Congress members tried to stop the SEC’s inquiry into FTX | Hacker News Reader

Congress members tried to stop the SEC’s inquiry into FTX

unusualwhales.com

54 pointsecommerceguy28 comments

Interesting to see that SBF was also funding the GOP in almost equal measure. Gotta cover all your bases! And meanwhile the media was heaping praise on that scam artist left and right. It’s no wonder Americans have such little trust in the press and political institutions.

They cannot allow crypto to become a partisan issue. It would mean that they are giving up half their potential marks

Crypto already is a partisan issue. There are those gullibule enough to think tokens can hold inherent value and those that don't fall prey to said crypto schemes.

Everyone I have talked to in the last year who is willing to speak up for Crypto is weak minded enough to fall for the Maga bullshit train. Its just another way to sell false hope of a big payday, ponzi schemes that people love to gamble on...

Compared to a half decade ago, when those who spoke up for crypto in Seattle were just programmers with a libertarian bent, it's a big change of pace.

Regardless of if congresspeople were or were not “acting on behalf of FTX”, I find this style of argument absolutely counter productive.

I know nothing of Company or Congressman. Congressman does something that benefits Company. Implication of editorial: Congressman is on payroll of Company. Conclusion of this reader: perhaps Congressman had some belief that lead them to act this way? Perhaps they’re not money grubbing sociopaths?

The vast majority of journalism today is leading me so stupidly by the reigns to a particular watering hole that my gut instinct is to buck the lead and sprint into the desert to die. It should not be so easy to be the devil’s advocate, and I’m so tired of defending the devil.

If donating money to politicians didn’t buy influence companies wouldn’t do it.

That’s the cynical take, sure. But you must acknowledge there is a non cynical take. I’m so inclined to believe this is influence buying until I see that presented as the only possibility.

The non-cynical take removes the clearly defined heroes and villains in the narrative. Who wants to spend their time consuming mass media if it is just going to be as boring and confusing as real life?

Congress members also agree with the cynical take.

Quote from elizabethwarren.com:

I will break the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress by passing sweeping anti-corruption legislation and eliminating the filibuster so that our nation can no longer be held hostage by a small group of well-financed extremists

I will always love Warren because I got A’s in the classes that used her textbooks. However, that quote is just dumb. Does she really think the God and Guns caucus votes the way they do because of NRA funding? On some other issue - sure, but the gun lovers seem pretty sincere to me.

Some of the more moderate Republicans fear the NRA running ads against them if they supported popular gun control legislation.

That sounds completely compatible with the NRA being sincere about opposing gun control.

Moderate Republicans are called RINOs and Conservatives tend to dislike them.

That isn't limited to guns or because of the gun lobby. It's because moderate Republicans might as well be Democrats.

Why else would the companies donate?

Ostensibly, to support candidates they think will have a positive impact on society. Naive maybe, but it is a possibility at least that people donate honestly to support causes they think are good.

If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, swims like a duck, shits like a duck and confit like a duck (lipsmack) -- its pretty reasonable to assume it may be a duck and not ponder about how it could be a zebra.

If it talks like a doctor, wears a white coat like a doctor, has a stethescope like a doctor...that person still better have a medical license, because otherwise, who knows if he or she is a doctor.

It's usually the other way around in the more honest democracies. Companies support people that somewhat align with them.

The price of having a politician on your side (ie lax financial regulation) is lower if he already believes in lax regulations.

I was disappointed that the didn't list all the congress members. All they wrote about was Rep. Tom Emmer and Rep. Ted Budd...

Looked it up, here they are:

Republicans: Tom Emmer (MN), Warren Davidson (OH), Byron Donalds (FL), and Ted Budd (NC) from the Republican side of the aisle;

Democrats: Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Jake Auchincloss (MA), Ritchie Torres (NY), and Darren Soto (FL) for the Democrats.

Money buying influence is an inherent part of US style democracy

As we are fond of saying here, a feature not a bug.

As distasteful as this might be for some, we must face up to the reality of the system we live in and work within it as best we can. Arguably, this was what SBF was doing, throwing money at campaign funding, to support politicians he believed in, to counteract the money thrown in by other wealthy benefactors, who supported politicians who believed other things

unusualwhales could be intentionally misinterpreting the intent of the congressman. Or, they can be correct.

Another site [1] explains this as a the congressman is questioning whether SEC is practicing selective-outrage, rather than the function of governance.

Finding a really bad apple, and then using to blaming the whole industry of de-centralized finance, is very similar how criminal activities are used to persecute legal firearm ownership in US.

With that said, this republican politician is a lawyer, -- and to my 'layman' mind -- every lawyer politician is bad, unless they prove otherwise.

[1] https://tokenist.com/congressman-says-ftx-not-failure-of-cry...

...How do you propose to write effective lefislation or statute without having at least some exposure to how the legal system works?

I mean, I get it. The bullshit our "enlightented" legalist class manages to pull off is legendary. However, unless you're willing to hit one big reset button, that's pretty much inevitable given we use a common law system. Over half of the law is completely disconnected from statute.

Just your everyday usual Washington corruption... Move along peasants, nothing to see here!

Isn’t it an open question as to wether the SEC has the authority to regulate this space?

Hmmm. Not my area of practice, but didn’t the Supreme Court just hold in June that federal agencies don’t get to use vague statutory language to start regulating new domains? I thought the holding in West Virginia v EPA was that there must be “clear congressional authorization.”

Do you have a cite for the SEC’s “clear congressional authorization” to regulate crypto?

This is an annoying post to me. You don’t understand it, but here’s your understanding, and now you’re asking for a cited source that answers the question in your particular framework? Are you asking a question or are you trying to argue a point With plausible deniability of intent to make it seem like you’re seeking knowledge from an unbiased neutral position?

Do you have a citation that the inclusion of crypto qualifies to make this a novel domain outside the SEC’s authority per the norms of things like marketing of securities? Can I dodge the SEC’s authority if I market my new security which is created by my new PonziSplooks technology? No, I cannot.

It is an open question. Anyone telling you it isn’t is either misinformed or has an agenda.

The SC just told the EPA they can’t regulate CO2 emissions because that authority isn’t clearly in the Clean Air Act.

If you’re arguing that the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provide “clear congressional authority” to regulate bitcoin, you should write a law review article.

You asked if it was an open question, stated it was not your area of expertise, and are now telling me I’m uninformed unless I agree with you.

Bitcoin is a security. Being crypto doesn’t make it magically different

Reply on news.ycombinator.com