On the Down-Low

A few months back, I did a blog on insider trading at the Congressional level and I uncovered something suspicious.

The whole idea behind stopping Congressional "leaders" from conducting stock trades while in office is because they have access to non-public information on which they make their trades/money.  

Case in point would be how Pelosi made her millions.  With an annual salary of $174,000, Pelosi was still able to score a 54% increase in net worth in 2024 out performing the S&P 500's 25% gain during the same period!

I think, though, that Rep. Ilhan Oman might have Pelosi beat.  In 2019, Ms. Oman's net worth was a NEGATIVE $45,000. 

In a recent financial disclosure report for Rep. Ilhan Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, it was shown that their joint net worth was valued between approximately $6 million and $30 million. This represents a significant increase, with some estimates citing a 3,500% surge from the previous year's filing for the relevant assets.

So, yeah, politicians are filthy liars if they say they are not engaging in insider trading or are otherwise dealing in some under the table shenanigans.

But this is not the point of this blog.

In 2012, Congress passed the Stock Act (i.e. the "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012"). The Stock Act was passed to prevent insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees.

It required:

• Lawmakers and many high-level executive officials to publicly post their financial disclosure reports online (in a searchable, downloadable database).

• Post regular updates about stock trades and financial transactions.

• Deliver greater transparency to help the public monitor potential conflicts of interest.

This would have been great but for the fact that in 2013 (little over a year after the Stock Act was signed into law), Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced Senate Bill ("SB") 716 during the 113th Congress (2013–2014).  What SB 716 did was:

1. Eliminated the requirement that the financial disclosure forms of about 28,000 senior federal officials be posted online in a publicly searchable database.

2. Delayed, then repealed, the implementation of that online disclosure requirement.

3. Limited online disclosure to only the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and candidates — not to staff or most executive branch employees.

Text summary from Congress.gov:

“S.716 modifies the STOCK Act by eliminating the requirement for the online posting of financial disclosure forms for executive branch employees and judicial officers, and for making those forms available to the public through an online searchable database.”

I mean, they say all this with such finesse like it's no big deal.  Well, it's no big deal if you're a politician looking at having to be transparent with the people who elected you.  For we the people who go to jail if we so much as not declare 50 cents to the IRS, it's a HUGE deal!

Essentially, SB 716 de-fanged the Stock Act's key provisions.

What is missing from this scenario is that Congress did all this backdoor legislation using a sneaky procedural rule called UNANIMOUS CONSENT ("UC").  

UC refers to a procedural agreement that allows the House of Representatives or the Senate to expedite action by bypassing formal rules—as long as no member objects.

 

So, why might Congress use UC for seemingly insignificant measures.  There are a few political and structural reasons:

• Avoiding accountability:
  UC avoids roll call votes. No one has to go on record, which shields members from criticism later.

• Preserving Senate “efficiency”:
  Leadership prefers UC to avoid days of floor debate — especially when the bill appears harmless.

• Optics management:
  Some controversial bills are rushed through UC when leadership wants to minimize media coverage or public awareness (as with S. 716).

• Collegial courtesy:
  Senators often grant UC as a favor to colleagues, even when the underlying issue might deserve deeper scrutiny.

So, on April 11, 2013, BOTH the House and Senate agreed to push this amendment to the Stock Act and get signed by POTUS Obama on the same day.  

Do you realize how impossible it is to get a bill passed by both houses AND be signed by the POTUS on the SAME DAY?!?!?

I queried Chatgpt on the topic and it said:

I could not find a reliable source that gives a complete count of how many times in the last 50 years a bill was introduced, passed by both houses, and signed into law (by the POTUS (who, at the time, was obama) on the very same day. Such cases are very rare, and I found at least one example (S. 716 in 2013) but no comprehensive record. 

I mean, Congress really, REALLY wanted this bill to pass without a hitch in the worst way - and I really wonder why?

While any Congressperson will tell you that SB 716 was a small and insignificant amendment, it had HUGE implications all because they were able to ram it through using the unanimous consent procedure.

The problem with the usage of UC is that it presents a number of problems.  If nothing else, what’s “small” to Congress may be huge to citizens.  Other issues to note when Congress employs UC include:

• Your right to see what your representatives are doing (transparency laws),

• How your taxes are spent (appropriations and relief bills),

• Your rights and privacy (surveillance, judicial, or defense acts),

• Or how government power is distributed (administrative and procedural changes).

After going through this, I got to wondering if there were other small/insignificant bills that were ramrodded through Congress like SB 716.

Turns out, there are/were, like:

So, why does any of this matter?  

Well, by allowing technical details to pass by unopposed, democratic accountability is weakened when decisions are made without public record or discussion.  

When UC is employed, public trust erodes when Congress passes self-serving or complex measures quietly.

Finally, transparency advocates (like OpenSecrets, Sunlight Foundation, and CRS analysts) have warned for years that UC is both a procedural convenience and a cloak of invisibility.

Of course, when looking at transparency and Congresses lack of any transparency, I hear the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi when describing the boondoggle of what was to become the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare):  

"We have to pass the bill," she said, "so that you can find out  what is in it."

If that isn't the gist of all things NON-transparent, nothing is.

Bottom line: as long as Congress is able (and willing) to ramrod any legislation with procedures like Unanimous Consent, there is no way we the people can trust that what they are doing is in anyone's best interest - except their own.