It's been a half a month since "60 Minutes" ran a story on national TV: "Congress: Trading stock on inside information?" In that half a month, 90 U.S. Representatives in Congress have added their names to a Bill (H.R. 1148) Tim Walz, MN-01 introduced last March - including 21 GOPers. None of the now 99 Co-Sponsors (now including 22 GOPers) are named "Erik Paulsen, MN-03."
This bill really isn't controversial; what it would do is make it illegal for Members of Congress to make security trades (stocks, etc) based on information gained in the performance of their official duties- it would make illegal the same kind of behavior that landed, for instance, Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of ENRON infamy seats behind the defendant's table in a Courtroom.
This bill would make illegal behavior by Members of Congress that already is illegal for virtually everyone else.
So, what's Paulsen's excuse for not signing on? As best as I can tell, his only public statement was released through a representative a week ago (Nov. 18th):
Referring to hearings scheduled in the House to look into the issue, Rep. Erik Paulsen's spokesman Tom Erickson wrote, "To operate effectively, Congress must have the trust of the American people. Erik supports disclosure and is looking forward to hearing what the bipartisan Financial Services Committee thinks." (mpr.org)
Except don't expect any hearings from that "bi-partisan" committee any time soon. Even though the Committee chair, GOPer Spencer Bachus, sent a letter to Ranking Member Barney Frank on November 17th stating it was "his intention" to schedule a hearing on December 6th, the committee's website doesn't list a hearing - and a press release from the committee on November 22nd doesn't have the bill on the schedule for the week of December 12th.
Walz' Bill currently has 99 co-sponsors - including one Republican Member of that Financial Services Committee - Walter Jones from North Carolina. Rep. Jones co-sponsored well over a month before the "60 Minutes" story broke. Over a half a month after the story broke, Paulsen hasn't - and if he's waiting for a hearing (that may or may not happen) to decide to co-sponsor a bill that would require the Congress to be like virtually everyone that isn't in Congress, he might be waiting a long time.
Here's what Brian Barnes, who is seeling the DFL endorsement to challenge Paulsen next November, had to say:
“It’s been a week and a half since the representative’s office promised Minnesotans that Erik Paulsen is determined to help Congress ‘operate effectively.’ But to date, he hasn’t been willing to lend his support to Tim Walz’s STOCK Act, a bill that would prevent members of Congress from engaging in the type of insider trading that would land businesspeople in jail.
“Ninety-nine members of the House of Representatives have signed on as supporters of this important legislation—including some of the chamber’s most liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.
“I wish I could say I’m shocked that Rep. Paulsen hasn’t joined this bi-partisan group of lawmakers in doing the right thing, but I’m not. He hasn’t led in his nearly two-decade career in the Minnesota Legislature and the Congress. So it’s no surprise that he hasn’t done anything over the last 10 days to move the ball forward on the kind of transparency he claims to support.
“As usual, it’s all talk and no walk from a congressman who’s too busy cashing checks from Wall Street and awaiting marching orders from his Inside-the-Beltway handlers.”
I'm not shocked either.
When Paulsen announced to run for Congress, in January 2008, the very first line of his press release at that announcement read:
'Congress is broken, I will work to fix it.'
No, career-politician Erik Paulsen won't.
And his refusal to co-sponsor this bill is but one example. It's also an example of where Paulsen's loyalties lie: his Boardroom Base.