r/politics 11d ago

Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3828504-hawley-introduces-pelosi-act-banning-lawmakers-from-trading-stocks/?dupe
46.8k Upvotes

u/AutoModerator 11d ago

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

Special announcement:

r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider applying here today!


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

4.9k

u/shogi_x New York 11d ago

Lawmakers have yet to be able to come up with a plan that garners enough support from both sides of the aisle to get a bill through Congress. Democrats in 2022 scrapped a plan to vote on such legislation before the midterm elections, even after Pelosi reversed course and expressed openness to colleagues voting for stock trading reform.

Along with Hawley’s bill, a bipartisan duo in the House has introduced a bill this year on the topic. Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the Trust in Congress Act this month, marking the third time the pair have introduced the legislation.

So it's not really new legislation and it's probably not going anywhere. Hawley is just taking shots at Pelosi for attention.

1.7k

u/le_fez 11d ago

Exactly, it's not about the stock trading, it's about the name of the bill

60

u/Comicspedia 11d ago

I understand I'm being kind to an awful human

...but it's a pretty brilliant acronym

Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act doesn't feel forced, bravo to whoever came up with it on his writing staff

→ More replies

717

u/Jump_Yossarian_ 11d ago

and it's about getting on Tucker and Hannity for some free "own the libs" press.

604

u/Dakzoo 11d ago

It’s why I think Pelosi should come out thanking Hawley for taking this up. She wasn’t initially supportive but due to the popularity of the last bill ended up supporting it. Talk about how she appreciates his honoring her.

It still won’t pass but it will surely puss him off.

178

u/Beans_deZwijger 11d ago

this this this - and introduce a bill to promote running in public schools

112

u/No_Significance_1550 11d ago

Josh “hauling’ ass” Hawley Hall Pass program…….

31

u/thedude37 11d ago

Drafted by famed lawyer Bob Loblaw

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

52

u/natphotog 11d ago

If Democrats were even half way competent at messaging this is what they'd do. This would be as easy as an MLB player hitting a ball off a tee. So, it will never happen.

→ More replies

45

u/No_Significance_1550 11d ago

And every time she mentions his name play the clip of him running out the door

→ More replies
→ More replies

24

u/gozba 11d ago

I don’t object to the name. Pelosi was one of the reasons this discussion started. Not supporting the Rs whatsoever.

→ More replies

57

u/nagonjin 11d ago

Bills names are basically tweets these days

→ More replies

32

u/Akhi11eus 11d ago

For a second I was feeling that Clickhole headline - "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point"

19

u/Maverick_1882 11d ago

Although, Congress could surprise us and pass some sort of legislation that bans themselves and their family from trading stocks and securities where there is a conflict of interest. But I kind of doubt it.

→ More replies

6

u/soulshad 10d ago

I mean hey... If it gets republicans to vote yes on something useful for once, fuck it

10

u/FrankAches 11d ago

Exactly, it's not about the stock trading, it's about the name of the bill

Whatever gets mouths foaming for legitimate positive reform is fine by me

7

u/Glittering_Will9496 11d ago

And having read the bill (it’s 12 pages of triple spaced 14pt font wide margins) there isn’t any fine print to worry about.

→ More replies

131

u/medicated_in_PHL 11d ago

Yeah, 100%. The real need for this came about when it was discovered that like 10 Republican congresspeople got rich off of trading stocks right before COVID because they had all the inside info on what was about to happen.

So Hawley is doing what Republicans have been famous for since the 90's, projection. Doing something wrong or illegal? Accuse your opponent of it.

→ More replies

12

u/Fa1c0n3 11d ago

Everyone loves to talk about this because we as Citizens are real passionate about lawmakers night abusing the power they have and the lawmakers know that there's no way this law would ever pass.

→ More replies

16.0k

u/ExoticMeatDealer 11d ago All-Seeing Upvote Take My Energy

Congresspeople need to stop trading stocks; no question. I’m still not signing up for shit Hawley wants without reading the fine print. Dude is a snake.

4.3k

u/psychicesp 11d ago

It's probably as simple as it being a virtue signal he knows won't pass, but yes.

3.3k

u/donkeyrocket 11d ago

The name alone is enough to not take it seriously.

Someone should counter with the Hawley Act where lawmakers need to actually live in their district for the majority of time not in session. Rural Missourians seem totally fine having their representative living in Virginia as his permanent residence. Not even sure the last time he was in the area he claims to live.

1.3k

u/CaptainCimmeria Missouri 11d ago

I'm ok with not having Hawley in Missouri. It's having him in Washington that I object to.

260

u/PalmTreeIsBestTree Missouri 11d ago

He is a Virginia resident after all

129

u/gustopherus Virginia 11d ago

You guys can have him :)

97

u/cficare 11d ago

Fuck that shit, he can live in Maryland or a bog somewhere.

78

u/Neato Maryland 11d ago

Fuck that shit, he can live in Maryland or a bog somewhere.

I mean Virginia fits the bill. He can live in The Great Dismal Swamp.

111

u/DekoyDuck 11d ago

The Great Dismal was the home to self freed people of color, native Americans, and poor whites seeking to escape the state.

It is also the home of bugs, critters, and all sorts of slimey monsters.

None of whom deserve to be associated with Josh Hawley

35

u/Neato Maryland 11d ago

That's fair. I was unaware Send him back to Missouri. Incorrect postage, return to sender.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

88

u/Michael_G_Bordin 11d ago

Bogs are productive ecosystems that are important for humans but far too underrated.

Send him to the Pacific trash vortex. He can break up into little pieces of Micro-Hawley, until we find a way to clean that shit out. Warning! May introduce Micro-Hawley into rain and water vapor

15

u/fukitol- 11d ago

I don't want micro Hawley in my water though

6

u/Michael_G_Bordin 11d ago

Don't worry. Healthy bodies will reject Hawley. Only the cogito-compromised need to be concerned.

7

u/ambrosius5c 11d ago

The last thing we need is conservatives and their rain turning frogs into Josh Hawleys.

→ More replies

12

u/ex-nihlo 11d ago

We don't want him in Maryland

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

264

u/Githzerai1984 New Hampshire 11d ago

I think the Hawley act should be a fitness test to see how fast you can run after shitting your pants

81

u/Za_Lords_Guard 11d ago

Let me clear the record for him. He didn't shit his pants... He is simply so fit and fast that he outran the turds in his own ass.

8

u/pimppapy America 11d ago

We could use his ass to propel the next gen of space engines

→ More replies

46

u/Serinus Ohio 11d ago

That sounds like a rather Hawley act.

18

u/StepDance2000 11d ago

Easy there, no need to he all Hawley about it

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

191

u/International_Soup 11d ago

How about a Hawley act where senators and congress people be expelled for inciting an insurrection

12

u/BlazeKnaveII 10d ago

Let's call it the... Hmm.. Constitution Act?

→ More replies

38

u/The_Bison_King 11d ago

Senator Ossoff introduced a similar bill last year that did the same thing but without a stupid and divisive name.

157

u/Blewedup 11d ago

the hawley act: no insurrectionist can ever serve in congress again.

8

u/Tasgall Washington 10d ago

We already have that as an amendment, the issue is enforcement.

134

u/DarkWasp14 11d ago

This traitor should’ve been charged for encouraging the insurrection and trying to overthrow the election. How he’s even still in office shows how deeply corrupt and criminal American politics currently are.

→ More replies

114

u/TiberiusCornelius 11d ago

The name alone is enough to not take it seriously.

Honestly I literally don't care what he wants to call it. Hawley is a complete piece of shit, but if this bill actually just bans Congressional stock trading and doesn't have any loopholes that coincidentally benefit him or some fine print about banning Plan B, pass it.

If letting Republicans give things troll names is what it takes to actually get good shit done in this country I don't even care anymore. Just make sure it's actually good and not some fuckery.

73

u/ManiacalComet40 11d ago

Just read it. It’s a clean bill, the only thing I’m not crazy about is that members can appeal fines with a majority vote of Congress. If naming it after Pelosi makes more Republicans vote for it, so be it. If Dems won’t pass it because of the name, their priorities are upside-down.

77

u/Anlysia 11d ago

If they can appeal fines via Congressional majority, it just means that Republicans will inside trade like fiends and appeal off all the fines any time they have control.

49

u/or_just_brian 11d ago

That's the point entirely. It would effectively ban Dems from trading for the next 2 years, while all the cons continue on as if nothing changed. Then they just clear each other of any wrongdoing if it ever comes up. Essentially the same as police led review boards, they are always justified because they're police, and when a cop does it, it isn't illegal.

The fact that things could easily swap sides in a couple years isn't even a deterrent, because then they can just use it as another tool in their "extreme left persecution" toolbox. Along with the loopholes allowing them to still own and trade ETF's and mutual funds, it's actually a really well designed bill for their side, honestly. Just further proof that the right is more actively evil than they are brainwashed and inept.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/Whiteguy1x 11d ago

Rural Missourians are scared democrats are going to steal their guns. Fox News propaganda does the rest. Politics has become a football match for most people

→ More replies

44

u/GingerBuffalo 11d ago

I'd bet my house that it's pure virtue signaling. I'd be shocked if Hawley hasn't repeatedly benefited from being able to trade stocks with insider knowledge as a senator.

Hawley's about as cynical as they come. He may be a spineless worm, but no doubt he's smart and highly educated. He just happens to only care about his own personal gain over anyone or anything else in this world.

17

u/WalesIsForTheWhales New York 11d ago

Hawley's rich, connected, and a well known fascist.

He doesn't expect this to pass he just wants to say he proposed it.

185

u/OwlfaceFrank 11d ago edited 11d ago

I'm not in a position currently to do a bunch of research.  But I did look into it a while back because there are people tracking these things and found that...

  1. The 5 congress people who made the most profit trading stocks were all republican. This info is for 2021.
    Austin Scott (R)
    Brian Mast (R)
    French Hill (R)
    John Curtis (R)
    Dan Crenshaw (R)
    Pelosi was #6

  2. Pelosi's trades were mostly very basic.  Microsoft. Apple.  Google.  She and her husband weren't trading companies you've never heard of before.  They were trading stocks that any amateur could tell were good. 

I know timing is the important factor here, but it's still bullshit and hypocrisy from Republicans to single out Pelosi.

EDIT:  So I looked it up anyway.  This is info for 2022.

  1. Patrick Fallon (R Texas)
  2. Debbie Schultz (D Florida)
  3. Susie Lee (D Nevada)
  4. David Joice (R Ohio)
  5. Gary Peter's (D Michigan)

Pelosi isn't in the top 10 at all. In fact her and her husband LOST money in the market in 2022.

SOURCE

Source has a high rating for factual information and is not politically biased.

26

u/Pickle_Juice_4ever 11d ago

Don't forget how Alan Grayson was running a hedge fund while in Congress and retired a billionaire.

→ More replies

65

u/godlyfrog Wisconsin 11d ago

Other than the fact that it's probably a poorly written law, calling it the "Pelosi Act" would probably go about as well for Republicans as "Obamacare" did; the Republicans thought they were being clever, but Obama loved that it was named after him, and it was quite popular. This act would likewise be popular because both sides agree that lawmakers shouldn't own stocks (if it were better written), and would likely give Pelosi a boost in popularity. Nobody on either side likes congress doing insider trading.

31

u/between456789 11d ago

She needs to say that she likes the concept and the name.

He should also consider banning lobbyist activities of behalf of any person or organization for 20 years after office. Show all campaign contributions over $100. Require a majority of House or Senate vote to issue a presidential pardon. Require full financial disclosure to run for president or hold cabinet, House, or Senate positions. You want to drain some swamp this is how you do it.

8

u/bubbasteamboat 11d ago

That's literally all she has to do in order to turn around any negative connotation.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/icouldusemorecoffee 10d ago

Also worth noting Pelosi's husband is literally an investor for a living, always has been and has always been immensely wealthy. Also worth noting that all legislation is public, much of it for months or years before it even ever gets voted on, so trading on what legislation is about to be voted on is something everybody can do.

For people that want to dig into who might be doing shady trades, not insider trading, FBI and SEC already investigate those and they do prosecute when found, Insider did an investigative report that they keep updated on STOCK Act and other violations: https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9

→ More replies

52

u/charavaka 11d ago

And if it passes they'll start screaming they didn't really understand what they passed, and therefore it doesn't count. The turtle has already pulled that one before.

6

u/DerfK 10d ago

The turtle has already pulled that one before.

I think I remember that, it was some rule they passed about suing some nation (Saudi Arabia?) over 9/11 right? And then he blamed the Democrats for not stopping them from voting for it?

→ More replies

83

u/Cfp0001-Iceman 11d ago

Probably says something like: It's totes illegal, unless a Republican did it, then it's totes okay.

16

u/punkr0x 11d ago

Probably literally says, "Anyone named Pelosi can't trade stock."

→ More replies

72

u/mauxly 11d ago

He knows there is no way in hell 'The Pelosi Act' isn't going to be signed by a single dem, even if they agree with everything in it. He's trolling. He wants them on record against the issue, when they aren't going to dis Pelosi like that.

But, I say they go ahead and vote yes. She could take it as a point of honor. Too bad she's come out against the meat of it though. Sigh...

68

u/tomdarch 11d ago

isn't going to be signed by a single dem

Enh. My assumption is that if Hawley is proposing it it's probably poorly written. But if it was solid, calling a bluff like this is very much something Democrats would do.

And then we'd get McCarthy screaming "No! Not like that!" and killing it in the House.

→ More replies

119

u/AuroraFinem 11d ago

If it’s truly as simple as they cannot trade stocks and there’s no added baggage many Dems will absolutely vote for it. Problem is coming from Hawley I’d find it hard to believe it doesn’t have added pork.

68

u/Epistatious 11d ago

Funny thing will be in the future when they have forgotten Hawley, but we are still happy for the Pelosi Bill, that Pelosi must have been very wise. Kind of like calling the ACA, Obama care.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

175

u/Recognizant 11d ago

Here's the text of the bill.

I don't have time to cross-reference the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 for the corrections at the bottom, but it looks like it's a relatively straightforward bill that specifically attempts to hold to account Congresspeople and their spouses, but not any broader scope.

It bans stocks and commodities, but not diversified funds. It's surprisingly bare-bones, as it stands. It all looks so bland, in fact, that I would be completely unsurprised to find that the 'PELOSI' act (which is more of an amendment to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 than an act in and of itself) is nearly identical to other political finance/ethics legislation that has been introduced before, but merely had the name changed for branding purposes.

It's shockingly generic, aside from the obviously headline-grabbing name. Republicans aren't letting it go anywhere, anyways, and the name is deliberately designed to turn away Democrats, so this is definitely just a headline grab for a right wing media cycle to raise Hawley's media profile.

156

u/jesseserious 11d ago edited 11d ago

Would be hilarious of Dems all got on board with it and then Republicans had to all vote it down. If it passes, Pelosi gets the credit.

Edit: I didn't say it's gonna happen, jesus people. Just saying it would be funny if it did.

42

u/PyreDruid Virginia 11d ago

My reading of this there’s a Dem co-sponsored version of this that’s very similar in the House already.

The Dems haven’t been getting on board. It’s been there for a while now.

23

u/Zestus02 11d ago

I’m not particularly good at reading these kinds of bills but as far as I can tell, the bipartisan one you’re referring to largely does the same thing but goes a step further and bans dependent children from trading in non mutual funds as well.

76 sponsors, the vast majority of whom are (D), but yea I guess that’s not enough to call a vote for.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/shapu Pennsylvania 10d ago

It bans stocks and commodities, but not diversified funds. It's surprisingly bare-bones, as it stands. It all looks so bland, in fact, that I would be completely unsurprised to find that the 'PELOSI' act (which is more of an amendment to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 than an act in and of itself) is nearly identical to other political finance/ethics legislation that has been introduced before, but merely had the name changed for branding purposes.

So the biggest difference between this one and the one introduced last year is actually an important - and GOOD - one. The bill last year allowed Congress to set a rule on what constituted a blind trust, which would have meant that Congress could, without the need to get presidential approval, relax those blind trusts to being nothing different from now.

Hawley's bill simply says "use the blind trust definition from the EIGA of 1978," which is much more restrictive.

This bill also requires that the lawmakers and their spouses both a) disgorge any income from trades that violate the act, and b) still pay taxes on those gains.

All in all, it's a surprisingly good bill.

→ More replies
→ More replies

244

u/mortgagepants 11d ago

remember when he tried to overthrow the government and then he ran away like a coward? also he doesn't even live in the state he was elected.

55

u/golfkartinacoma America 11d ago

Correct, Josh Hallway ran away from there too.

→ More replies
→ More replies

122

u/Daotar Tennessee 11d ago

This is just anti-Democrat red meat for the base. The GOP has absolutely no problem with insider trading. They’re only talking about it to score bullshit political points with their ignorant and out of touch base.

63

u/Zmann966 11d ago

It's funny because Pelosi isn't even the worst or most profitable of them doing this, she's just the most visible Democrat doing it.

22

u/Daotar Tennessee 11d ago

Which is why you know this is about partisan politics rather than accountability.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

459

u/SirPIB 11d ago

Congresspeople AND their extended family.

179

u/lnin0 11d ago

and the Supreme Court Justices

116

u/infiniZii 11d ago

And their family.

37

u/Qzy 11d ago

And their children. And their children's children. For 3 months.

6

u/scsibusfault I voted 11d ago

And their unborn children too. Make them loop it in if they want to claim unborn children are people.

16

u/infiniZii 11d ago

And my Ax.

6

u/Doopapotamus 11d ago

TIL Gimli sold all his shares of One Ring Futures Mordor, LLC just before Frodo/Sam/Gollum reached Mt. Doom for a very healthy profit

Suspicious, no?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/gophergun Colorado 11d ago

This bill only applies to spouses, which seems relatively uncontroversial.

→ More replies

37

u/Nottheface1337 11d ago

He is a disgrace…not a snake though….snakes don’t have the legs needed to run away from their constituents the way this guy did on Jan 6th lol.

34

u/Old_Cheesecake_5481 11d ago

Is this the guy who is well known for being a coward?

19

u/MFoy Virginia 11d ago

One of them

12

u/buttergun 11d ago

"I'm playing both sides, so that way I always come out on bottom." -Professional victim and masculinity coach Josh Hawley

→ More replies
→ More replies

75

u/KyivComrade 11d ago

Also Pelopsi isn't even in the top 5 best traders. They're all Republicans, 7/10 Top traders in Congress are republicans

Bet you can't even name a single one of the 5 who beat Pelopsi, by a lot. Because propaganda works especially on reddit. You are only supposed to know the democrat...

→ More replies

6

u/crazyrich 11d ago

I think its as simple as GOP members would just continue to break the law knowing there would be no real repercussions outside some scapegoats, while Dems would be beholden to it

→ More replies

55

u/Butthole_Alamo 11d ago

Republicans make up 6 of the top ten Congressional Representatives with the most overall stock trades. Source

Given that and the name of the bill, I’m sure this is political theater. He probably knows this won’t get passed and is just trying to generate some support from his base/republicans because Pelosi bad.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.3k

u/Ok-Efficiency-3694 11d ago

Casinos taking bets how long Hawley will run with this good idea, and then how far he will run away from this good idea once the first sign of trouble surfaces.

517

u/swingadmin New York 11d ago

GOP says "But we like insider trading, too"

Brave Sir Hawley ran away, away!

127

u/AlwaysUpvotesScience 11d ago

When danger reared it's ugly head,

He bravely turned his tail and fled.

59

u/equinoxEmpowered 11d ago

Yes, brave Sir Hawley turned about,

And gallantly he chickened out.

→ More replies
→ More replies

20

u/smell_of_facepalm California 11d ago

Jogs Hallway

→ More replies

21

u/greenascanbe North Carolina 11d ago

About 4/5 of a lettuce head?

47

u/ncc_1864 California 11d ago

You mean the hypocrisy of not naming it the Hawley Act?

42

u/Ok-Efficiency-3694 11d ago

The bill's name is the least important aspect. Reform is needed. I believe this is just performative vice signaling, the bill's name is just the most obvious proof of that. The hypocrisy comes from this being a bill he proposed in bad faith. He will likely try to silently withdraw the bill if too many Democrats support it, or too many Republicans object to it. He doesn't actually believe this is an issue worth strongly pursuing, because he owns stock himself, benefits from insider knowledge, and isn't really willing to take a loss just to take a stab at Pelosi or to own the libs.

20

u/SnollyG 11d ago

I'd chuckle if it passes and does amazing things for the country and people start crediting Nancy Pelosi with the "Pelosi Act".

4

u/pwmaloney Illinois 11d ago

She should sign on as a cosponsor.

→ More replies

5

u/Cheshire_Jester 11d ago edited 11d ago

Yeah, this is just total performative nonsense. He wants this to fail so he can point to it and say, “Look, the Dems killed my Pelosi act because they’re crooks!” And it’ll trend for like a day on social media.

The fact that if you asked basically anyone who does insider trading in Washington, Pelosi is the only person they could name, tells you all you need to know how well this branding game has gone. And that’s if the person can even name her.

Naming the bill after her is indicates how little the really care about this. She’s not some big bad in terms of insider trading who did it on a scale heretofore unseen or with a particularly lazy openness. And she’s not alone in being credibly accused of insider trading. But she’s the only name that ever gets attached to the notion right now.

I personally like my Blahojevich Bill. You get to be in government for a while, and then you go to jail. That’s the deal.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.0k

u/Metallic144 Washington 11d ago

This would be fine with me, except Hawley opposed a very similar bipartisan bill when it came up in the previous Congress.

This is just an attention grab that he knows won’t pass (and I’m somewhat doubtful he even wants it to)

S.3494 - Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act

356

u/TavisNamara 11d ago

Pelosi isn't even the big winner on the stock market. Or #2. Or 3. Or 4, or 5. All of those were Republicans in 2021. Why no Scott act in honor of Representative Scott, the biggest winner of 2021?

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/10-best-stock-traders-in-congress-in-2021-spoiler-nancy-pelosi-isn-t-no-1-1031153996?op=1

144

u/johndavismit 11d ago

I think A LOT of people don't realize this, and democrats should do more to make them aware.

39

u/axltheviking 10d ago

democrats should do more to make them aware.

I imagine most democrats would be wary of shining too big a spotlight on corruption in Congress because it might hurt them at the polls down the road.

Republicans, on the other hand, can luxuriate and gloat in their own corruption because they know there isn't a tinker's chance in hell their voters will give a shit.

→ More replies
→ More replies

29

u/x4beard 11d ago

Why not the Hawley Act, and he can take all the credit for it, like Dodd-Frank Act or the Brady Law?

31

u/InNeedOfVacation 11d ago

The Brady law wasn't named after a lawmaker, it was named after James Brady, who was WH Press Secretary that was disabled after being shot in an attempted assassination of Pres. Reagan

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/Bobby_Marks2 Washington 11d ago

It's that time of year. Cruz introduced a bill to amend term limits I to the constitution; Schiff just introduced a bill to undo CU for like the tenth time in his career.

This is why it's so important to judge politicians based on what they vote into law.

→ More replies

5

u/LeChiotx Virginia 11d ago

100% this.

This bill has been proposed before yet its ALWAYS opposed, especially by his party. This is literally just a "Hur Der, owning libs" move that his base will guzzle and gargle up

→ More replies

33

u/worstatit 11d ago

So, he's taking a "run" at it?

34

u/Whosebert 11d ago edited 11d ago

fascists: "this will show those snowflake dems!!!"

Reasonable citizens: "we want this too!"

fascists:"SHIT SHIT NEVERMIND GDHHDS"

→ More replies

1.1k

u/nizo505 America 11d ago edited 11d ago

Now someone introduce the Hawley Act that bans insurrectionists from holding office.

Edit: words are hard

285

u/SirPIB 11d ago

That already exists. We need an act that enforces it.

115

u/nizo505 America 11d ago

23

u/SirPIB 11d ago edited 10d ago

What's his face got the can from his state too and was barred from running.

Edit: Cawthorn.

Edit 2: I stand corrected.

5

u/illQualmOnYourFace 11d ago

He was not barred from running, though the process to make that happen was started. He lost his primary.

11

u/chupacadabradoo 11d ago

Could you be just a bit more specific?

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

33

u/cwatson214 11d ago

You mean the Hawley Act that bans exploiting minors for sex?

→ More replies
→ More replies

75

u/accountabilitycounts America 11d ago

I say Democrats put up no fuss on this one and let Republicans torpedo it themselves.

48

u/i_sigh_less Texas 11d ago

Betting Republicans don't even let it come to a vote. They know how bad it would look if every Dem voted for it, forcing them to vote against it to keep it from passing.

→ More replies

15

u/hurler_jones Louisiana 11d ago

Like McConnel owning himself by proposing a bill he thought would go nowhere and then have to filibuster it? Delicious.

Funnily enough, the bill would have moved the debt ceiling to the pervue of POTUS who could raise it as needed and giving Congress the ability to intervene only with a veto override majority. Democrats called the bluff and Mitch had to do what Republicans do best.

→ More replies
→ More replies

24

u/allpoliticsislocal 11d ago

Almost identical to the bipartisan Trust in Government Act except he drops dependent children from the scope. Why?

12

u/the3hound 11d ago

So they can still make money.

→ More replies

21

u/Zanos-Ixshlae 11d ago

How about the Hawley act, where you can't register your sister's address as your primary address to run for office in a state you don't live in?

240

u/monkeyhind 11d ago

The Pelosi Act? These people are so childish.

Yesterday they kicked three Democrats off of committees as payback for the Republicans who had previously been kicked off of committees. The Republicans had been kicked off committees for legitimate reasons. The reverse was merely retaliatory and performative.

131

u/SaulsAll 11d ago

I liked how McCarthy explicitly called it retaliation, and then called for an end to partisan politics.

26

u/FilthyStatist1991 New York 11d ago

Nope, I do not blame the Dems since Amy Barret. That was some party politics bullshit that was pulled and is inexcusable.

4

u/testedonsheep 10d ago

what are they even retaliating against? the voters?

6

u/SaulsAll 10d ago

Republican reps being removed from committees. I dont remember the exact people or reasons why. Probably something minor like supporting an attempt to overthrow the government.

5

u/Tasgall Washington 10d ago

Yep, it was Gym Jordan and one other (I think Hawley?) who weren't allowed on the J6 committee because they were openly pro-insurrection. Also Margery Greene for being generally incompetent and breaking all the House rules she could think of. Also for being an insurrectionist.

4

u/ScrewAttackThis Montana 10d ago

supporting an attempt to overthrow the government.

That's just a day that ends in Y for Republicans now.

47

u/Mad102190 11d ago

Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act

To his credit, the acronym is actually pretty good lol

10

u/monkeyhind 11d ago

I hadn't read enough to realize it was an acronym. Got to admit that is clever!

→ More replies
→ More replies

18

u/DeckerR 11d ago

The top 5 traders in congress are republicans

→ More replies
→ More replies

354

u/TavisNamara 11d ago

Did you know the top five winners in the stock market in Congress in 2021 were all Republicans?

Pelosi was the best performing Democrat, yes, but Dan Crenshaw, John Curtis, French Hill, Brian Mast, and Austin Scott, all Republican representatives, outperformed her, Scott by a genuinely absurd margin.

Where's the Scott act to ban stock trades, Hawley? Where is it?

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/10-best-stock-traders-in-congress-in-2021-spoiler-nancy-pelosi-isn-t-no-1-1031153996?op=1

17

u/ExtraStrengthPlaceb0 11d ago

French Hill sounds like a made up name

→ More replies

49

u/the3hound 11d ago

Doesn’t carry as much hate as Pelosi.

29

u/sloopslarp 11d ago

She's a woman, so conservatives find it easier to hate her.

→ More replies

16

u/DontFearTruth 11d ago

That's intentional. They literally manufactured the hate so that the average person would think she's the face of the problem.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

93

u/RaisingEve 11d ago

Reminds me of this video of Gaetz where he says all this stuff he will introduce and I’m like “yup, sounds good. I still hate you though”

25

u/Samuraistronaut 11d ago

Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point

→ More replies

11

u/TexMurphyPHD 11d ago

Reporter: Senator will you also stop trading stocks?

Garbage Senator: No.

74

u/no-one-but-crow 11d ago

constantly polarizing the country. lets look at his portfolio?

43

u/TheSocialDynamicist North Carolina 11d ago

He's heavily invested in khaki's, tiki torchs, and running shoes.

16

u/the3hound 11d ago

And Nazi memorabilia dildos.

→ More replies

32

u/Shavethatmonkey 11d ago

Republicans are as corrupt as corrupt can be, they'll never vote for that.

21

u/the3hound 11d ago

But they will blame Dems for it.

→ More replies

20

u/nova_rock Oregon 11d ago edited 11d ago

How about preventing all speculative financial instruments, and putting their holdings into a blind trust?

like the TRUST in Congress Act, as opposed to a grandstanding name?

→ More replies

57

u/AdrieBow Ohio 11d ago

Hmmm.

Not that I disagree, but I am sure he owns stock and mutual funds so… he could show good faith by ditching his.

But, lbh, this is a jab at Nancy which is designed to fail and is nothing more than political theater.

24

u/Noname_acc 11d ago

Correct. If the goal was to get the legislation passed they wouldn't have made the name so brazenly partisan.

14

u/x4beard 11d ago

Why can't Pelosi jump on and support it? She'll get all the credit for ending lawmakers from trading stock!

This is almost as stupid as the GOP blaming Obama for that law that he vetoed and they overturned.

9

u/rhynoplaz 11d ago

I hope the Dems just smile and push it on through! I'd love to see the house Republicans hesitate, backpedal, and/or vote against their own bill after it has bipartisan support.

5

u/politicsaccount420 11d ago

Yeah, make it like Obamacare. She won't, because he's right (even though he's also a hypocrite), but it'd be real cool if she did.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/rummyreader 11d ago

This dipshit? The running man? 🏃‍♂️

6

u/DPSOnly Europe 11d ago

Eye fucking roll at the name. He knows this is not going to pass because his party is the most guilty of this but he just wants a headline with the GQP's boogieman.

6

u/Business_Error6992 10d ago

Dems should vote yes for it. Just so his dumbass has to vote against it when the GOP is forced to block it.

37

u/TripleSingleHOF 11d ago

Hawley on Tuesday introduced the Pelosi Act — or the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act — renewing a legislative push to curtail stock trading by lawmakers that has failed over the last few years.

I actually like the sentiment behind it, but the name on the bill is absurd. But I guess that's politics in 2023.

How long until the rest of the GOP is like "Actually Josh, we like being able to make insider trades"?

28

u/Quartzcat42 Foreign 11d ago

That’s a shockingly good acronym, I bet one of his aides felt real proud about it lol.

→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/sid-darth 11d ago

Fuck Hawley but I'm all for this legislation. Make it airtight and prevent lawmakers from profiting on any financial information.

→ More replies

5

u/StrongGeniusHeir 11d ago

It feels weird agreeing with someone who’s an insurrectionist. Fuck him either way.

4

u/spikus93 11d ago

They aren't serious about this. They just want to make fun of Pelosi. If it comes to a vote ever, it won't pass. They'll poison pill it with like an abortion ban to make the Dems vote no, but it will never get out of committee most likely. This is all just PR.

→ More replies

4

u/phreeeman 10d ago

Yes, ban it. 100 percent.

But still, this is so typical GOP -- they gut the ethics committee that could enforce such a rule, then make up a scandal about Pelosi (I've seen no evidence of that Pelosi used insider knowledge and the time frame for her trade is far less damning than that for GOPers Burr and Loeffler's trades in 2020 which went unpunished), and now they propose a law that they've quietly killed in the past.

It's almost as cynical as their supposed opposition to illegal immigration.

13

u/iRadinVerse 11d ago

On one hand this is posturing to the nth degree, on the other I absolutely agree that this should be banned. My main problem is Josh Hawley is a fucking fascist little shit who I don't trust.

7

u/Venkman0 11d ago

That's where I'm at too. I don't think this comes from any sincere place, more just to flip the bird to the other side...but I agree with the concept and want it to pass

→ More replies

3

u/robodrew Arizona 11d ago

Immediately suspect of this bill because of the name and who is introducing it. 100% sure that Hawley is doing this purely to score political points with his rube constituency knowing that it will fail.

4

u/BuildyOne 11d ago Got the W

Hopefully someone introduces the "Hawley Act" next that prevents encouraging, supporting, and/or sympathizing with insurrectionists.

→ More replies

4

u/SlipySlapy-Samsonite 11d ago

What about their spouses? Also fuck Hawley.

→ More replies

4

u/toddspremiumbacon 11d ago

As much as I hate this piece of shit…it appears he did well for once.

4

u/livefastdie22 11d ago

Lawmakers should not be trading stocks and traitors should not be making laws. Fuck Josh Hawley.

3

u/NarfledGarthak 11d ago

No chance of passing and named after a political opponent.

I wonder what this could be.

2

u/InevitableAvalanche 11d ago

Oh barf. As if he and all his Republican colleagues don't do it too.

Pelosi is going to be like Clinton. Out of office and Republicans still screeching about her. Just pathetic.

This will never pass...it is just a stunt. All Republicans are capable of are stunts or tax breaks to the super wealthy with a bunch of scandals in between.

5

u/iheartbbq 10d ago

Good. Do it, vote it in. I don't care if Hawley is doing this purely to score dumbass political points with voters he already has, this should be law.

4

u/Disastrous-Golf7216 10d ago

It will never go anywhere. Too many on both sides are actively trading. This is nothing more than a talking point to distract from other things.

5

u/slabby 10d ago

When the sole purpose of legislation is to say, "BOOM! Roasted!"

4

u/Jerk182 10d ago

Don't be fooled by Josh Hawley. Don't trust him at all. He's an insurrectionist.

4

u/tacs97 10d ago

All for show. This loser has to make himself relevant again. We all know these inside traders in congress won’t ever vote against their self enrichment. What other reason is there to be a politician in todays world?

4

u/abstractedartichoke 10d ago

Is this proposed law going to apply to GOP as well as democrats?

3

u/Mr-B-Hizzle 10d ago

It’s funny he’d choose to name it after her, considering how many of them do the same shit. But I guess it’s only bad when Democrats do it.

3

u/Goblin_Fucker69 10d ago

Just because he's doing it out of spite doesn't mean it's not a good idea

3

u/Possible_Wasabi 10d ago

I don’t care what they call it. They could call it The Democrats Suck Dick Act and I’d still support it. They’re doing that thing where they introduce actual legislation but call it something stupid to get people in an uproar about the naming convention. People don’t care. Politicians shouldn’t be trading specific stocks, they should only be entitled to trade broad index funds.

5

u/OtmShanks55 10d ago

Jogs Hallway

4

u/3d1thF1nch 10d ago

As long as that actually happens, I’m cool with that.

This is definitely a gotcha though, Republicans owning the libs. Because if the Democrats actually said “Yea, sure, let’s do that” Republicans would shit their pants from what they thought was a stunt becoming law.

4

u/August_West1289 10d ago

If this were to ever pass and go into law then the nation can forever be reminded how bold and honorable it was for Pelosi to spearhead such important legislation championing integrity in congress

5

u/LillyPip 10d ago

The Democrats already introduced a bill to stop this a couple of years ago. If the republicans actually cared about this issue instead of just demonising a prominent democrat (who has already retired, by the way), why didn’t they rally around that bill?

Oh, because they’re not serious at all and only want to play identity politics.

63

u/user72230 11d ago

Make their portfolios and all campaign contributions public knowledge!

Edit: and lobbying

21

u/00Oo0o0OooO0 11d ago

Those things are all already public knowledge.

→ More replies

10

u/BadDiscoJanet 11d ago

Campaign contributions are public information. Candidates file a report every quarter with the Federal Election Commission. You can search them at opensecrets.org

Legislators aren’t allowed to accept money or gifts directly from lobbyists.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/allankcrain Missouri 11d ago

If Pelosi were smart, she'd could really fuck over Hawley here.

Like, make the bill her own. Champion it. Fight for it. It's an incredibly popular idea throughout the country, and now a Republican has introduced it and was nice enough to put her name on it.

Come out and say "I know Senator Hawley and I rarely agree on things, but this is actually a good bill and I'm proud to have my name on it."

Whip the Democrats into supporting it. The baseline Democrat is going to be more ethical about this stuff than the baseline Republican, so you can probably get the vast majority of the caucus on board.

And then Hawley's screwed, because his Republican colleagues DEFINITELY don't want this bill he introduced to pass, and they DEFINITELY don't want it to look like it was Nancy Pelosi's idea in the press.

She and her husband will make a little less money, but they're already millionaires, and they text of the bill makes it clear they can still invest in things like mutual funds so they'll still have investment income in addition to their very generous salaries.

She could make the country a little bit better AND fuck over the Republicans AND especially fuck over Josh Hawley, all at the same time.

→ More replies

18

u/wonderingeye1 11d ago

Naming it after her is petty political theater, but a bill like this is spot-on necessary and fair

→ More replies

44

u/fozzieferocious Georgia 11d ago

Republicans are a bunch of petulant fucking children.

100% about getting Pelosi on the name of a bill.

0% about getting any meaningful regulation of stock trading for Congress.

→ More replies