There are very few issues that could garner broad, bipartisan backing on Capitol Hill, but a stock trading ban for members of Congress seems like the sort of thing that should pass easily. This week, however, Republicans made sure that didn’t happen.
On the surface, the GOP-led House took what appeared to be an important step by passing a bill to prevent sitting members of Congress, their spouses and their dependent children from buying new stocks while in office. It passed on a 232-198 vote, with all of the “no” votes coming from the Democratic minority.
The White House predictably pounced, calling the Democratic votes “shameful.” The idea was to give the public the impression that Republicans had championed an important ethics reform, while Democrats balked and voted to maintain the status quo.
In reality, there is definitely something shameful about the developments, but it wasn’t the 198 opponents of the bill. As MS NOW reported:
As Democrats repeatedly pointed out, the measure would not amount to a full stock trading ban — and would not even prevent members from owning individual stocks.
Instead, the GOP bill would bar members of Congress, their spouses and their dependent children from purchasing new stocks while in office. It would not prohibit lawmakers from holding stocks they already own or selling their existing positions. The bill would also require states to establish national voter ID requirements, a provision Republicans have championed as part of the SAVE America Act.
In other words, the Republicans’ stock trading ban doesn’t actually ban members from trading stocks, but it does try to impose new voting restrictions that have nothing to do with ethics reforms on Capitol Hill. The entire proposal, formally called the Stop Insider Trading Act, is simply not what it appears to be.
The bill wasn’t designed to solve a problem — it was designed to fail.
Democratic Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking member on the House Administration Committee, said during the floor debate, “Republicans have corrupted their so-called stock trading bill with a decaying piece of the SAVE America Act corpse.” He went on call the voter ID provision a “poison pill,” which was an entirely accurate description.
The bill now moves on to the Senate, where it will need 60 votes to advance, which almost certainly won’t happen.
But before the political world moves on from this, it’s worth appreciating the degree to which this serves as a case study in contemporary Republican governance. If GOP officials wanted an actual stock trading ban to become law, it would have been incredibly easy for them to work with Democrats on a clean bill that could make a real difference.
But therein lies the point: Republicans apparently didn’t want the reform at all, so they deliberately crafted a partisan proposal filled with unnecessary elements that would doom its fate.
The post ‘Poison pill’: Why the Republicans’ stock trading ban is not what it appears to be appeared first on MS NOW.
