[agosta]

They simply shouldn't be able to trade individual stocks. Requiring them to tell the world the exact second they're buying a stock doesn't change that that purchase was made to make money. If you're the elected authority who, by your rule, creates corporate winners and losers, we should not merely have to hope that your rule benefits us more than it does you. The job description is clear - you're a civil servant. If doing your job as a senator is unappealing to you because you can no longer invest in individual companies, then don't let the door hit you on the way out. Goodbye

[thatcat]

Full reform: Select representatives randomly like jurors to prevent maligned motives. If selected there is temporarily a freeze on their assets and they move to dormatories on a political campus built around the White house with a panopticon of cameras 24/7 live streaming the political process with ads to generate revenue to pay down the debt. All communication during this period is public record and searchable, ads will be included in the results. Run it like the reality TV show it has become and pay them current per capita gdp, they can get a raise by increasing it.

[DANmode]

You “overran first base”.

[rayiner]

Correct. We should pay Congress critters a million dollars a year like in Singapore and then require them to hold all assets in a blind trust.

[sackfield]

Yes, and to keep it like Singapore, lets increase the penalties for financial mismanagement.

[wholinator2]

I'm curious why a million dollars a year? Wouldn't that create its own problems? We don't want anyone chasing Civil servitude for the money right? Enough to live on while still driving your own car and buying your own groceries is, i feel, the right pay balance for congress, lest they detach even further from the lived experience of civilians.

Their finances should be monitored and heavily restricted. No one should think of money as a benefit of civil service

[renewiltord]

Something that people think will happen if you pay a guy a lot of money is that he will then not try to get more money. In fact, Martha Stewart insider traded for a few hundred k. She's worth half a billion.

A question to ask yourself is "How much money would I have to pay Trump as the President for him to not launch a cryptocoin in his name?"

And a similar question is "If we paid the dockworkers to stay home so that we could containerize, would the guys staying home consider themselves striking when we consider automating?"

There is an answer, and it seems that if you pay a guy who had a large appetite for money a lot of money it doesn't diminish his appetite for more money all that much.

    Once you have paid him the Danegeld
    You never get rid of the Dane

[jdasdf]

>If you're the elected authority who, by your rule, creates corporate winners and losers

That is the actual problem, and you're not fixing it by stopping them from buying stocks.

[SilverElfin]

Agree. Also we need retroactive clawbacks on these unethical gains they’ve made historically