Congress and the Executive Branch no longer required to file financial disclosures

 

President Obama signs the Original STOCK Act written by Louise Slaughter.

Mr. Obama talks about the values of 'fairness' and 'hard work' before signing the Original STOCK Act.  The original Act has since been modified under S.716.

Credit: US Govt. Work; Public Domain; http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse?feature=watch

 

Yes, it's a law.  Apparently under S.716 (a modification of the STOCK Act) the Congress of the United States of America and the Executive Branch are free from those annoying financial disclosures regarding non-public trading information.

 

 

The Modified Stock Act (S.716). Credit: US Govt. Work; Public Domain; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s716enr/pdf/BILLS-113s716enr.pdf

The Original Stock Act (Public Law 112-105).  Credit: US Govt. Work; Public Domain; http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ105/html/PLAW-112publ105.htm

If one visits the White House List of Signed Legislation it appears at the top and is dated April 15, 2013.  However, we first became aware of the legislation via a Tech Dirt post on The Hacker News this week.  But that post and the FireDogLake post don't seem to include these links on their sites - even though they made these "great catches".  But (in an earlier post) FDL did catch the letter to  the Honorable Harry Reid and the Honorable Mitch McConnell re. the STOCK act.

In that letter the SEA (Senior Executives Association) complained that the "old" STOCK Act was a violation of The Privacy Act and "burdensome" regulation.  But didn't the President's promise on transparency mean that the public should know about such unlimited and inside financial transactions by our lawmakers and executives?  And what about the "burdensome" complaint?  For a Congress that works only 126 days to 109 days per year - it can't present such a burden - especially when our Federal employees stand to gain untold millions of dollars due to their positions.  You would likely be fired from your private position/job if you were to gain such gross amounts for such transactions - and likely jailed for corruption.

But back to the SEA - posted on their landing mission statement is the following "The Senior Executives Association is a nonprofit professional association that promotes ethical and dynamic public service...".  Yet, the request for modification of the STOCK Act does not seem ethical in that it does not present the transparency in the needed promise to get the current Administration elected into office.

The (offending) section of S.716 is Section 1 which includes, but is not limited to: "

SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS OF ONLINE ACCESS TO CERTAIN FINANCIAL

DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS AND RELATED FORMS.

  

(a) PUBLIC, ONLINE DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

FORMS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except with respect to financial disclosure

forms filed by officers and employees referred to in paragraph

(2), section 8(a) and section 11(a) of the STOCK Act (5 U.S.C.

App. 105 note) shall not be effective.

 

(2) EXEMPTED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.—The officer and

employees referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) The President.

(B) The Vice President.

(C) Any Member of Congress.

(D) Any candidate for Congress.

(E) Any officer occupying a position listed in section

5312 or section 5313 of title 5, United States Code, having

been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate..."

Link here to the Original STOCK Act (112-105 linked above also) to see that Sec. 8a and Sec. 11a do exclude members of Congress and members of the Executive Branch from reporting on those "burdensome" financial disclosures.