It's broke . . .
President Donald Trump came under a lot of pressure to separate himself from his businesses once he became President. The concern was that having control of his businesses would impact his decisions and the way he worked with foreign governments. You know, he would not make a decision that would negatively impact his businesses.
And separating himself is a good thing. But is it enough?
If having “civilian” enterprises are a negative for the President, shouldn’t the same be said for those in Congress? What about the Supreme Court? How about for anyone in public service? Why just the President?
In March of 2004, Martha Stewart was found guilty of what is commonly referred to as “insider trading”. (She was actually convicted of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart) Was she in the wrong? The courts surely thought so.
But why is “insider trading” considered illegal? According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security (stock), in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include 'tipping' such information, securities trading by the person 'tipped,' and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.” It is considered illegal because “insider trading undermines investor confidence in the fairness and integrity of the securities markets”. (See https://www.sec.gov/answers/insider.htm for more info)
When you own stock, you own a part of a company. The more stock you own, the more of the company you own. If you own a certain amount, you have “voting rights” of a company in their decision process.
If a member of Congress owns stock in a company, wouldn’t that be on a certain level the same as President Trump owning a company? And wouldn’t owning that company impact the laws that Congress writes? And furthermore, wouldn’t having access to lobbyists from these companies provide insider trading information to these members of Congress, which would not only impact the way they write laws, but also how they buy/trade their stock?
In other words, if a member of Congress owns stock, couldn’t they be charged the same as Martha Stewart?
The solution is simple: EVERYONE in public office must give FULL DISCLOSURE of their financial investments to the public (you know, their BOSS) and be accountable for any decisions they make that impact the value of their investments. You know, like everyone screamed that President Trump needed to release his tax forms.
Either that, or like everyone is screaming about over President Trump, they should remove themselves from their “businesses” (a.k.a. “the companies they own - even if it is via stock”). And the simple way to do that is divest themselves of all of their investments prior to taking office.
. . . time to fix it!
good point.. but it's worse for the President because through executive orders he can act alone.. Congress needs a majority to get things done.. Trunp is already making money from his presidency as the Secret Service had to lease an entire floor at Trump Tower New York in order to secure Melania and Baron.. guess where all that money goes?
ReplyDeleteMakes sense. But regardless of the greater impact, it should be across the board. Why is there such a concern over lobbyist kick backs? That doesn't affect the President directly. Also, how much stock is owned of military weapons companies? We "invest" a lot in weapons.
Delete