5 Comments
Feb 13, 2022·edited Feb 13, 2022

"In my opinion, our goal should be to reduce conflicts of interest as much as possible among members of Congress but not to prohibit members from participating in our capitalist system entirely."

Anyone who owns common stock is participating in our capitalist system. That's true even if he/she holds shares in an index fund -- the participation is passive, in that case.

Should we allow congresspeople to actively run businesses, while they serve? I don't know what the law is, but I know that the opportunity for self-serving bias is immense. Disclose everything -- if Henry Ford votes "Yea!" on a highway-improvement bill, who's to say if he's doing it for his company, or for the good of the country ?

I like the idea of forcing congresspeople to { liquidate OR put into a blind trust OR convert to shares of broad-based index funds } their wealth, while they're in office. Make that conversion tax-free (as it is, now, for those forced to do it) for fairness.

The answer to:

. . . "But I don't want to give up control of my money, or my company!" is:

. . . "Then you don't care enough, about the country, to govern it."

. Charles (I'm not a socialist, but sometimes I might sound like one<g>)

PS -- Sal's Dad might have a good idea -- if there's "inside information", let everyone have it!

Expand full comment

Even better than real-time disclosure: Require advance notice of intent to trade. Say, trading in specified accounts is locked - unless the public has been informed between thirty and seven days in advance. This would give interested parties time to investigate, and perhaps to trade ahead of the official, thus eliminating any advantage from inside information.

Expand full comment