All show and no go.
Like most such "reforms", it is intended for naive public consumption while also being easily circumvented.
Setup a trust or corporation run by a family member and continue with business a usual.
Like most such "reforms", it is intended for naive public consumption while also being easily circumvented.
Setup a trust or corporation run by a family member and continue with business a usual.
This bill is step one. When (not if) it gets circumvented, that's when the next law addressing that problem can be passed.
If the politicians manage the process correctly, they can forever be passing "reform bills" which sound good...but have enough loopholes so that nothing resembling actual reform ever happens.
Rule of Thumb: If somebody claims they want to build a transportation system, then starts with a square wheel and talks about improving it as the next step - then either [1] they're teaching, and it's only a pedagogical exercise, or [2] they are lying about wanting to build a transportation system.
Think, for instance, about how many more people might become aware of / interested in the problem, who were previously unaware or uninterested in insider stock trading by members of congress, should a historic bill be passed to initialize the process of stopping the problem.
>> should a historic bill be passed
Passed? They've never brought even a flawed bill like this to a vote, let alone passed one.
That's how you get 40+ years of abortion being legal on a technicality, rather than being properly codified into law. It's how you get "student loan forgiveness" instead of any attempt at fixing the student loan racket. It's how you get a NASA where the overall budget is constantly decreasing with the exception of the super expensive rocket no one wants.
Sure, in the moment, these were nice decisions and helped while they lasted, but overall they're simply suppressing actual solutions to focus on feelgood promises.
For actions which are not free (and getting any bill through Congress sure as h*ell isn't), one can write a very simple "break even" formula - relating the cost of action A, the efficiency of action A, and the value of the benefits that a 100%-efficient action would provide.
For actions falling short of break-even, it's generally considered wiser to spend the resources on something else.
You can spend money re-roofing your house with cotton candy - because shingles were too expensive, or unavailable, or whatever. Yeah, that does scratch the itchy need to "do something!". But longer-term...
No, it's not.
It's just the latest in a long line of campaign finance reform --- most of which is ineffective because it was purposely designed from the get-go to be easily circumvented.
The open secret here is that you're counting on an organization (Congress) to police itself.
This makes no more sense than an counting on Congress to avoid raising it's own pay. How has that worked out?
Congress hasn't had a raise since 2009. Their current effective pay is the lowest its been in 75 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_Uni...
The reform laws (like this one) are written to make it's incredibly easy for politicians to personally profit from "campaign contributions" --- among other things.
Example: Trump personally buys copyrighted MAGA hats in bulk from China for $3 each and sells them to his campaign for $35 each. Instant personal profit --- from your "contributions". His campaign sells some, gives some away and trashes any remainder. They don't care, it's your money, not theirs.
Unless you can control their contact with that family member, that sounds like it would accomplish approximately nothing.