Hacker News Reader

Comment by freeone3000 | Hacker News Reader

For a long time, Congress had an exemption to insider trading. They no longer do, but, insider trading still requires material non-public information about the company in question -- and Congressional acts are the most public thing possible. Betting that a company's stock will go up (or down) and then making it happen after you make the bet isn't insider trading, it's activist investing, and is totally legal.

View on HN

Maybe it's legal, but it should absolutely not be. There's too much risk that a legislator's personal interest will run counter to the interests of the public, and the system should have safeguards against this.

Unfortunately that risk is very much in play even without stock trading. Politicians often appear to be working purely to stay in office and gain whatever side benefits they can along the way, and to establish a very lucrative lobby landing after they leave office.

It is all practically very corrupt, viewed from most angles. The few well-meaning politicians either don't get elected or don't stay in office, because it costs too much to get there and stay there (funding); so to get there and stay there, you have to play the game. And playing the game means ensuring your wealthy donors get what they want from you in terms of legislation.

Yeah that's all fine, but you can still work to outlaw the most blatant conflicts of interest. Government isn't perfect anywhere, but for instance in northern europe they're doing at least a tiny bit better on that front.

But if they bet first, wouldn’t that makes them unfit for making decisions on where the contract should go? Shouldn’t the government official be excused from this decision making process if they have a personal interest in one of the candidate?

>Congressional acts are the most public thing possible

Not when said action occurs a week before the Congressional act is announced. Is this HN thread flooded with bots or something? Have never seen this level of sympathy for politicians.

What they said was objectively true, regardless of your opinions for or against the situation.

No, it was not true. It was predicated on the falsehood that congressional acts are announced as they are decided.

The current count for who has pledged to vote for what is highly relevant and private information.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com