If Joni Ernst runs for re-election, Democrats will use this committee vote against her. The Iowa Democratic Party put out this statement last week:
BREAKING: Joni Ernst Votes Against Congressional Stock Trading Ban
Ernst continues to cash in on access while Iowa families struggle to keep up
DES MOINES – Yesterday, Senator Joni Ernst voted against a bipartisan bill to ban congressional stock trading, allowing her to continue profiting off her position in public office while Iowans work harder than ever to make ends meet.
Just weeks after voting for the toxic GOP plan that strips health insurance away from as many as 120,000 Iowans, Ernst is once again siding with the wealthy and well-connected, this time protecting her ability to personally benefit from insider information instead of doing what’s right for her constituents.
“Joni Ernst failed on her campaign promise to make D.C. squeal and has completely lost touch with Iowans. She’s already breaking her two-term pledge and now she’s voting to enrich herself and wealthy insiders at the expense of the rest of us,” said Iowa Democratic Party Spokesperson Paige Godden. “That’s why she voted to cut Medicaid for tens of thousands of Iowans, that’s why she cut funding for rural radio, and that’s why she refuses to ban individual stock trading.”
(note: I checked Ernst's personal financial disclosures and as far as I can tell she holds index funds and mutual funds, not individual stocks)
Proposal: Members of Congress should be paid substantially more, even a tenfold increase of the current $174,000/year but ONLY IF it's paired with the most draconian, colonoscopy-level scrutiny of their finances on par with that of CIA officers or sequestered jurors, bans on holding a stake in so much as a friggin tractor dealership in rural Indiana let alone stocks, prohibiting having extramarital affairs or any other sorts of potentially compromising personal conduct susceptible to blackmail, and that pay be subject to serious docking if they fail to collectively meet certain productivity benchmarks like letting the government shut down, etc.
I think making it more than worth their while financially is a fair trade for turning Congress itself into a totalitarian police state of personal scrutiny overseen by, say, a large, well-staffed, and very hardass independent counsel's office and the DC district courts.
Floated this a few months ago to a smart guy who added that the best way to implement it would be if it's a six year effective date, that way every House and Senate member who would've voted on it faces voters at least once before they get their $1.5 million raise.
AOC had trouble getting an apartment when she got elected. Corey Mills is getting evicted from his. Kevin McCarthy had to sleep on Frank Luntz's futon. Joe Biden commuted from Delaware every day and at one point was behind on his mortgage...
This is just what I can rattle off from the top of my head. So many members quit to become lobbyists so they can get that 10x pay raise and not worry about losing.
Both chambers would turnover almost entirely in that six years. You'd get a whole new breed of virtuous go-getters who would be more than happy with $1.74 million a year rather than the millionaires who don't give a damn about the $174,000 and would rather swallow a used condom than ban themselves from trading stocks.
But hey, if you've got a better idea to disincentivize corruption and incentivize the actual public service aspect of getting elected to Congress let's hear it.
That's my go-to site when I want to quote the Constitution. One of the parts that I quote most often is from Article I. I do so to emphasize that Congress has the power and duty to regulate the conduct of the president (and SCOTUS). Congress has the power and duty to make the laws that are necessary and proper here. Article I delegated to Congress the power to "make all laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" all "powers" of Congress "and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
As a country and as a people, we need to revisit the concept of the common good. Since before the 1980s, we've become engrossed with our own self-interest to the point where if things benefit us at the expense of others, it's a no brainer to choose ourselves, whether it is saving money on our taxes, purchasing homes in desirable neighborhoods, or funding social institutions such as schools and hospitals.
Congress won't consider such legislation for the same reason it took them years to even bring up campaign finance reform (and even so, once legislation took effect, the US Supreme Court ruled against it in Citizens United). The concept of individualism is great for improving one's social status & mental & physical health, but as much faith as we put into the commons, the marketplace, where we travel and mingle as human beings, it is becoming a strange and dangerous place where we don't interact with people if we don't have to.
That is one of the reasons that democracy will die. Sure, pass this legislation, but it is a salve, not a cure.
If Joni Ernst runs for re-election, Democrats will use this committee vote against her. The Iowa Democratic Party put out this statement last week:
BREAKING: Joni Ernst Votes Against Congressional Stock Trading Ban
Ernst continues to cash in on access while Iowa families struggle to keep up
DES MOINES – Yesterday, Senator Joni Ernst voted against a bipartisan bill to ban congressional stock trading, allowing her to continue profiting off her position in public office while Iowans work harder than ever to make ends meet.
Just weeks after voting for the toxic GOP plan that strips health insurance away from as many as 120,000 Iowans, Ernst is once again siding with the wealthy and well-connected, this time protecting her ability to personally benefit from insider information instead of doing what’s right for her constituents.
“Joni Ernst failed on her campaign promise to make D.C. squeal and has completely lost touch with Iowans. She’s already breaking her two-term pledge and now she’s voting to enrich herself and wealthy insiders at the expense of the rest of us,” said Iowa Democratic Party Spokesperson Paige Godden. “That’s why she voted to cut Medicaid for tens of thousands of Iowans, that’s why she cut funding for rural radio, and that’s why she refuses to ban individual stock trading.”
(note: I checked Ernst's personal financial disclosures and as far as I can tell she holds index funds and mutual funds, not individual stocks)
Ban stock trading for Congress
Proposal: Members of Congress should be paid substantially more, even a tenfold increase of the current $174,000/year but ONLY IF it's paired with the most draconian, colonoscopy-level scrutiny of their finances on par with that of CIA officers or sequestered jurors, bans on holding a stake in so much as a friggin tractor dealership in rural Indiana let alone stocks, prohibiting having extramarital affairs or any other sorts of potentially compromising personal conduct susceptible to blackmail, and that pay be subject to serious docking if they fail to collectively meet certain productivity benchmarks like letting the government shut down, etc.
I think making it more than worth their while financially is a fair trade for turning Congress itself into a totalitarian police state of personal scrutiny overseen by, say, a large, well-staffed, and very hardass independent counsel's office and the DC district courts.
Floated this a few months ago to a smart guy who added that the best way to implement it would be if it's a six year effective date, that way every House and Senate member who would've voted on it faces voters at least once before they get their $1.5 million raise.
I don't get why you want to give them a raise. I have never known one who was poor or close to it.
AOC had trouble getting an apartment when she got elected. Corey Mills is getting evicted from his. Kevin McCarthy had to sleep on Frank Luntz's futon. Joe Biden commuted from Delaware every day and at one point was behind on his mortgage...
This is just what I can rattle off from the top of my head. So many members quit to become lobbyists so they can get that 10x pay raise and not worry about losing.
Both chambers would turnover almost entirely in that six years. You'd get a whole new breed of virtuous go-getters who would be more than happy with $1.74 million a year rather than the millionaires who don't give a damn about the $174,000 and would rather swallow a used condom than ban themselves from trading stocks.
But hey, if you've got a better idea to disincentivize corruption and incentivize the actual public service aspect of getting elected to Congress let's hear it.
I didn't pretend to have an answer. I was curious about your rationale. Thanks.
If you want to see something surreal, check out https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/.
That's my go-to site when I want to quote the Constitution. One of the parts that I quote most often is from Article I. I do so to emphasize that Congress has the power and duty to regulate the conduct of the president (and SCOTUS). Congress has the power and duty to make the laws that are necessary and proper here. Article I delegated to Congress the power to "make all laws" that are "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" all "powers" of Congress "and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Coincidentally, in just about the past day. This part of Article I (and the subsequent parts of Article I) were deleted from https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/.
As a country and as a people, we need to revisit the concept of the common good. Since before the 1980s, we've become engrossed with our own self-interest to the point where if things benefit us at the expense of others, it's a no brainer to choose ourselves, whether it is saving money on our taxes, purchasing homes in desirable neighborhoods, or funding social institutions such as schools and hospitals.
Congress won't consider such legislation for the same reason it took them years to even bring up campaign finance reform (and even so, once legislation took effect, the US Supreme Court ruled against it in Citizens United). The concept of individualism is great for improving one's social status & mental & physical health, but as much faith as we put into the commons, the marketplace, where we travel and mingle as human beings, it is becoming a strange and dangerous place where we don't interact with people if we don't have to.
That is one of the reasons that democracy will die. Sure, pass this legislation, but it is a salve, not a cure.