Let me premise this by saying that I am linking to my own blog. Please pardon the self-promotion. However, I did quite a bit of research for this article and if you are interested in reading more about this subject, obviously I encourage you to do so. I will be no less offended if you wish to stay within the friendly confines of BMG.
The 60 Minutes story from a few weeks ago on Congressional Insider trading caused quite a ruckus in Congress and led to bold declarations by some, including our own Scott Brown, that something must be done. Indeed, it looks like something will, but it is hard to know how much Brown actually will have to do with it other than likely voting for it.
This Wednesday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will be marking up S. 1903, which is, indeed the STOCK Act, but not the one that Senator Brown has been hawking. Rather that bill was introduced by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.
Brown did introduce a version of the STOCK Act, S. 1871, two days before Gillibrand, but it is not the same as hers and frankly nobody seems to care about his. Gillibrand’s bill prohibits Congressional insider trading, but includes a prohibition against tipping, that is telling a friend about a trade based on insider information. Her bill also directs both Ethics Committees to write ethics rules to bring them into compliance with the prohibition on Congressional Insider Trading. Brown’s bill only applies to Congressional members and their staff.
Brown’s bill is actually quite irrelevant because it has fewer cosponsors than Gillibrand’s bill and is unlikely to become law. I will grant that Brown did formally ask for the hearing at which both he and Gillibrand testified, but the sense I got in talking to sources about this bill (and yes I did actually talk to people who work in Washington) that Brown is trying to ride another “moderate” train for good press coverage. Indeed, Massachusetts media, including New England Public Radio, took the bait, although they noted that the impetus for Brown’s actions was the 60 Minutes report. However, as I mentioned in my WMassP&I post, Gillibrand has long been a leader on transparency and that goes back to just before she entered the House in 2007. To this day Gillibrand has a Sunlight Report that has her public schedule and more. Brown, obviously, does not, nor does he appear to acknowledge Gillibrand’s efforts anywhere on his site except to say her bill is crummy. I disagree w/ his analysis.
Speaking of transparency, it seems kind of tired at this point, but it’s always worth mentioning that Brown does not meet with his constituents let alone telling us with whom he does meet.
I write this as a preemptive reminder that when we get the bombardment of how attractively moderate Brown is and if and when this becomes law, everybody ought to know what actually happened. Brown, never much of a paradigm for transparency and accountability, wrote a weak bill with loopholes you could drive a Dodge truck through and is being ignored by members of his own party. He can’t blame Democrats for that and shouldn’t try to claim more credit than is deserved, if any at all.
h/t to Bob Massie: The Caboose in action!
was a bit of a Blue Dog when she was in the house, but has certainly been a very strong presence in the Senate for sanity. I have to say, I had low expectations of her when she was tapped for the position, but I’ve been very impressed.