I mean, the whole point of the Revolution of 1776 was, among other things, to provide representation in government by the people and for the people.
Instead, what we have are laws that stick it to we the people in favor of select corrupt politicians (and in my book, if you're going to use laws to your benefit and then not allow your constituents whom you are supposed to be representing the same courtesy - you are corrupt).
For example:
1. Campaign Finance & Bribery
Citizens:
-
Bribing or receiving money for official acts is a federal felony (18 U.S.C. § 201).
-
Private citizens have been convicted and imprisoned for giving or receiving even small bribes.
Politicians:
-
Many accept massive campaign donations or “Super PAC” support from those seeking favorable policy.
-
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) made it nearly impossible to prosecute large-scale political donations as bribery.
-
The McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016) Supreme Court decision drastically narrowed what counts as an “official act” — making bribery cases against politicians almost impossible to win.
Why immune: lobbying and campaign donations are protected as “speech”; bribery laws are narrowly interpreted to protect politicians but are broadly interpreted when prosecuting everyone else.
3. Tax Evasion and Financial Disclosure
Citizens:
-
IRS aggressively pursues underreporting, false deductions, and unreported income.
-
Thousands are prosecuted yearly for tax evasion.
Politicians:
-
Members of Congress and high officials rarely face IRS audits.
-
Some have failed to disclose millions in stock trades, rental income, or gifts without criminal consequence (usually resolved with a fine or “amended filing”).
Why immune: disclosure violations are civil; IRS rarely audits sitting members; ethics committees are political, not judicial.
4. Obstruction of Justice / Perjury
Citizens:
-
Lying to the FBI, Congress, or courts = felony under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
-
Many citizens and government employees have been prosecuted for false statements.
Politicians:
-
Members of Congress or executive officials frequently give misleading or false testimony under oath with no prosecution (e.g., high-profile hearings).
-
Enforcement is inconsistent and usually requires the DOJ to prosecute itself or its political allies.
Why immune: political pressure; DOJ discretion; speech or debate clause.
5. Insider Trading
Citizens:
-
Regular investors are routinely prosecuted by the SEC and DOJ for trading on material, nonpublic information (MNPI).
-
Penalties: prison (up to 20 years), civil fines, disgorgement of profits, and permanent bans from trading.
Politicians:
-
Members of Congress have received briefings with MNPI (e.g., COVID-19 briefings before market crashes).
-
Despite clear suspicious trades, no member has ever been convicted under the STOCK Act or Securities Exchange Act.
Why immune: difficult to prove “nonpublic” and “intent” elements; political pressure; Congress regulates itself.
It's to this last one that I base my claim because it seems that Congress (you know, the group(s) that is supposed to be representing we the people?) purposely makes laws that secretly include loopholes to help politicians evade prosecution.
As this all relates to Congressional insider trading, while politicians in the U.S. are not techically exempt from insider trading laws, because enforcement is extremely weak (and taking into account the many, MANY loopholes that politicians are aware of and take advantage of), prosecution is nearly impossible in practice.
Here’s a breakdown of why this happens.
The Act explicitly affirmed that Members of Congress, their staff, and executive officials are subject to insider trading laws. It required disclosure of trades within 45 days and it prohibited the use of nonpublic information gained through official position for personal gain.
BUT...
Congress quietly weakened the Act in 2013 — removing the online disclosure database and softening transparency requirements (remember the part about the loopholes?). Consequently, enforcement was left to federal prosecutors and the SEC, who almost never (note the NEVER part) pursue these cases.There have been a few notable cases where the DOJ investigate insider trading by Congressional "leaders," like:
Sen. Richard Burr (R–NC): As Senate Intelligence Chair, Burr received private briefings about the emerging coronavirus threat. Consequently, he sold major holdings days after those briefings and before markets collapsed.
- Date of Trades: February 13, 2020 — just before the U.S. stock market crash caused by COVID-19 fears.
- Value of Trades: Between $628,000 and $1.72 million in 33 separate transactions.
The DOJ investigated but declined to prosecute.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): In March 2020, Feinstein came under scrutiny for stock sales shortly before the market crashed due to COVID-19. Feinstein was one of them.
- Date of Trades: January–February 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Value of Trades: Estimated between $1.5 million and $6 million in Allogene Therapeutics stock (a biotech company).
The DOJ investigated but declined to prosecute (though Feinstein offered to pay a small civil fine - usually up to $50,000, (though the exact amount was not reported publicly).
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA): accused of selling stocks shortly after attending a closed-door Senate Health Committee briefing on COVID-19 (January 24, 2020), during which public officials warned about the virus’s likely impact.
- Date of Trades: January 31 – February 14, 2020 (more than two dozen additional transactions took place over these two weeks.
- Value of Trades: Estimated total trades: 27 separate transactions, worth between $1.3 million and $3.1 million.
The DOJ investigated but declined to prosecute.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): In late January 2020, following a closed-door Senate briefing (led by Trump administration officials) about the emerging risks of COVID-19, Inhofe sold off significant stock holdings just before the market dropped sharply.
- Date of Trade: January 27, 2020
- Value of Trade: Roughly $395,000 to $850,000 worth of stocks in multiple companies, including Apple, PayPal, Brookfield Asset Management, etc.
The DOJ investigated by declined to prosecute.
Can you see the running theme, here?
- Banning members of Congress and their spouses from holding, trading, or purchasing individual stocks.
- Allowing investments in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, or U.S. Treasury bonds.
- Requiring lawmakers to divest from individual stocks within 180 days of the bill's enactment or within 180 days of taking office.
- Applying the ban to future presidential administrations
What is particulary interesting about the Honest Act is that it does have some particularly sharp teeth in the way of penalties if/when Congressional "leaders" violate it, such as:
- Daily fines: Fines of $1,000 or more per day that a violation continues.
- Forfeiture of profits: Disgorgement of any profits made from prohibited investments.
- Increased penalties: Higher fines for failing to make required disclosures under the STOCK Act.
- Forfeiture of assets: The potential loss of assets or property involved in a violation.
- Criminal penalties: Prison time and larger fines, as specified by criminal statutes
...Buuuuut none of these bills have passed - yet (as of 2025).
So, teeth or no, odds are none of these bills will pass committees or even make it to the desk of the POTUS to be signed.
The bottom line is this: Where countless ordinary citizens are prosecuted while no politician has ever faced charges for insider trading strongly suggests that the insider trading “rules” for Congress are weak and effectively unenforceable in practice on purpose.
Essentially, what's good for thee is not for me
The failure of government to police itself demonstrates systemic bias, structural loopholes, and political protection, rather than any lack of wrongdoing by the politicians themselves...and it's well past time to change all this.
So, let's hope Sen. Hawley has the cojones (and the Republicans can get out their own way long enough) to get the "Honest" Act passed into law.
No comments:
Post a Comment