for the purpose of the bill, but I’m sick of politicians playing politics on a subject they all are guilty of. >

I'm a liberal liberal and I support this bill. I'm flabbergasted that a Republican put it forth, but this is one thing that I am 100% behind. >

It's like they think it's some sort of "gotcha". 
It's not. I love it. Call it whatever you want if it drums up bipartisan support. Thank you for doing your job and representing the people for once, even if it was by accident. >

I like it, then I see who introduces it and I can't help but wonder what is he up to?  It can't be this good. >

The Pepsi act? Half of Congress does this regularly. What happened to the people that withheld information about the pandemic so they could trade stocks before the news come out. I mean this is a ridiculous name considering how many lawmakers are.doing it. Also, as a Missourian, Hawley is a total piece of trash. >

It's a step I guess. It pisses me off that Congress is nothing more than a bunch of out of touch, Alzheimer's riddled, old fucks, who sit around all day trading stocks. >

Nice folks are finally calling her out.  Seems darkening on the article it'll attract different folks >

This isn't oiniony, this is just a good thing >

I'd rather see her in jail.  Although that's like 80% of all politicians so doesn't mean much. >

Yes to that >

I love how US Congress has an acronym for this. 
P.E.L.O.S.I
Preventing 
Elected 
Leaders from 
Owning 
Securities and 
Investments Act >

Fuck Josh Hawley n all...but this on the surface at least sounds pretty damn great. >

I feel like many in this thread need to be reminded that the substance of a bill is not encapsulated in its title.
They'll call it something trolly like this, and make it seem like it has something to do with actual governance. If you read the actual bill, it will eventually be about how oil derricks should be able to vote and how they want to mandate pictures of Hunter Biden's penis in every elementary school textbook to combat "CRT". >

whats next? you gonna prevent them from taking millions from big industries to follow their interests instead of the interests of the people? >

Breaking news: Republicans completely run out of bad ideas leading to mistakenly come up with a good one. >

But hear me out. Let's pass it. I don't care what he name it. I just want lawmakers to stop having such a dumb conflict of interest >

Anybody who thinks this has any chance at passing or that he even wants it to pass are idiots.  Just bullshit posturing for the base singling out Pelosi when they’re all guilty of insider trading. >

Even broken clocks are right twice a day. >

So substantially more than Hawley.. >

This is what lawmakers in the previous administration tried to do. The difference is they didn't name it after a fellow co-worker they hate, out of spite. >

Better yet, let them buy as much stock as they want, as many investments as they want.  But everything is frozen upon purchase, they can't sell anything until their terms are over.
This would indirectly impose term limits, if they want their money they have to resign.
And if they know a stock is going to crash and they're going to lose millions and millions of dollars, they'll resign based on insider trading so they can save their money.
And a bad problem fixes itself.
We want term limits on politicians and we don't want corrupt politicians abusing investment strategies in office either.
Letting them be able to get their money at the sacrifice of their position in office is an acceptable way too get indirect term limits in a reality where no law for term limits will ever be passed. >

Hey if we can turn these rightwingers around and say "to own the libs, you have to tear down capitalism," I'm going to call it a victory. >

Is that the Josh Hawley who supported the January 6th insurrection and then ran away like a little coward when things got violent? >

Pelosi's trading is WAY below dozens of others, and a lot of Republicans have traded for a very long time.
But Rs gotta lie and obfuscate, naming it for her.
Yes, pass it, make sure no one in Congress can trade. Let's see what Rs do to except themselves. >

Considering that;
A) It was already made illegal by the democrats when they had power,     
and     
B) The republicans made it legal again,   
AND     
C) The fact that this will not get any republican support           
PLUS    
D) Calling it that, 
This is nothing but more right wing performative bullshit. >

Get this ball rolling and outlaw lobbying! >

So in 15 years, everyone is going to think Pelosi authored the bill. Great job owning yourself, seditious clown >

She should thank him for introducing it and say it is a great honor to have the bill named after her. >

Reddit stops shilling for corrupt blue career politicians while dunking on corrupt red career politicians for one second challenge (impossible). >

I don't care what they name it, I don't care that they they'll punch each other in the shoulder and go on about owning the libs - pass it, it's the right thing to do.  Take the policy win. >

Why is it allowed in the first place? Ah nvm, forgot that we live in a profit-oriented, non-social society.. >

Hes a piece of shit but this does need to be done. I hope someone takes it seriously despite him introducing it as a hit. >

Hey, if it actually does what it's supposed to do, ban lawmakers from trading stocks, without any shenanigans or loopholes, they can call it the "DeMoCraTs aRe SisSyS"  Act  for all i care.   LOL, Wouldn't it be great if it passed, and then Pelosi ends up getting CREDIT for it cuz her name's on it?  And then the MAGAhats can get all offended at it? >

Democrats should support the living fuck out of this if they truly have integrity >

I mean, weird that he named it after her, but I support that >

"Last year Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, sold millions of dollars worth of shares of a computer chipmaker as the House prepared to vote on a bill focused on domestic chip manufacturing." >

I'll take, What's one hundred years too late,  for $400  Mr Trebek >

This the guy that air fist bumped the horde of Insurrectionists on Jan 6th? >

A broken clock is right twice a day... >

Fuck Hawley >

Nothing  political going on here at all. /s >

She has made more money off the stock market based on insider government knowledge than ALOT of politicians.  She’s as bad as the republicans that started to buy vaccine stocks and selling off other stocks once they found out the financial impact the pandemic would have. >

Did I just become a republican? >

that could have been a great win for Democrats, but when they leave the moral high ground, they fucking tank it >

Oh no, now these poor millionaires will have to coast by on the massive amounts of money they already have whilst in a position of power. So unfair to them. >

AOC did this last year already
​
also this should be renamed to the Loeffler and Perdue bill but you cant rile up your base with those no name clowns. >

Hawley finally does something good. >

I think the seditious clown is right on this particular issue but can the law legally be applied to family members as well?  I understand that it needs to have any meaningful impact but would it be legal to prevent a Representative’s brother/granddaughter/cousin from trading stocks? >

My sister used to be an executive at Sony.
I'd periodically get mail stating during what periods of time I was and was not allowed to buy or sell Sony. 
I wasn't in any way working for Sony, just my sister was.
The government will absolutely take you down for insider trader, unless you are the government. >

They’ve gone so far right they’ve met us back on the left. As a democrat, I’m cheering Hawley on to get that bill passed. >

😖 fuck, something i agree with him on, even if this is intentionally political with the name and all (that is a cheap political stunt) >

Soooo all his colleagues will vote against it >

You know, aside from him being an insufferable dick with the name, hes absolutely right >

Spoiler alert, this bill will fail >

For once I agree w Josh Harley. Once. >

I fucking hate Hawley, but I love the idea behind this bill. Ok Republicans you want to make moves in the house? Please, make em,  all I need is for a veto in the senate for a bill like this to convince me politics are dead. I mean politics are pretty fucking dead now, but I've at least noticed a pretty big pattern that it's Republicans throwing a wrench in the gears for the last decade and not Dems, but if Dems obstructed this, I'd lose all fate.