John Campbell explains why he voted against insider trading bill
March 12, 2012 at 2:07 am in Accountability, GAN, House, John B.T. Campbell III, News by Barbara Geerlings 7 Comments
Rep John Campbell (R-CA) was one of two lone votes against HR 1148 also known as the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act). This insider trading bill had just previously passed the Senate by a 96-3 margin. When it reached the house, amendments added by the Senate were removed to make it more palatable to house members. As a result, the bill passed with an overwhelming 417-2 margin.
According to Heritage Foundation, the difference between the two bills is the Senate version also addressed other perceived public corruption problems. The House deleted those provisions by amendment. After analysis, Heritage favors the House version.
When asked about the vote, Christopher Bognanno, Communications Director for Rep Campbell gave this explanation:
“My concern with the STOCK Act is that it will have the unintended consequence of muzzling members of Congress from speaking to constituents about pending legislation for fear that they could be giving constituents inside information. Insider trading by anyone in this country is already illegal. This bill attempts to make unlawful what is already unlawful. Unfortunately, I believe it will only serve to restrict a constituent’s access to his or her representative in Congress.”
Tea Party activist, Cathy Richardson, commented:
“Congressman Campbell is so out of touch. He recently failed to get his own County’s Republican endorsement mainly because he refuses to meet with his constituents or hold townhalls. Is he trying to tell us that he voted “no” on this bill so he wouldn’t feel further restricted to come talk to us? I don’t get it.”
The STOCK bill was originally introduced to the House in 2006 by Rep Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep Walz (D-MN). The bill languished in committee and ultimately was shelved. In Nov 2011, the CBS series 60 Minutes aired a story on potential insider trading abuses by members of Congress due to lax regulation and judicial precedent. This generated significant outrage by constituents. Members of Congress were already anxious as their approval ratings had plummeted to 11%. They hurried to resurrect the original bill in an attempt to rehabilitate their reputations. The original bill had only 9 sponsors but the second time around 140 members rushed to sign as sponsors. That number has grown to 286 sponsors to date.
But there will be no easy resolution in the Senate. Sen. Burr (R-NC) also opposed STOCK. He stated current law already covers members of Congress. He went on to explain this process was a waste of time when attention should have been focused on tax reform, energy issues and unemployment. Other members of the Senate are unhappy the amendments were removed.
The bill needs further action in the Senate before it can go to President Obama. It is currently stalled and Sen. Reid has admitted he may need to bypass a joint conference committee with the House and vote on the bill as amended by the House.
Note: Congressman Campbell’s endorsement issue will be covered in a future article.
Link to bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
Heritage Foundation’s Complete Analysis of STOCK Act: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/stock-act-and-gratuities-competing-visions-common-goal-to-address-government-corruption
Contact Congressman Campbell at (949) 756-2244 or through his website at http://www.campbell.house.gov/
Barbara Geerlings, Tea Party Patriots Citizen Journalist.
Huh?
The Senate bill – requiring legislators and their top aids to report transactions within 30 days – is a joke !! What about their families, all aids, all associates – as they, in all probability, have access to information not available to the public – the definition of insider trading.
And then, their “ethics code” states that “… such trading should not be done (forget the actual wording) …” —– but then specifically states that “… it is not illegal.” Disgusting
Wonder which controls – their eithics code or a ficitious law.
I don’t understand why you are against health care for all. Why should a person be denied life saving measures just beacuse they have a middle class or less income. Can you imagine watching your child die because you have spent all your assets and now the medicine and hospital care is withdrawn because you can’t pay. This is no longer a vision only for the poor, it is also a vision for what used to be the middle class. We can afford education and health care, we just stop giving career politicians huge benifits you and I don’t get and we stop spending 70% of our governmental budget on wars and those who get rich from the wars.
This is absolutely unrelated to the topic of this article but I will gladly respond: We want health care for all those who need it. We DO NOT want those who already have care to have theirs taken away. We want the CITIZENS to be in control, not government. Government is irresponsible and unaccountable. It would be better to allow greater competition and to give us back some of our money so we can make socially responsible buying and giving decisions that allow for private funding of services for the poor. And BTW…we already have Medicaid, state and local programs, community clinics and emergency rooms that must take care of anyone that goes in.
And also Sylvia, can you please tell me who told you 70% of our budget is spent on wars? Not that I’m for wars but that is clearly misinformation.
Sylvia is just blasting out blather and bleeding heart liberal crap. 70% of the budget on wars is just so much poppycock. Watching children die- some years ago there was a premie born without a brain to a woman in New York and the STATE paid hundreds of thousands to keep it alive until she could ‘cope with the loss’. The way liberals talk you would think half the polulation was dying in the streets. There are hospitals (St Jude is a prime exaample) and countless charities that help people with kids with medical problems. And that is how it SHOULD be handled- by tthe people not the state. There are community drives and fund raisers for locals with medical problems to help pay the massive bills. Get a life, Sylvia, the Federal government is NOT the answer to everrything, nor should it be.
Next time, read the heading and comment on the topic at hand, and try to quit blubbering.
I am not allowed to insider trade, and neither should you. i am not above the law, and neither should you be above the law. Remember you work for the people, they don’t work for you. Enough said. As Larry the Cableguy says, In regards to passage of the bill, “GET ER DONE”!!!!!!