(06-07-2019, 03:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(06-07-2019, 12:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: You're right.
But these are two separate problems.
If we want them to be satisfied with their salaries, rather than seeking more and more big donations, they need good salaries, public financing of campaigns, and a ban on private spending for campaigns.  These are all complicated things with their own pitfalls of course.

If we want to stop insider trading, we just need to hold them to the same standards of disclosure that we hold SEC staff to.

All of the above requires amending the Constitution, sadly.

Don't want to amend it? Then you probably shouldn't complain about these things.

It doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment at all.  It only requires that the Congress pass enforceable rules on insider trading.

Constitutional amendments are hard but technically possible.
Enforceable rules on insider trading?  I don't think we can logically get any tougher than we are, already.  If you permit public trading, you are permitting the possibility that some of the trading is taking place based on access to privileged information.  Now you have to prove that the person actually knew the information and based their decision to trade on that information.  These things are hard to prove.  When it's provable, it is prosecuted.  It's usually not provable.  We are already being as harsh as we possibly can be, I'm afraid. And I should amend what I said above: what we currently impose on SEC employees doesn't seem to work - a lot of journalists are saying SEC employees are also on the take.

No, probably the only way to get tougher is to pre-emptively freeze the assets of those with access to this kind of privileged information.  
You could probably impose that on SEC employees without a constitutional amendment.  And you could technically impose it on members of Congress, but those same members would be able to lift it quite easily, unless it was a constitutional amendment.

---