
Insiders: The road to the STOCK act
June 17, 2012 4:00 PM
Until recently, America's lawmakers could legally buy stock based on non-public information, but after Steve Kroft's report aired, all that changed.
Insiders: The road to the STOCK act
Web Extras
Scroll Left Scroll Right









- 1
- 2
- Next »
See all 20 CommentsAs someone pointed out the majority of Americans are not millionaires but our politicians are mostly millionaire lawyers. Add to the mix the very powerful and wealthy corporations and a Supreme court who play politics rather than do what's best for the country and we have a recipe for disaster.
Nancy Pelosi and her husband disgust me. I believe that America has lost its way. We are paying to keep companies afloat, companies who took huge risks and now we have to pay. At every turn people have to spend money that has taken them a lifetime to save. A week in hospital can bankrupta person. Tuition loans take the best part of a lifetime to pay back, retirement funds are gone. People are losing their homes and living in their cars. Many people are out of work with no hope.
How can these wealthy politicians possibly understand the plight of ordinary citizens. They live in a different world and they seem to spend their time bickering and playiing oneupmanship instead of working out realistic proposals. They will not take a step if their big money supporters are not behind them.
My wife and I have considered leaving the country but our children and grandchildren are here and we can't bring ourselves to leave.
The needed change is huge and so I don't see it happening in my lifetime. America may collapse before it happens but I hope not.
Put restrictions on currying of influence by or for corporate or other specific entities and tighten down the election campaign process to disallow private war chests or campaign contributions by corporate or foreign entities. Any contributions should go into a common campaign pool, from which ALL nominees would have to draw.
Require the political parties to properly vet their nominees for legislative or executive office, to include a comprehensive background check to ferret out nominees with criminal backgrounds or financial irregularities -- in other words, nominate people who are less likely to be susceptible to bribery, blackmail, or other corruptive activities. Most of these people, if elected, have access to classified or other sensitive information -- why should they not have to go through the same process as anyone else who applies for a job that requires access to classified or sensitive information.
Put strict limits on the amount of lobbying that can be done and have that lobbying be subject to simple but (relatively) effective litmus test -- is the proposal of the lobbyist demonstrably beneficial to the general public, or will it benefit only a select few. If the latter, it needs to be rejected outright.
That's just the tip of the iceberg -- I have lots of other ideas.
- 1
- 2
- Next »
See all 20 Comments