Vox: Elizabeth Warren has a plan to eradicate DC corruption

[Cooked Crack]

 

Quote

Her proposed fix envisions a Washington where the president, vice president, Cabinet members, and congressional lawmakers have a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists, and other federal workers have restrictions — albeit less severe — on entering lobbying firms. The act would also bar federal judges from owning individual stocks or accepting gifts or payments that could potentially influence the outcome of their rulings.

And in Warren’s plan — laid out in a new bill called the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act — this would all be overseen by a new US Office of Public Integrity, which would go after violators and usher in a new era of ethics law enforcement.

Quote

What’s in the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act

The Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act is a wide-ranging bill that focuses on getting money and lobbying out of politics in all three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. There’s a lot in the proposal, but here are the key parts:

• A lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, federal judges, and Cabinet secretaries.
• Multi-year lobbying bans for federal employees (both Congressional staffers and employees of federal agencies). The span of time would be least two years, and six years for corporate lobbyists.
• Requiring the president and vice president to place assets that could present a conflict of interest — including real estate — in a blind trust and sell them off.
• Requiring the IRS to release eight years’ worth of tax returns for all presidential and vice presidential candidates, as well as requiring them to release tax returns during each year in office. The IRS would also have to release two years’ worth of tax returns, and require them to release tax returns for each lawmaker’s year in office.
• Banning members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, White House staff, senior congressional staff, and other officials from owning individual stocks while in office.
• Changing the rulemaking process of federal agencies to severely restrict the ability of corporations or industry to delay or influence rulemaking.
• Creating a new independent US Office of Public Integrity, which would enforce the nation’s ethics laws, and investigate any potential violations. The office would also try to strengthen open records laws, making records more easily accessible to the public and the press

 

[Riggo-toni]

I'm not a big fan of Warren, but at least on the surface I very much support this.

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

I'm not a big fan of Warren, but at least on the surface I very much support this.

 

Exactly my thought.  

 

The fact that Congress can freely trade on nonpublic information just kills me.  That is the definition of corruption.  

[Cooked Crack]

42 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Exactly my thought.  

 

The fact that Congress can freely trade on nonpublic information just kills me.  That is the definition of corruption.  

Dems need to be running on this come fall. It resonates across ideological lines. People liked draining the swamp even though it was coming from an obvious grifter.

[JSSkinz]

Not a fan of her either and this doesn't seem like a real anti-corruption bill, it just sounds like an anti-Trump bill which is fine be he's already in office.

 

Basically, she doesn't want anyone with any wealth in office and contrary to her beliefs there are many smart, ethical women and men who hold hard assets and could be great Presidents but they won't be open to a firesale and lose half the market value on those assets because Warren thinks wealth is evil.

 

 

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

1 minute ago, JSSkinz said:

Not a fan of her either and this doesn't seem like a real anti-corruption bill, it just sounds like an anti-Trump bill which is fine be he's already in office.

 

Basically, she doesn't want anyone with any wealth in office and contrary to her beliefs there are many smart, ethical women and men who hold hard assets and could be great Presidents but they won't be open to a firesale and lose half the market value on those assets because Warren thinks wealth is evil.

How is this an anti Trump bill? It covers the whole government. If you want to be President you should be required to make sacrifices to show you're dedicated to public service.

[JSSkinz]

16 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

How is this an anti Trump bill? It covers the whole government. If you want to be President you should be required to make sacrifices to show you're dedicated to public service.

There's a fine line between sacrifice and stupidity, hard assets aren't easy to move and especially when they are worth millions of dollars.  

 

There are many good people who will never run for office because they don't want their lives dissected, asking them to also give up their wealth sounds childish and will push even more good people away from possibly running for office.

 

I'm fine with the common sense items on that list just not the ones involving liquidation because it's asinine.

[Kilmer17]

Im sure she's giving back all of her campaign contributions too right?

 

I like the overall concept though.

[Cooked Crack]

5 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

There's a fine line between sacrifice and stupidity, hard assets aren't easy to move and especially when they are worth millions of dollars.  

 

There are many good people who will never run for office because they don't want their lives dissected, asking them to also give up their wealth sounds childish and will push even more good people away from possibly running for office.

If you don't want your life dissected then don't run for President. Also, it only applies to possible conflicts.

[JSSkinz]

3 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

If you don't want your life dissected then don't run for President. Also, it only applies to possible conflicts.

That's my point, good people won't run, why do you think we get so many idiots in office now?

 

The smartest people we have in this country are not running for office, maybe we should focus on that and less on attacking wealth.

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

That's my point, good people won't run, why do you think we get so many idiots in office now?

 

The smartest people we have in this country are not running for office, maybe we should focus on that and less on attacking wealth.

 

 

 

I agree with this to an extent, but right now we have corrupt idiots.  It would be an improvement to have honest idiots.  Or at least idiots that aren't directly motivated to put their own financial interests over the interests of the country.  

[JSSkinz]

25 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I agree with this to an extent, but right now we have corrupt idiots.  It would be an improvement to have honest idiots.  

I'm fine with just about everything on that list besides the liquidation of a business or hard assets, Trump needs to be dealt with but he's not normal so we shouldn't look at him as the benchmark for wealthy business women and men who want to run for office.

 

What if Sarah Blakely wants to run for office, she shouldn't have to sell off her assets because everyone in the country dropped the ball and let a Russian mob lackey win the presidency? 

[Bozo the kKklown]

44 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

it just sounds like an anti-Trump bill

when has Trump ever been a lobbyist?

17 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

The smartest people we have in this country are not running for office, maybe we should focus on that and less on attacking wealth.

I agree with the first part.

 

The problem is the wealthiest people are controlling office, and they either aren't the smartest or working for nefarious means. (like the Kochs)

[Kosher Ham]

I have no problem with insanely rich folks in the oval office. 

Insanely ignorant and/or arrogant... I have a problem with. 

 

To the statement; that if you don't want your life dissected don't run... that is silly also. 

We should embrace our privacy. 

We have many freedoms...we screw them up all the time. 

Celebs are not free to go to dinner without harrassment...to the point of strangers stalking you for pictures. 

[JSSkinz]

6 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

when has Trump ever been a lobbyist?

 

 

I have no issue with anything on that list besides the liquidation of a business or hard assets, everything else seems like common sense and should have been done years ago.

[Cooked Crack]

3 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

To the statement; that if you don't want your life dissected don't run... that is silly also. 

We should embrace our privacy. 

We have many freedoms...we screw them up all the time. 

Celebs are not free to go to dinner without harrassment...to the point of strangers stalking you for pictures. 

No one saying you have to get a colonoscopy to be President. It's 2018 if you're running for President you don't think people will examine your life? Expecting your life not to change is silly.

[Kosher Ham]

58 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

No one saying you have to get a colonoscopy to be President. It's 2018 if you're running for President you don't think people will examine your life? Expecting your life not to change is silly.

 

So the questioning of Obama was fair by Trump ? 

Perhaps unnecessary to me though. 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

I'm fine with just about everything on that list besides the liquidation of a business or hard assets, Trump needs to be dealt with but he's not normal so we shouldn't look at him as the benchmark for wealthy business women and men who want to run for office.

 

What if Sarah Blakely wants to run for office, she shouldn't have to sell off her assets because everyone in the country dropped the ball and let a Russian mob lackey win the presidency? 

 

Yea, I agree.  Putting them in a blind trust and/or setting it up so you can't collect gains while you are in office should be enough.

[Cooked Crack]

Just now, Kosher Ham said:

 

So the questioning of Obama was fair by Trump ? 

Perhaps unnecessary to me though. 

 

Pushing false conspiracy theories doesn't fit into this bill. We already have laws requiring you to be a natural born citizen. Now if Trump was asking for Obama's recent tax returns that would be reasonable.

[Renegade7]

I don't like it, it does come across like an attack on people with money.

 

  IRS already has our tax returns when we file, review them behind closed doors with the candidate and use her new agency to be like white on rice to make sure people don't act on those conflicts of interest, don't just assume they will.  

 

Problem with our politics is less people in power with money but people with money putting them in power via the Super PACs.  Campaign Finance Reform is far more important then whether these people become lobbyist after leaving office.

 

Trump not releasing his tax returns is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, IRS already has them, they should be able to review them with DOJ if it's that serious.

[Llevron]

I dont have a problem with any of it. From a superficial standpoint just look at the corruption we have now and how this would effect it. Would be a world of difference. 

 

Past that, though, I'm not sure what the problem is... asking for out public servants to dedicate their lives to the country. We ask that of our military and our police officers. I think the least we can ask of these people is to dedicate their lives to us. 

 

I personally would cut my already small salary in half and live in relative squalor if I could help the country move forward in some meaningful way, but that's not how our world works right now. Money rules everything and maybe it's time to think about changing that. Staring with the people at the top. 

 

This may not be the right way to do it but I think we need to get the discussion going at the higher level like this regardless of the immediate outcome. 

 

I'm way too ideological and uninformed to help in this conversation, I think. 

[PleaseBlitz]

8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I don't like it, it does come across like an attack on people with money.

 

  IRS already has our tax returns when we file, review them behind closed doors with the candidate and use her new agency to be like white on rice to make sure people don't act on those conflicts of interest, don't just assume they will.  

 

Problem with our politics is less people in power with money but people with money putting them in power via the Super PACs.  Campaign Finance Reform is far more important then whether these people become lobbyist after leaving office.

 

Trump not releasing his tax returns is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, IRS already has them, they should be able to review them with DOJ if it's that serious.

 

The IRS can't divulge the contents of anyone's tax returns unless they get a subpoena.  We The People should know who we are voting for, and that includes who is paying them.  

 

I agree that campaign finance reform is more important that these anti-corruption measures, but that doesn't mean something like this isn't worth doing.  

[Renegade7]

Have to agree with @Kosher Ham n the privacy thing, a lot of oeople can't afford to run, having your entire life dissected scares off even more people that should be in office instead of these shameless clowns. It didn't used to be this bad, I mean you dig enough on anyone you gonna find something you don't like.

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Have to agree with @Kosher Ham n the privacy thing, a lot of oeople can't afford to run, having your entire life dissected scares off even more people that should be in office instead of these shameless clowns. It didn't used to be this bad, I mean you dig enough on anyone you gonna find something you don't like.

 

Its 2018 though bro you dont even have to try to dig up info on someone. You dont even have to have real info. You can be born in DC and they will say you are from Kenya. 

 

I think we should know everything about the person running the world. It's not just a job. It's a serious responsibility - the biggest in the world at that - and if the only way to get serious people is to dissect every aspect of their being then I think that should be the price to pay for running the world. 

[Renegade7]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The IRS can't divulge the contents of anyone's tax returns unless they get a subpoena.  We The People should know who we are voting for, and that includes who is paying them.  

 

I agree that campaign finance reform is more important that these anti-corruption measures, but that doesn't mean something like this isn't worth doing.  

 

Then make an exception for people running for office. 

 

I don't feel I have the right to know everything about someone that runs for office, jus the stuff that may interfere with them being what I vote for.  Candidates should have right to clear up anything government finds something that ain't right before it gets to the public, court of public opinion tends to hyperventilate about stuff like that, but rare if any of them individually actually look at the candidates tax returns.