Skip to main content

View Diary: Pres Obama Signs Bill Killing Anti-Corruption, Pro-Transparency STOCK Act Provisions (284 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you think disclosing public employees' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy

    private information is going to make them more likely or less likely to leave the government for the private sector?

    "Politics is what we do, politics is what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope for and what we dare to imagine." -Paul Wellstone

    by WellstoneDem on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 05:39:17 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If they can't be transparent about their (15+ / 0-)

      $$$$$ dealings,they should not be in government. Or do you think those 28 former staffers of Baucus' becoming lobbyists is a good thing ?

      "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

      by tardis10 on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 05:54:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As someone who (14+ / 0-)

      has worked in education I am subjected to back round checks by the DOI, and DOE, mandated to get TB vaccinations every year, keep my finger prints registered with two different federal databases, maintain a clean drivers license, and report any altercation including misdemeanor infractions to the DOE.

      If public employees are hesitant to reveal their finances then they have no business in serving the public.

      You know - that whole think about getting Mitt Romney to reveal his tax returns that was on the front page constantly for several months? Same deal.

      President Obama would have been a republican in the 1980's & 1990's. Go figure.

      by Tool on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 05:57:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you give up all rights to privacy by serving in (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic, otto, virginislandsguy

        the public sector? That's ridiculous.

        Plus, high level civil servants already have to report financial information, its just not searchable by the public at large.

        And regarding the steps you've had to take: those are completely different than a mandate to disclose your private financial information to everyone in the world and effectively set yourself up for identity theft. Public employees already have to do all those things you've listed, plus others, in order to maintain clearances.

        "Politics is what we do, politics is what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope for and what we dare to imagine." -Paul Wellstone

        by WellstoneDem on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 06:06:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  disclosing financial interests (15+ / 0-)

          to assure the public that you're operating in the public's interest and not some private pay-off now or later, is not "giving up all rights to privacy" -- that's an extremist way to respond to a reasonable request that public officials disclose financial interests that we have the right to examine and assure the public interest is being upheld.

          Instead of being such a fatalist, you should understand the public is a little tired of being "revolving door'd" and having our trust bought and sold by worms like Liz Fowler.

          Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

          by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 06:10:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. (9+ / 0-)

          It is not ridiculous. It is not high level civil servants that I am paralytically concerned about. It is the multitudes of staffers and the revolving door between congressional offices and lobbying institutions. One of the things this bill was supposed to address.

          If companies are allowed to discriminate against hiring people because they are currently unemployed or have bad credit - similarly we should know and deny employment to people who work solely for the special interest groups and somehow always manage to find those key staffing positions in congressional offices.

          If it hurts to have light shined on it. Maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

          Isn't that what we were told over the continuation of warrant less wireless surveillance?

          President Obama would have been a republican in the 1980's & 1990's. Go figure.

          by Tool on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 06:14:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Am i the only one (8+ / 0-)

            Who sees the irony of this bill that was clearly written, pushed, etc. by staffers protects the biggest obstacle to public integrity and transparency --- the corruption of staffers!!

            I had really held out hope when I saw this story pop up last week that Obama would have the balls to veto. But unfortunately he just did a closed-door signing :(

            Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

            by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 06:22:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Precisely (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            otto

            The online database needs to be limited to people at a sufficiently high level that no identity thief in his right mind would risk the attention he'd draw by trying to exploit their info.

            On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

            by stevemb on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 06:30:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's useless if it isn't searchable by the public (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Woody, mrkvica, angel d, Tool, aliasalias, aguadito

          at large.

          This is about our ability to know when half of a Senators staff have all invested in a Company whose interests that Senator is trying to promote.

          We don't need the stock-holding class anywhere near Washington, btw.  The place would be vastly improved if the 2% of the public that owns more than 10,000 in stock would stay the fuck out.

          dEar Ellois: U send Fud down holez, we no eaTz u. That iz deAl. No forget. MooRlockz Haz 2 eats. Stoopid Elloiz.

          by JesseCW on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:49:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see the logic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rscopes, Lying eyes

        We don't ask everyone who is subject to a background check to reveal their financial information to the public in a searchable database.  

        Streichholzschächtelchen

        by otto on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 06:58:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Most people subject to a background check (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Woody, aguadito, mrkvica, angel d, Tool, aliasalias

          have nothing like the power of the top advisors to Harry Reid.

          I do have to ask - if this is such a concern, why is it that not single person in here defending the gutting of the STOCK act had a single complaint about any ones privacy back when the original version was signed?

          dEar Ellois: U send Fud down holez, we no eaTz u. That iz deAl. No forget. MooRlockz Haz 2 eats. Stoopid Elloiz.

          by JesseCW on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:52:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

            I was responding to someone else.  Did you read the original comment?  The context would have let you in on the point I was making.  

            If a teacher has to have a background check and be tested for TB, it is in no way relative to my opinion on who in govt should be required to post their financial information online in a searchable database.  

            They are unconnected ideas.  I'm sure you can appreciate that.  

            Streichholzschächtelchen

            by otto on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:57:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I look forward to seeing your many comments (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              condemning the horrible abuse of privacy that was the STOCK act in its original form, and expressing your profound displeasure with Obama for having signed it.

              dEar Ellois: U send Fud down holez, we no eaTz u. That iz deAl. No forget. MooRlockz Haz 2 eats. Stoopid Elloiz.

              by JesseCW on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:08:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  My point was (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              and perhaps I was not clear in expressing this, is that many teachers are already threatened by different state governments with termination if they do not disclosure their personal fiances.  If states are (and have) been attempting to coerce teachers to disclose, given the level of backround checks and corporate race to the bottom standardized tests placed on them, why can we not expect that from people who work directly with our legislators?

                This is from Michigan after the emergency managers law was passed.

              Is it that much that asking the people who feel like they can steam roll over public employees be subjected to the same standards they are advocating for? I don't understand what sort of conflict of interest, or business it is to see a teachers personal financial records, but I can surely imagine that I'd love to see who is paying the members of congressional staffers and what sort of investments they have.

              President Obama would have been a republican in the 1980's & 1990's. Go figure.

              by Tool on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 12:57:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  If they're ashamed of where they invest (5+ / 0-)

      their money, they ought to leave.

      dEar Ellois: U send Fud down holez, we no eaTz u. That iz deAl. No forget. MooRlockz Haz 2 eats. Stoopid Elloiz.

      by JesseCW on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:47:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site