Congressmembers Tried to Stop the SEC’s Inquiry into FTX
prospect.org
prospect.org
Tom Emmer (R-MN)
Warren Davidson (R-OH)
Byron Donalds (R-FL)
Ted Budd (R-NC)
Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ)
Jake Auchincloss (D-MA)
Ritchie Torres (D-NY)
Darren Soto (D-FL)
The signed letter: https://emmer.house.gov/_cache/files/0/c/0c7fc863-7916-4b19-...
In a way, corruption is the U.S is worse because it is legalized (campaign contributions). If there were 25 parties instead of 2, it would be a bit more work to find out who to bribe, but I guess it is still doable
Not that long ago that was unheard of and either party could seat whoever they’d like in a committee. But similar to how the Democrats killed the executive appointment filibuster, they killed that as well by refusing to seat Republicans on the Jan 6th and removing some from other committees .
Now it’s going to come full circle. I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually gets to unseating or refusing to seat a controversial figure.
Also,
> Both the House and the Senate make their own rules,
The rules for expelling congressmen are set in the US Constitution, they don't just make it up as they go. Unless you're talking about their ability to amend the US Constitution, but that's even less likely than kicking these guys out the normal way.
The best way to get them kicked out would be to have them convicted for bribery/corruption, then you might get a 2/3rds vote to expel them.
"7. If you are given a choice, you believe you have acted freely.
[...]
When I cut the cards, I let you glimpse a few different faces. You conclude the deck contains 52 different cards (No. 1—Pattern recognition). You think you’ve made a choice, just as when you choose between two candidates preselected by entrenched political parties (No. 7—Choice is not freedom)."
It may still be democracy, but the task of the people isn't to pick the best or most desirable policy/candidate/etc. It's to pick from the presented selections. If all choices are bad, nothing good will come of it no matter what you call it. Add an option for "None of the above/Do-over" and I'll have more faith in democracy.
I would really love this and to end PACs.
Their parties could evict them. But they’d retain their seats. Their voters gave those to them.
Just getting people who are sufficiently in touch with reality that they're merely corrupt seems like a win at this point.
I can't, but I'd like to.
In America, parties aren't elected and don't form governments. Accordingly, an American political party cannot kick out a congressman, much less replace one. To remove a congressman requires a two third vote (from congress, not from a political party); this never happens in the modern era without a criminal conviction as the impetus. And nether congress or a political party can simply bring in a new congressman; you'd need another election for that.
This wasn't an investigation into just FTX. This was a broader investigation into crypto companies, plural. The current post title of "Inquiry into FTX" seems to be editorializing. Dang must be slow on the tryptophan to not post the usual HN guidelines reprimand
The letter in this article was written in March. FTX's long-term fraud has only been known since early November.
Not that I'm personally against the SEC (and other agencies) crossing into crypto and interpreting their mandate broadly, rather than being overly conservative and waiting for new laws while the scammers run wild. But in other areas these paperwork demands could be a huge burden...
Maybe they were just helping companies donating to then, the letter is about cryptocurrenty in general.
As far as I'm aware, Monero and cash are the only practical ways to pay anonymously.
So, who are worse? The congressmen who (perhaps in this case naively) tried to avoid overregulating crypto, or the remaining congressmen who continue to condone an economy completely manipulable by private bankers by way of the Federal Reserve?
Now that's being squishy-soft on crime. That's the point to make when those members of Congress come up for re-election. They're soft on crime.
The basic law the SEC enforces, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, is pretty clear on what's a security. The Supreme Court has clarified that. Investment of money, expectation of profit, common enterprise - it's a security. That's called the Howey Test. It's also been established that what you call it or how it works doesn't matter. There have been, over the years, many imaginative schemes cooked up to get around this. The Howey case involved tradeable orange grove harvesting rights in Florida. That was held to be a security.
The crypto crowd has been yammering for years "but this is different". Well, it's not.
The scams around crypto are classic. It's usually insiders stealing the money. The crashes are also classic. It's someone being over-leveraged when something goes down. This is not financial innovation.
In what way? Some cryptocurrencies have been declared securities, while many have not. Those such as Bitcoin and Ethereum have been around for long enough that if they were going to be ruled as securities via Howey, that would have surely been done by now.
The SEC does not consider Bitcoin to be a security because there's no "common enterprise". It's distributed more like a mined commodity. Miners are competitors. But where there's an issuer, or "minting", or "pre-mining", or anything like that, you can buy it, and it's expected to go up, it's clearly a security.
Etherium is in an interesting position with the shift to proof of stake. That may have made it a security, because it's now controlled by voting owners, just like a stock. So now there's a "common enterprise", unlike in the "mining" phase.
The big question now is exchange regulation. Are Bitcoin exchanges and brokers going to have to register with the SEC, pay for and be covered by SIPC insurance, and be regulated by FINRA? After FTX, that's probably coming. FTX acted like a retail broker, after all. Nobody runs Super Bowl ads or buys stadium naming rights for something sold only to institutional clients.
The law in this area looks at the economic realities, not the form. If it looks like a security, is marketed like a security, and is bought and sold for the same reasons as securities, it's a security. Doesn't matter what you call it.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti...
We are getting damn close to that being done through statute in the U.S.
Gensler said earlier this year that the SEC should be regulating FTX. SBF unleashes his torrent of mid-term money and then Gensler was saying up until FTX went bust (he was reportedly lobbying for them a few weeks before) that it should be the CTFC's job (which was the position that FTX were lobbying for as they had also bought a few people at the CTFC).
So, as d1str0 said, yes, very inflamatory (and misleading) headline.
But in the current situation, the headline reads like these 8 tried to stop an inquiry specifically into FTX after the collapse, which is totally not what happened.
If there's something to it, next week people will have more time to look into it, without it spoiling their turkey appetite.
This idea that having accurate information about things happening on the opposite side of the world is going to change anything? You don't have to think about it for more than two seconds to see that's not true. It's an Illusion of Control.
Exposing something is only the first step do changing it. But you can expose things and not change a damn thing.
Meanwhile, SBF is still not in jail and on the contrary even invited to speak: https://twitter.com/andrewrsorkin/status/1595517635441090565