>

Worst person you know has a good idea.
Congresspeople need to stop trading stocks; no question. I’m still not signing up for shit Hawley wants without reading the fine print. Dude is a snake. >

It's probably as simple as it being a virtue signal he knows won't pass, but yes. >

The name alone is enough to not take it seriously. 
Someone should counter with the Hawley Act where lawmakers need to actually live in their district for the majority of time not in session. Rural Missourians seem totally fine having their representative living in Virginia as his permanent residence. Not even sure the last time he was in the area he claims to live. >

I'm ok with not having Hawley in Missouri. It's having him in Washington that I object to. >

He is a Virginia resident after all >

You guys can have him :) >

Fuck that shit, he can live in Maryland or a bog somewhere. >


Fuck that shit, he can live in Maryland or a bog somewhere.

I mean Virginia fits the bill. He can live in The Great Dismal Swamp. >

The Great Dismal was the home to self freed people of color, native Americans, and poor whites seeking to escape the state.
It is also the home of bugs, critters, and all sorts of slimey monsters.
None of whom deserve to be associated with Josh Hawley >

That's fair. I was unaware  Send him back to Missouri. Incorrect postage, return to sender. >


Lawmakers have yet to be able to come up with a plan that garners enough support from both sides of the aisle to get a bill through Congress. Democrats in 2022 scrapped a plan to vote on such legislation before the midterm elections, even after Pelosi reversed course and expressed openness to colleagues voting for stock trading reform.
Along with Hawley’s bill, a bipartisan duo in the House has introduced a bill this year on the topic. Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the Trust in Congress Act this month, marking the third time the pair have introduced the legislation.

So it's not really new legislation and it's probably not going anywhere. Hawley is just taking shots at Pelosi for attention. >

Exactly, it's not about the stock trading, it's about the name of the bill >

and it's about getting on Tucker and Hannity for some free "own the libs" press. >

It’s why I think Pelosi should come out thanking Hawley for taking this up. She wasn’t initially supportive but due to the popularity of the last bill ended up supporting it. Talk about how she appreciates his honoring her. 
It still won’t pass but it will surely puss him off. >

this this this - and introduce a bill to promote running in public schools >

Josh “hauling’ ass” Hawley Hall Pass program……. >

Drafted by famed lawyer Bob Loblaw >

Lobbing law bombs from his law blog… >

Casinos taking bets how long Hawley will run with this good idea, and then how far he will run away from this good idea once the first sign of trouble surfaces. >

GOP says "But we like insider trading, too"
Brave Sir Hawley ran away, away! >

When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled. >

Yes, brave Sir Hawley turned about,
And gallantly he chickened out. >

r/unexpectedmontypython >

This would be fine with me, except Hawley opposed a very similar bipartisan bill when it came up in the previous Congress.
This is just an attention grab that he knows won’t pass (and I’m somewhat doubtful he even wants it to)
S.3494 - Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act >

I think A LOT of people don't realize this, and democrats should do more to make them aware. >

Pelosi's husband trades a ton of stocks and Pelosi reports none of it. So when you inform them Pelosii wasn't in the top 5, also make sure they know none of her husbands trades have been reported despite it being a law. 

Federal lawmakers are required to report stock trades made by themselves, their spouses, and their dependent children. >

But you can say this about literally any politician with a close family member. Singling out Pelosi here just seems like partisan nonsense. If you think Elaine Chao didn't financially benefit from being married to Mitch McConnell you're out of your mind. 
And before you respond, consider that Chao was allegedly abusing her position to boost her family’s business in China. Maintaining her shares in a construction materials company, more than a year after she pledged to sell them. And most recently, giving her husband Mitch McConnell’s constituents special treatment -- reportedly steering millions of federal dollars to Kentucky while he faces re-election.
The Department of Transportation’s Inspector General is the person responsible for investigating these allegations, and who’s in charge of the confirmation process for the Inspector General’s replacement? Mitch McConnell.  
I think we should pass a bill to prevent congress and the senate (and their spouses) from being able to trade stocks, but I think singling Pelosi out is absurd. >

So, he's taking a "run" at it? >

fascists: "this will show those snowflake dems!!!"
Reasonable citizens: "we want this too!"
fascists:"SHIT SHIT NEVERMIND GDHHDS" >

Now someone introduce the Hawley Act that bans insurrectionists from holding office.
Edit: words are hard >

That already exists. We need an act that enforces it. >

What's his face got the can from his state too and was barred from running.
Edit: Cawthorn. >

He was not barred from running, though the process to make that happen was started. He lost his primary. >

I say Democrats put up no fuss on this one and let Republicans torpedo it themselves. >

Betting Republicans don't even let it come to a vote.  They know how bad it would look if every Dem voted for it, forcing them to vote against it to keep it from passing. >

Yep. >

Almost identical to the bipartisan Trust in Government Act except he drops dependent children from the scope.  Why? >

So they can still make money. >

How about the Hawley act, where you can't register your sister's address as your primary address to run for office in a state you don't live in? >

The Pelosi Act?  These people are so childish.  
Yesterday they kicked three Democrats off of committees as payback for the Republicans who had previously been kicked off of committees.  The Republicans had been kicked off committees for legitimate reasons.  The reverse was merely retaliatory and performative. >


Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act

To his credit, the acronym is actually pretty good lol >

I hadn't read enough to realize it was an acronym.  Got to admit that is clever! >

Lots of bill names are acronyms. The patriot act was officially Named “Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” >

Doesn’t carry as much hate as Pelosi. >

That's intentional. They literally manufactured the hate so that the average person would think she's the face of the problem. >

Hell, I don't even live in the USA and I thought she was the biggest culprit of this because of all the headlines I've heard. GOP sure are good at propaganda. >

Reminds me of this video of Gaetz where he says all this stuff he will introduce and I’m like “yup, sounds good. I still hate you though” >

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

constantly polarizing the country. lets look at his portfolio? >

He's heavily invested in khaki's, tiki torchs, and running shoes. >

And Nazi memorabilia dildos. >

A swasdicka >

Reporter: Senator will you also stop trading stocks?
Garbage Senator: No. >

How about preventing all speculative financial instruments, and putting their holdings into a blind trust?
like the TRUST in Congress Act, as opposed to a grandstanding name? >

Which both parties have been opposed to for years. He’s just grandstanding. Not trying to get that done. 
That’s a bipartisan bill that’s been around a while now. >

Republicans are as corrupt as corrupt can be, they'll never vote for that. >

But they will blame Dems for it. >

This dipshit? The running man? 🏃‍♂️ >

Dems should vote yes for it.  Just so his dumbass has to vote against it when the GOP is forced to block it. >

Hmmm.
Not that I disagree, but I am sure he owns stock and mutual funds so… he could show good faith by ditching his. 
But, lbh, this is a jab at Nancy which is designed to fail and is nothing more than political theater. >

Correct.  If the goal was to get the legislation passed they wouldn't have made the name so brazenly partisan. >

Why can't Pelosi jump on and support it? She'll get all the credit for ending lawmakers from trading stock!
This is almost as stupid as the GOP blaming Obama for that law that he vetoed and they overturned. >

I hope the Dems just smile and push it on through! I'd love to see the house Republicans hesitate, backpedal, and/or vote against their own bill after it has bipartisan support. >


Hawley on Tuesday introduced the Pelosi Act — or the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act — renewing a legislative push to curtail stock trading by lawmakers that has failed over the last few years.

I actually like the sentiment behind it, but the name on the bill is absurd. But I guess that's politics in 2023.
How long until the rest of the GOP is like "Actually Josh, we like being able to make insider trades"? >

That’s a shockingly good acronym, I bet one of his aides felt real proud about it lol. >

Fuck Hawley but I'm all for this legislation. Make it airtight and prevent lawmakers from profiting on any financial information. >

It feels weird agreeing with someone who’s an insurrectionist. Fuck him either way. >

Eye fucking roll at the name. He knows this is not going to pass because his party is the most guilty of this but he just wants a headline with the GQP's boogieman. >

They aren't serious about this. They just want to make fun of Pelosi. If it comes to a vote ever, it won't pass. They'll poison pill it with like an abortion ban to make the Dems vote no, but it will never get out of committee most likely. This is all just PR. >

This won't pass just because they called it "the Pelosi Act".  I agree with the sentiment but you can easily find just as many Republicans trading off insider info. >

On one hand this is posturing to the nth degree, on the other I absolutely agree that this should be banned. My main problem is Josh Hawley is a fucking fascist little shit who I don't trust. >

That's where I'm at too. I don't think this comes from any sincere place, more just to flip the bird to the other side...but I agree with the concept and want it to pass >

Immediately suspect of this bill because of the name and who is introducing it.  100% sure that Hawley is doing this purely to score political points with his rube constituency knowing that it will fail. >

Hopefully someone introduces the "Hawley Act" next that prevents encouraging, supporting, and/or sympathizing with insurrectionists. >

Or not living in his home state >

What about their spouses? Also fuck Hawley. >

As much as I hate this piece of shit…it appears he did well for once. >

Lawmakers should not be trading stocks and traitors should not be making laws. Fuck Josh Hawley. >

No chance of passing and named after a political opponent.
I wonder what this could be. >

Oh barf.  As if he and all his Republican colleagues don't do it too.
Pelosi is going to be like Clinton.  Out of office and Republicans still screeching about her.  Just pathetic.
This will never pass...it is just a stunt.  All Republicans are capable of are stunts or tax breaks to the super wealthy with a bunch of scandals in between. >

Pelosi act lol, like Pelosi is the only one who holds stocks. >

Good. Do it, vote it in. I don't care if Hawley is doing this purely to score dumbass political points with voters he already has, this should be law. >

It will never go anywhere. Too many on both sides are actively trading. This is nothing more than a talking point to distract from other things. >

When the sole purpose of legislation is to say, "BOOM! Roasted!" >

Don't be fooled by Josh Hawley. Don't trust him at all. He's an insurrectionist. >

Yes, ban it.  100 percent.
But still, this is so typical GOP -- they gut the ethics committee that could enforce such a rule, then make up a scandal about Pelosi (I've seen no evidence of that Pelosi used insider knowledge and the time frame for her trade is far less damning than that for GOPers Burr and Loeffler's trades in 2020 which went unpunished), and now they propose a law that they've quietly killed in the past.  
It's almost as cynical as their supposed opposition to illegal immigration. >

All for show. This loser has to make himself relevant again. We all know these inside traders in congress won’t ever vote against their self enrichment. What other reason is there to be a politician in todays world? >

Is this proposed law going to apply to GOP as well as democrats? >

It’s funny he’d choose to name it after her, considering how many of them do the same shit. But I guess it’s only bad when Democrats do it. >

Just because he's doing it out of spite doesn't mean it's not a good idea >

I don’t care what they call it. They could call it The Democrats Suck Dick Act and I’d still support it. They’re doing that thing where they introduce actual legislation but call it something stupid to get people in an uproar about the naming convention. People don’t care. Politicians shouldn’t be trading specific stocks, they should only be entitled to trade broad index funds. >

Jogs Hallway >

As long as that actually happens, I’m cool with that.
This is definitely a gotcha though, Republicans owning the libs. Because if the Democrats actually said “Yea, sure, let’s do that” Republicans would shit their pants from what they thought was a stunt becoming law. >

If this were to ever pass and go into law then the nation can forever be reminded how bold and honorable it was for Pelosi to spearhead such important legislation championing integrity in congress >

Make their portfolios and all campaign contributions public knowledge!
Edit: and lobbying >

Real time public. >

If we use Nancy Pelosis trades.  Real time data wouldn't have made a difference.  She wasn't from running earnings and bought LEAPS(long expiration options) for tech companies like PayPal, Google, Netflix.  You could have 100x your money throwing darts at a dartboard that had california based tech companies over the last 20 years and buying call options(leverage). >

I think we would all like much more accurate, current data, at the least. 
Reporting in May, 2020 that Rep SoAndSo purchased between $578 and $34,186 in MRNA stock in Feb, 2020 just doesn't cut it. 
Current reporting requirements are vague and late. Purchases like that are not illegal. By the time it's reported, nobody even cares because it's already old news. >

Don't forget even if they don't report it they only get a small fine. 
CEOs of companies have two days to report trades and if they fail to comply they can actually go to jail >

If Pelosi were smart, she'd could really fuck over Hawley here.
Like, make the bill her own. Champion it. Fight for it. It's an incredibly popular idea throughout the country, and now a Republican has introduced it and was nice enough to put her name on it.
Come out and say "I know Senator Hawley and I rarely agree on things, but this is actually a good bill and I'm proud to have my name on it."
Whip the Democrats into supporting it. The baseline Democrat is going to be more ethical about this stuff than the baseline Republican, so you can probably get the vast majority of the caucus on board.
And then Hawley's screwed, because his Republican colleagues DEFINITELY don't want this bill he introduced to pass, and they DEFINITELY don't want it to look like it was Nancy Pelosi's idea in the press.
She and her husband will make a little less money, but they're already millionaires, and they text of the bill makes it clear they can still invest in things like mutual funds so they'll still have investment income in addition to their very generous salaries. 
She could make the country a little bit better AND fuck over the Republicans AND especially fuck over Josh Hawley, all at the same time. >

Naming it after her is petty political theater, but a bill like this is spot-on necessary and fair >

Probably doesn’t go nearly far enough. >

Meh, it might be nice to include more than spouses, but I'm not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. >

Republicans are a bunch of petulant fucking children. 
100% about getting Pelosi on the name of a bill. 
0% about getting any meaningful regulation of stock trading for Congress. >

It's an obvious shot at Pelosi, but I'd still be in favor (if such a bill actually banned the congress from holding or trading stocks). Pelosi isn't the only one who benefitted financially from her position, but she certainly benefited greatly from trading on her information and did nothing about preventing that kind of behavior when it was raised as a problem. >

The single policy that I seem to agree with this shitbag on.