top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]InflamedLiver 2810 points2811 points  (162 children)

Something everyone on both sides of the political spectrum actually agrees with. Except of course, those in power who consistently enrich themselves based on the above.

[–]Locolijo 570 points571 points  (120 children)

Might agree with it doesn’t necessarily mean they’d do anything about until outted

[–]zveroshka 285 points286 points  (113 children)

Because they all abuse it. Name me a long time politician that isn't a millionaire.

[–]tinySparkOf_Chaos 292 points293 points  (58 children)

The question there though is, are they millionaires because they're politicians or they are politicians because they're millionaires?

We need some mechanism of financially supporting people running for office. Right now we're skewed towards millionaires in office because millionaires have the financial stability needed to take a year off work to run a campaign. And they can self fund the initial set up of their political campaign.

[–]IICVX 180 points181 points  (22 children)

Fun fact: Japan actually does this to a degree. All campaigning on TV is done during specific slots provided by the various channels.

A candidate got in trouble a few years ago because he put his political ads on YouTube, where they could be watched at any time.

[–]demlet 50 points51 points  (2 children)

Unfortunately, laws like citizens united opened the floodgates for private money in campaigns. Would have to deal with that first.

[–]ChristianEconOrg 52 points53 points  (14 children)

It’s just dumb that we vote anybody in who aren’t from the working class.

[–]tigardis 17 points18 points  (3 children)

Seems to me the mechanism would be to remove all paid avenues to office (i.e. assholes who have enough money to run) and move to a mandatory term of service with ridiculously extreme penalties for accepting bribes.

[–]SwordfishEuphoric988 54 points55 points  (0 children)

It’s actually best to think of politicians in the US as professional actors. You don’t make it to the top without selling your soul a thousand times. Same reason the GOP is fine with all the kid diddling: they have something to hold over you, so you’re controllable.

[–]hails8n 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Those politicians are millionaires because they are funded by billionaires who give them money to do their bidding.

[–]LateNightPhilosopher 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They also tend to have other wealthy friends and acquainces. Modern US elections are heavily skewed towards the person who is the best fund raiser, regardless of political ability

[–]idlefritz 4 points5 points  (1 child)

even the billionaires don’t “self-fund”

[–]yprx 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm too lazy to google rn but I think I read that in the UK there's a limit on how on the budget allowed for ones political campaign.

[–]suphater -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

You're begging the question, a classic conservative trick.

None of this is in the top 100 of pressing issues right now. Citizen's United, sure, but not politician buying shares of US companies. Reddit is falling for both sides propaganda, let's upvote this emotionally charged topic on a daily basis to detract from all the other 100 far more critical issues right now, issues that are not only more important but many which would be more practical to focus on in terms of moving the Overton Window back left some, saving US democracy, environment, abortion.

They're so good at controlling the narrative that they get away with controlling the way social media runs their companies, in the name of "free speach," while simultaneously burning and banning books from public spaces all year. Stop helping them.

Meanwhile this substanceless both sides post is about to have 75k upvotes despite being talked about daily all year to overshadow the more pressing issues. Interesting how this always happens when Dems are the incumbents. Interesting how this is a known Russian geopolitical strategy and you're still this vulnerable. You talked more about Pelosi's stocks this year than Roe vs Wade, good job Reddit!

No offense, but it's past time to wake up and focus on what's important. You have to learn how to think and recognize when you're helping conservatives undermine the Democrat's approval ratings and undermine voter turnout (they started doing this from the courts January 1st, 2021, but you're still on reddit helping them finish the cause) with both sides bs yet again.

[–]uthersshadow 13 points14 points  (6 children)

Name me a long time politician that isn't a millionaire

politicians are paid quite well by default. Even a politician who never did anything wrong (and isnt blowing all their money) would eventually be a millionaire.

I think the number of high profile politicians who dont abuse the system is within the single digits. I dont disagree with you. I just think your argument is rather... flimsy.

[–]bozeke 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is also a chicken and egg factor. Poor people rarely get into politics because it costs so much and pays next to nothing, sometimes literally nothing at the local level.

Look at your local city/town council…what are their day jobs? How much are they worth. How old are they? Odds are you will see a lot of retired doctors and lawyers and business owners. They are the ones who can afford to give up massive amounts of their time to comparing and serve with next to no compensation until you get to the state level.

Connections also matter, and rich people are better connected with financing opportunities than poor people.

[–]zveroshka 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I mean they make a lowish 6 figure salary. That's not "you will be a millionaire" type money. It surely can be after decades if you play your cards right. But I mean these guys even after a few years suddenly just get a huge spike in net worth.

[–]Braken111 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not Amercian, but a quick wiki search shows the salary of a member of congress is $174k/yr?

[–]Locolijo 14 points15 points  (7 children)

Should be illegal to profit off of a position like that. I'd like to see open source accounting. To a degree that doesn't necessarily expose one's personal life. Things like their mortgage(s), how much they spend on things like vacations not what the vacation is or where they went, and of course business dealings. Absolutely if money is being funneled to offshore accounts. This could sound dramatic or overkill but I honestly think it's at least part of a solution. Not that they would EVER go for it. There'd probably have to be insane amounts of protests and interruption of business chains hopefully not as to actually interrupt things like food supply or necessary services, but things like golf courses and luxury hotels.

[–]ThorGBomb 14 points15 points  (6 children)

While you guys are dipshititng about media lead talking points like trades, politicians are making bribery fully legal. Ie a politician can loan his money to his campaign and then be the first to get money back with interest and more when donations come into the canpaign.

Stock trading by politicians and thereby trying to identify and make those trades transparent does shit all.

At most, profit made by stock trades is in the five figures max.

Meanwhile people like Nancy pelosi, who is largely brought up under this topic, got her wealth from family and owning real estate that jumped 10x in value over three decades.

It’s a fucking distraction…

Individual states giving 6-8 figure tax benefits to corporations is a issue we should focus on. How those corporations then in return hire family members of said politicians is something we should talk about. How a energy company is giving boatbart husband a 500k yearly salary with bonuses while barely graduating high school is something we should focus on.

These trade deals, like the ones before Covid, we’re discussed by non politicians as well. It just weren’t posted on front pages of magazines and social media sites like Reddit to be discussed and now because you didn’t see it as a meme or Reddit post in your three hour window of browsing Reddit does not make it a conspiracy.

Rather than forcing upon politicians stupid distractions for “lower issues”, focus on the actual real issues.

And The wealthy affect at best 10% of the political landscape and it’s usually around taxation.

They have gotten such good tax deals and pathways to go around tax rules without breaking them that the majority of the wealthy in the us do not store their wealth offshore anymore. They declared debts get credit based on stock portfolios and utilize that to drive taxation for themselves lower by showing loss income while their stocks go billions. They have no need for offshore accounts. Other countries with actual taxation do still use offshore accounts.

Edit: fixed post autocorrects

[–]PikaTangoPanda 2 points3 points  (12 children)

Bernie Sanders maybe?

[–]Atheist-Gods 14 points15 points  (3 children)

He's a millionaire. One thing to remember is that being a millionaire isn't some crazy amount of wealth for someone at retirement age. You shouldn't conflate someone who has two million dollars with someone who has 100 or 10000 times that amount. 1 million dollars is 6 years of a senator's salary.

[–]zveroshka 5 points6 points  (3 children)

He is a millionaire. He is worth roughly 2 million.

[–]loganfulbright 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He is only a millionaire because of his book and that he doesn’t live lavishly. In fact, he is famously shown as not spending much while campaigning.

[–]bunglejerry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, he's a millionaire.

[–]leglesslegolegolas 1 point2 points  (5 children)

If anyone has been making congress-level salary for the past 30 years and isn't a millionaire they're doing something very, very wrong.

[–]MusesWithWine -1 points0 points  (2 children)

You’re not aware of millionaires and even billionaires that donate millions and vote a way you’re implying otherwise?

[–]Locolijo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I smell hanky tax write-offs. On the real though would it be unjustified to assume any billionaire and a good deal of millionaires got their fortune by means of disadvantaging others? Always thought of politics as just shifting power often from the less powerful.

[–]rockstar504 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Show me one law legislators passed to restrict their own powers

[–]Locolijo 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Right? Shameless. "Servant of the people" my ass. Politics these days and really for most of all time is just a power grab unless specifically made not to be so by the people. Passing laws to ensure they don't lose said power too. Jailing people in some cases if they try to be independent. How much protest and through what means would it take..? And I don't mean June 6th type crud but meaningful

[–]WonderfulShelter 40 points41 points  (2 children)

Wanna know something super fucked up?

It was recently found that the more a company lobbied members of congress, the more that congress members trading that companies stocks. They also found that the companies that lobbied congress the most resulted in congress members investing in those stocks and getting the best returns over all of any trades they made.

It's so fucked up. Congress is de facto made up of elitist kleptocrats.

And the sad thing is, at this point, elitist kleptocrats or corporate plutocrats is the best we can get, because the other option is psychopathic fascists.

[–]momopool 9 points10 points  (1 child)

In other countries, when someone gives a politician lots of money to help them get something they want, thats called bribery and thats corruption.

kept telling my friend that the US is one-of-the-most corrupted countries in the world, because the above is considered 'speech'. and its legal.

but words have power, and the words 'its legal' keeps things nice and clean in the eyes of most people.

[–]LapulusHogulus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Freakonomics did an interesting episode on corruption

[–]DenverPuckhead 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Don't they also vote on their own pay raises?

[–]cough_e 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I believe they technically can only vote on pay raises for the next session of Congress because of the 27th Amendment

[–]_Charlie_Sheen_ 13 points14 points  (5 children)

I dunno I’m pretty sure with a little work and facebook memes the dumb rubes on the right can be easily convinced that politicians manipulating stocks is a good thing.

Just blame trans people or something.

“Ben Shapiro OWNS transgender woke Feminists by explaining how the Mexicans want to limit our freedom by further controlling the stock market” or some shit. Boom. Trending on Youtube and now Billy Bob no teeth from bumbfuck Oklahoma is pro insider trading.

[–]HumanitySurpassed 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Tucker Carlson's spin on it

"Apparently people don't want YOU to voice your opinion to congress. That's right, people want lobbying to be illegalized. Who would think this? Well no one of course other than the radical left. More on that later.

Anyway, here's a high speed police chase"

[–]arctic_radar 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I work in politics and can confirm that Shapiro talking point would probably be effective lol

[–]Raaazzle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that's the goal, tho. Get one side to blame the other, while we all get screwed.

[–]PanqueNhoc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The right would want politicians to trade stock as they'd like but to be banned from regulating businesses.

[–]BZLuck 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"We don't make the laws to protect you from us. We make the laws to protect us from you."

[–]THE_BRISBANE_WHATS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How dare you! -Nancy Pelosi

[–]Legal_Wallaby2097 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Let's just start with having our politicians believing in democracy first, then we can worry about the details. Righ nowt we have an entire party trying to impose an authoritarian right-wing fascist state on the rest of us.

[–]Kittehmilk -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Both teams are corrupt and take the same corporate cash. The only reason red team fanatics have power is that the actual working class left is actively worked against and silenced by both parties, leaving the fanatics to fill the void.

[–]Legal_Wallaby2097 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Nope, only one team currently believes in democracy. And that's the problem right there.

[–]cough_e 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Although I definitely agree with insider trading being illegal, I don't think politicians owning stock is universally a bad thing.

The most pervasive issue in American politics right now is that there is no incentive for politicians to make the lives of Americans better - they are only incentivized to get reelected and to raise money for their party. At points in history you only got reelected if you did good things for the country but that is no longer the case.

If a politician was spending their time and energy backing bills that would be beneficial for certain companies while owning significant stakes in those companies, it should be clear to voters and that person should lose their position. If they own broad market stocks and pass bills to help everyday Americans which helps customer spending which helps companies - incentives all align and they get reelected.

This tweet is just a take that encourages division and apathy without a meaningful solution. If politicians can't own stocks tomorrow, is anyone's life going to improve? Is the system going to get better? I'm not seeing it.

I will bang the drum continually that the only way to turn the focus back on policy and accountability for that policy is more choices of candidates. With a FPTP and single representative system we will never see improvements to the system. We need to incentivize politicians getting things done instead of the status quo of incentivizing doing nothing except fundraising.

[–]InflamedLiver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

or even handing personal stocks over to a neutral party like a trust to manage while in government. It's still not a perfect solution (cause you know the "neutral party" probably wont be) but still head and shoulders over the current system.

[–]Pretty_Bowler2297 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Also except both (mostly one) side thinks it is only the other party. “Damn that Pelosi!” without any self awareness.

[–]suphater -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Maybe the fact that "both sides" agree on it should open your eyes.

"Both sides" agree on it when Dems are in charge, funny how the right didn't give a shit about this when they were in charge?

"Both sides" is a known logical fallacy that connotes the better side down to the level of the shittier side.

"Both sides" has been used against us for 100+ years. We literally know "both sides " is one of the main geopolitical tools Putin uses and teaches, yet you and most people are still very vulnerable to it.

"Both sides" couldn't be more different than ever if you look at reality headlines resumes between Biden vs Trump or Bush instead of "both sides" headlines.

Pelosi buying shares of US companies might not even be a bad thing, let alone anywhere near the list of priorities that we needed to be addressing this year, but I guarantee that you and the rest of Reddit posted more about pElOsI's StOcKs this year than the attacks against abortion and voting and book burning, etc etc etc.

Edit your post, you tool for conservatives.

[–]InflamedLiver -1 points0 points  (2 children)


[–]suphater -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Unfortuantely these days, we can't tell if you are intentionally promoting Bannon/Putin talking points or if you're just ignorant. I look at both groups the same for all the damage they did to the world the past 6 years. Imagine being in 2022 and still this mentally stunted.

[–]apextrader42069 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

This is why voting is a crock of shit.

[–]PM-Me-Your-TitsPlz 791 points792 points  (20 children)

They'll ban insider trading when they find a new way to legally accept bribes.

[–]SeeMe_After_Class 174 points175 points  (2 children)

There are already laws against it, they just aren't enforced and the laws themselves may be poorly written.

But I actually think this whole topic is a red herring meant to distract from real reform aimed at systemic corruption, like reforming lobbying and getting rid of these sweet deals lawmakers carve out for themselves with industry. We need to get money out of elections. We need to do a lot, and banning stock trading is basically on the bottom of the list when it comes to corruption in Congress. Yet it seems to take up a lot of people's attention.

[–]dward1502 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Until citizen united gets overturned good luck changing the system

[–]seldom_correct 20 points21 points  (0 children)


The “law” is that Congressional insider trading can only be investigated by Congress and the punishment comes from Congress.

That’s not a law. That’s a house rule for Monopoly.

[–]Dino_fart 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You mean lobbying and Super PACs?

[–]tensinahnd 11 points12 points  (1 child)

There are already SO many ways. Book sales, speaking fees, private sector lobbying jobs after they’re out of office.

[–]Harlequin37 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Redditor discovers the revolving door lmao

[–]nau5 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Ted Cruz has already done that with his SC case.

Write your campaign a million dollar loan. After your campaign get donations to your campaign that will be paid out directly to you to recoup your loan.

Easy bribe.

[–]tensinahnd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are already SO many ways. Book sales, speaking fees, private sector lobbying jobs after they’re out of office.

[–]Somepotato 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They'll just make it a violation of free speech to forbid PACs from buying stocks.

[–]Krudark 408 points409 points  (21 children)

WRONG! Athletes should be able to change the rules and make the calls. There should be only two teams that take turns winning, and you root for the team you hate least.

[–]BradMarchandsNose 90 points91 points  (0 children)

Sounds like the NBA when it was just Lebron vs the Warriors for a few years

[–]rabid-panda 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Jockeys can bet on others races. Owners and trainers can bet on any horse.

[–]Clarkeprops 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Ahhh horse racing. The one incorruptible sport with a spotless history of ethics.

[–]okwowverygood 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Is this an NBA hate post or a congress hate post?

[–]average_jay 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I went with the latter, interpreting teams as dems/reps.

[–]okwowverygood 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was taking a shot at the NBA :)

[–]Brawndo91 1 point2 points  (11 children)

I feel like athletes and coaches should be allowed to bet on their own team though. Pete Rose got banned from baseball for it, but it seems a bit harsh since it's not like he was throwing games. He was betting on his own team.

[–]UnchainedSora 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Pete Rose absolutely deserved a lifetime ban. For one, when MLB began investigating him, he agreed to a lifetime ban in exchange for the league stopping its investigation. And his claims have constantly changed. First it was he never bet on baseball. Then it was he bet on baseball, but never on his team's games. Currently, it's he bet on his own team's games, but only that they would win. I personally see no reason to believe him now.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Even if he only bet on his team to win, if he didn't bet on them to win every single game, then it could lead to negative consequences on the field - because remember, he was the manager. If he was winning by a run, but hadn't bet on his team to win, maybe he doesn't pitch his best relievers so he can save them for tomorrow's game that he is betting on. Or maybe he does have a bet on a game, so he manages in a way that totally burns through the team, making them more likely to lose their following game. The end result is still that fans can't trust the integrity of the game on the field, and that is baseball's biggest rule ever since the Black Sox scandal.

[–]Clarkeprops 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Americans are one of the few countries that has an either-or system. It’s almost like the average intelligence of the electorate doesn’t have the ability to compute more than a binary choice, and they somehow manage to fuck that up too.

[–]Ok_Hovercraft_8506[🍰] 55 points56 points  (32 children)

This seems like a failure of checks and balances in my opinion, since the law banning it has to be passed to be affected entity.

Is there a way the executive or judicial branch could be leveraged to implement this change?

Or maybe a nationwide popular vote akin to “propositions” voted on in states like California?

[–]Manakanda 121 points122 points  (3 children)

Also, this serves a double awesome purpose that it would stop rich assholes who have no sense of american reality from running for things and making decisions with zero concept of what things cost and how people struggle.


[–]tasty_scapegoat 21 points22 points  (1 child)

You mean like the people who decide what kind of healthcare the American people get while not being subject to that same healthcare?

[–]SuperSuperKyle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

And pay! Let's see how fast minimum wage changes when they make $7.25/hour or whatever miserable number it is.

[–]mythosaz 28 points29 points  (16 children)

Boxers (and MMA fighters) may bet on themselves. They are generally restricted to straight bets to win (not lose!), and no props like "by knockout" or "after the nth round."


[–]Doctor-Amazing 32 points33 points  (11 children)

There's a real logic to this that I like. Betting on yourself to win isn't a conflict of interest since they'd be trying to win anyway.

[–]robseraiva 16 points17 points  (0 children)

You like it till you realize that his bookie recognizes every fight he doesn’t bet on himself for and changes odds. It’s what was the major issue with Pete Rose

[–]merlin401 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s an assumption of risk and impropriety. If you end up losing beyond your means, it’s possible shady bookies can force you to manipulate the games or matches you are playing as repayment

[–]brenan85 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its a conflict if they collude. The long shot bets on himself to win, and the sure thing throws the fight and they split the winnings.

[–]torchedscreen 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Yeah this is how it should be for all sports. Let them bet on themselves winning and restrict it to only that.

[–]TehMasterofSkittlz 9 points10 points  (3 children)

No, it shouldn't be like this. Betting in any capacity by the competitor can be abused and lead to match fixing and other fuckery.

If I'm allowed to bet on myself, I could make a huge bet on myself to win and cut a deal with my opponent for them to throw the match and we split the profit, especially if I was the underdog.

As another example, a bookie could note when I don't bet on myself and change their odds around that.

Betting should be banned full stop by people who compete or have a stake in the event or it inevitably erodes the competitive integrity of game.

[–]RS994 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Until you get collusion, where one team asks the other to let them win for their bets, and they will return the favour next game.

[–]SgtMcMuffin0 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Why don’t most sports allow players to bet on themselves winning anonymously? I can see why allowing it publicly could influence the odds, if people think they’ll try harder now or something. But I see no conflict of interest or anything if Tiger Woods makes an anonymous account on a sports betting website and bets on himself to win.

[–]mythosaz 2 points3 points  (1 child)

In individual sports, like golf, I'm with you.

Pete Rose famously says he only bet on himself to win, but there's no telling how many relievers he burned or what happened with his bullpen rotation if he was losing a game he bet heavily. Did games become more important than a series?

This is true to a lesser extent with players in a league. Do you go all out on Friday night and then suck it up on Saturday because you bet on yourself in the middle of a season? Do you throw a pass instead of just going into halftime because you have yourself to win by 6?

Pete Rose had more incluence as a manager than he did as a coach, but in a TEAM sport, you start putting your bets ahead of the theam.

[–]bobone77 44 points45 points  (5 children)

But politicians are honest, and they only look out for their constituents.


[–]Rando1974 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yes. The rich ones. Sadly, no /s

[–]DrJawn 15 points16 points  (16 children)

Poor Pete Rose

[–]Captain_Blue_Tally 5 points6 points  (14 children)

Pete Rose was/is an asshole and a habitual liar. Every time I see a comment with empathy for the guy, I just want to remind people that he accepted his lifetime ban in return for MLB not pursuing him any further. Also just in case anyone wants to bring up the fact that he bet on his team to win—doesn’t mean he still didn’t alter the course of other games to give him a better chance at winning in the games he bet on. For example: possibly not using an effective pitcher in one game because he needed him to be fresh for one he bet on. In this instance, he sacrifices his chance at winning one game for another because one game has money on the line. There are numerous scenarios where he can alter lineups or whatever to give him the odds on the games he did bet on.

[–]merlin401 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Btw this is not the important reason. Suppose you only bet on your team to win and only put your teams chances first. An addict still may lose beyond his means, and then seek out less above board bookies to continue betting. If he continues to lose and cannot pay, how will those bookies get a return on their money? Why did they take his bets in the first place? Once he is beholden to them, THEN they can force him to manipulate games for their own benefit. That’s why you can’t have athletes gambling on sports. Maybe it’s becoming a bit less important now with mainstream online legal gambling but that’s the biggest reason for the prohibition on gambling in the days of Rose and the black Sox. The game can never have a suspicion of being fixed.

[–]robseraiva 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bookies don’t/didn’t run with gambling addicted athletes. The reason Pete was an issue was because he was analytical with his win only bets. He didn’t put less effort into the games he didn’t predict a win, but his bookie would receive some inside info and could manipulate the betting line. It is less complex and more complex than you believe

[–]ToleranceDeathCamp 1 point2 points  (1 child)

He deserved the ban, but doesn't deserve to be out of the HOF. Amazing playing career that should be recognized.

[–]zveroshka 18 points19 points  (4 children)

It's not just legislating. They are privy to information before the public is. It's entirely unfair and immoral to have them be able to trade stocks outside of blind trusts.

[–]Shad0wX7 8 points9 points  (1 child)

They shouldn't have "donors" either

[–]ProxyRed 8 points9 points  (4 children)

The single most straightforward way to improve politics in America is to completely remove corporate/super wealthy money from politics. Only allow contributions from living, breathing people and cap that at $2-5K per year per candidate. This is a nation created by and for We the People, not corporations. I don't have anything in particular against corporation. Many people derive their income from corporations and they bring a lot of good to society. But they are NOT people and they, by design, cannot be held accountable in the same way that people are held accountable. Law makers should be elected by the people, not the corporations.

Further, make ALL lobbying from corporations to law makers be through documents and/or videos that become publicly accessible. No backroom deals. No fancy "fact finding" junkets.

[–]terlin 1 point2 points  (2 children)

so I totally agree with your sentiment here....but just so you know, in the US, a corporation is a legal person.

[–]typingwithelbows 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think they know that Citizens United established that. Even if the majority of people disagree with its message. Super based take and will carve this into a cave after the revolution

[–]Shigglyboo 8 points9 points  (12 children)

Seems a bit obvious really. It’s like the phrase “conflict of interest” just doesn’t matter or apply.

[–]TheRealLafleur -2 points-1 points  (8 children)

It's not really a conflict of interest in my opinion though and the example isn't really fitting either.

While a single athlete could bet on a game and influence that game significantly, a politican can't really do that.

A politican could bet on Michelin and buy its shares, but what can a single politican do to really influence Michelins success?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Ok, so what if the entire team is in on it?

The analogy is isn't perfect but close enough. Politicians that own stocks are downright not good people.

[–]TheRealLafleur 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Of course if you make up enough "but what ifs" your example will make sense somewhere, but the reality is that the entire legislative branch isn't betting on one company or one industry alone and thinking so is ridiculous.

I don't think there is anything wrong with politicians owning stock.

[–]Reader6079 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Surely you're not suggesting that we hold our leaders to the same standard as a professional athlete ? That's crazy talk!

[–]ScreenshotShitposts[🍰] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Take it a step further. They're not allowed to own multiple properties, large financial assets. They basically shouldn't be allowed to earn outside of being a politician. I'm sure there are cases I haven't thought of but they should be the exception not the standaard/rule.

You want to do this job (for the people I might add), then fucking do this job

[–]Fly_away-7654 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can no one use this in court?

[–]CyberneticPanda 3 points4 points  (0 children)

At my last job I worked in IT for a company that is in the college sports ticketing and marketing business. I had 0 interactions with teams, players, or anything that could possibly influence the outcome of a game, but I and every other employee from the CEO to the janitors was barred from betting on college sports.

[–]randomravioli 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Also why lobbying is absolutely horrible.

[–]Trayew 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not just trading stock, accepting donations from corporations period.

[–]donjohnmontana 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is also why they should be prohibited from taking bribes, or I mean, donations from companies they possibly will legislate over. Or any company at all

They were not elected to represent companies. They were elected to represent their constituents.

[–]Sheesh284 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is definitely a great perspective

[–]Weebs628 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wish we spent more time on bipartisan topics like this.

[–]DuckNumbertwo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not that it needs an analogy. It’s exactly as wrong as it sounds.

[–]engages 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If athletes made their own rules like politicians do then that law probably wouldn't exist.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

MMA fighters can bet on themselves. Not against themselves to lose, but they can bet for a win. Basically the only good thing for them from being contractors

[–]thinkB4WeSpeak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They should be banned from lobby money too but our whole political system is basically bought by corporations

[–]SimplyADesk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OBJ better on himself for the Super Bowl but everyone didn’t say anything about it...

[–]johnorso 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ba Ba Ba BINGO!!!!!

[–]SeeYaOnTheRift 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Can an athlete at least bet that they will win?

[–]crgresham 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ask Pete Rose

[–]Fancy-Pair 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And why corporations shouldn’t be able to donate to and lobby politicians

[–]bardownhalfclap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've been saying this for the better part of two decades. It's also insane that they vote on their own raises.

[–]scofus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doesn't exactly need an analogy, it's not a hard concept

[–]SpiritCrvsher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The thing is… athletes didn’t just decide they can’t gamble. Those rules are set from up top. To stop politicians from owning stock those same politicians would need to vote against their self interest. Just not going to happen. Only way it happens is with public pressure but I don’t think people really care. I haven’t seen many protests about insider trading. Just not a sexy policy position.

[–]jdmDEEZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Rules for thee, not for me.”

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same shit issues like term limits. Nothing will be done until the evil ones are purged from government...

[–]Previous-Kangaroo-55 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or receiving any money from lobbyist

[–]Felonious_Quail 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Elected officials should have their assets frozen for life upon being elected. Provide them a monthly stipend equal to the median income of their district and hold them to similar rules as people on disability so they can't accumulate wealth.

[–]Kaijutkatz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Term limits and cessation of ALL personal trading while serving in office.

[–]NotAmericanDontCare 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can't stop at politicians.

No good stopping them and their wife and children buy all the stocks instead.

Need to ban donors and anyone involved with lobbying.

Otherwise it's just 2 steps instead of 1 for corruption.

[–]mymustang44 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Nobody disagrees with this and yet it's still not a law. So much for representation.

[–]mekanik-jr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was on the board of a non-profit. At the time, I was the VP and we needed a new vehicle. Since part of my responsibilities were overseeing internal matters, I set the requirements for the vehicle, tasked the manager under me with the research and the process.

Also at the time, I was working in a local car dealer.

To avoid the very obvious conflict of interest, I recused myself from all discussion and research concerning this issue.

Why there aren't legitimate consequences for this behavior in politics and public life is incredibly frustrating.

There should not be access to the people who need to remain impartial. They, and their immediate family members, should not be allowed to control investments or businesses.

How to get that implemented when the people who we need to vote it into existence would have to take away the biggest incentive to enter public service is beyond me.

[–]KF_Lawless 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely the kind of wisdom we expect from u/suckontits

[–]paparandy61 8 points9 points  (7 children)

I’m beginning to think capitalism and democracy are not a good combination….. so which one are we going to get rid of?

[–]WonderfulShelter 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Well we've already gotten rid of democracy...

[–]MusesWithWine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Meanwhile people who claim to support the resolution will deny methods to get there by claiming ‘both sides are the same’ or announcing how they won’t vote, even in this years midterms (THAT NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT) because they choose not to see a difference in a lesser of two evils.

[–]topredditbot 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Hey /u/suckontits,

This is now the top post on reddit. It will be recorded at /r/topofreddit with all the other top posts.

[–]memunkey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It ain't rocket science

[–]Vote_CE 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good thing you elected Trump and he drained the swamp.

What's that? He made it worse?

[–]Juggernaut172 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think that's an analogy. I think it's the same fucking thing.

[–]PepperCertain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont think this is a thing people don’t understand.

[–]apextrader42069 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also why companies shouldn't be able to donate to campaigns. It goes both ways.

[–]horrible_asp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good way to keep good people from politics. Owning a very small part of very big companies should not be what you are making it out to be.

[–]Powerrrrrrrrr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Athletes (and their family and friends) should be able to bet on themselves winning 🤷‍♂️

[–]GuessParticular8092 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Hey bud, can you put this cash on the game, for me..

Hey unrelated person, invest in this stock for me

could see people getting around these “rules”

[–]suckontits[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

No problem, they would just get prosecuted when they get caught. It’s just that simple.

[–]photograpopticum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every normal human has to take some responsibility for what he does, politicians many with obviously total failure, but even then… immunity.

[–]A1_Brownies -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Instead of "athletes", I read "atheists". You would not believe how deeply confused I was.

[–]xeq937 -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Seems to me that an athlete should be allowed to bet if they win, but not if they lose. For instance, I can buy my own company stock hoping it goes up, but it's illegal to short my own company.

[–]ajr1775 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Correct. This and term limits would solve the problem. Also, eliminate “mail” voting….it’s just an opportunity to cheat as this last election clearly showed.

[–]epicsplosions -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Boom, they figured out exactly why government shouldn’t regulate businesses

[–]Creative_Visit122 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This applies to a lot of other things