I'm sorry , I do not see any proof in this article.

I'm sorry , I do not see any proof in this article.

#1 | Posted by glasshouse

Sorry, but nobody's interested in your dumbass opinion.

I know you libs don't like facts but I do.

Cantor Releases His Version of STOCK Act

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor released his version of the STOCK Act. It expands the prohibition on trading on nonpublic information to the executive branch (which is already prohibited). It also deletes the provision added by Senator Grassley that would require political intelligence consultants to disclose their activities and instead calls for a study of the issue. See Seung Min Kim, Eric Cantor under fire for STOCK Act tweaks, Politico. While Democrats are dismayed about this deletion, in fact, registration of political intelligence consultants is the wrong way to address the problem of inequal access to government information, as Professor Richard Painter argues in a blog on the Legal Ethics Forum, Senate Adds Flawed Political Intelligence Amendment to Insider Trading Bill. Professor Painter argues that the right approach is to restrain officials from leaking nonpublic information through an approach similar to Regulation FD.

The House is expected to vote on its version on Thursday.

You can continue your Lib hissy fit now.

These morons - Gasshouse, Painedcon - travel in a circular firing squad pod. You should expect Mudflap to show up any moment, if he's sober enough to post.

I'm sorry , I do not see any proof in this article.

And so I will not bother to even Google it to find out if it is true because I don't want to believe it is true.

#7 | Posted by danni

I'll do it for you.

Senate Adds Flawed Political Intelligence Amendment to Insider Trading Bill by Professor Richard Painter

There is, however, another more difficult problem that Senator Grassley’s amendment purports to solve: some hedge funds and other investment firms learn nonpublic government information before the rest of the investing public. Sometimes this is done through “political intelligence” firms that arrange meetings and conference calls with government officials and use other techniques to obtain nonpublic information which is then made available to clients for a fee. As I told the Wall Street Journal last year, gathering and selling confidential government information is a very good business model, if you can get away with it. This isn't fair and something should be done about it.

The Grassley amendment responds to this problem by requiring firms that gather political intelligence to register under the LDA. The problems with this approach are many. First, persons who do not fit the definition of a "political intelligence" firm in the statute will not be required to register and will continue to gather nonpublic government information and use it for securities trading. Second, a definition of a "political intelligence" firm will need to be exceedingly broad if it hopes to include a significant portion of the persons and entities that use nonpublic government information for securities trading. Drafting such a definition is nearly impossible. Third, a broad definition of "political intelligence" firm that is coupled with a registration requirement imposes an undue burden on persons who seek to gather information about what their government is doing, a critical function in any democratic society.

The answer to selective disclosure (“leaks”) by government officials of nonpublic government information is not requiring people to register before they gather information about their government. The answer is stricter rules for government employees who selectively disclose government information to persons outside the government without disclosing the same information publicly. As I pointed out in a chapter on insider trading in my 2009 book on government ethics, selective disclosure by government officials needs to be regulated just as selective disclosure by officials in public companies is regulated by the SEC's Regulation FD ("Fair Disclosure"). Donna Nagy and I are presently writing an article on how the executive and legislative branches could adopt and adhere to a Regulation FD regime. In short Congress should consider imposing on government some of the rules it imposes on the private sector, rather than trying to solve a problem in government ethics by enacting yet more regulation and a burdensome registration requirement for the private sector.

"It also deletes the provision added by Senator Grassley that would require political intelligence consultants to disclose their activities and instead calls for a study of the issue. "

Great. A study. Sounds like Wall Street owns Cantor.

Sounds like Wall Street owns Cantor.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian

Was there ever any doubt? He is a politician and a teabagger to boot. Double-Damned Sure to the in some rich bastard's pocket.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian

Your partisanism is becoming legendary

How do you get there? Grasley's method for fixing this requires someone to acknowledge they are a political intelligence collector so information can and will pass between government officials and any source with no recourse if they don't register as a political intelligence collector. Cantor places the burden on the source in the same manner as the SEC does for insider trading.

"In a rare showing of bipartisanship, the Senate voted 93 to 3 last week to approve the STOCK Act."

I keep reading comments on the Act that wonder WTF is going on that this is getting bipartisan support and a fast track to becoming law.

Think, people!

Who's the biggest inside trader in Congress?

Why, it's Queen Nancy of Pelosi.

And who's the member of Congress most universally hated by other members?

Why, yes - that would be Her Imperial Gorgonship, Nancy of Pelosi.

This is about Pelosi, guys. Trust me.

And it's about damn time someone figured out a way to make her go away.

You two idiots do understand that Grassley is a Republican?

And it's about damn time someone figured out a way to make her go away.

You had me worried for a second.

Then you stuck the landing.

Most folks here on the DR know that once a bill is passed in the Senate or the House it then has to go to the other for their vote.

Sometimes they combine bills--vote on it and send it to the other for their second vote.

Cantor's bill appears to add to the Senate bill--not delete.

CREW is not bipartisan in their attacks on congress. They soften the tone of criticism when it involves dems and harden the tone when it involves repubs.

The House will debate and put in or take out amendments and take a vote. Then it goes back to the Senate for another vote.

They do this on everything.

Who were the 3 senators who voted No??

Not to worry Glasshouse, Paneocon, we can pass it now and fix it later.

~ Nancy Pelosi

Obligatory

Eric Cantor has the most punchable face. EVAR.

That is all.

Be Well.

ou libs sure do take it badly when one of your inflated hissy fits gets deflated. Maybe you should try looking at the original articles and the actual bill rather that just parroting one of your dem ass kissing news sources.

ou = You sorry

ah yes....
'teabagger darling'

ANOTHER radical here with an unending fixation on that image...

Sounds like Wall Street owns Cantor.
#9 | Posted by nullifidian

They have joint custody with Israel.

"Cantor's bill appears to add to the Senate bill--not delete."

Sorry but that is simply not true. "

It also deletes the provision added by Senator Grassley that would require political intelligence consultants to disclose their activities and instead calls for a study of the issue."

and instead calls for a study of the issue."

Republican Translation: Loot early and loot often.

Mr Cuntor LOVES him some insider trading. So long as HE makes a buck.

#25 | Posted by COMMONSENSE

Read the whole story bozo, He's doing the right thing.