this is the barest bare minimum that should be acceptable if not a blind trust, it's kinda wild that this isn't in effect tbh
Easy! You just need a bunch more money. Once you have enough money it's basically impossible for it not to turn into even more money with virtually no effort or productivity on your part.
senatestockwatcher.com
Who said anything about silicon valley? L5-L6 engineers are pushing upwards to 300k+ unless you live in the middle of nowhere
Mhm. Every time I see folks on here scrambling to donate to some Dem candidate running for a highly-contested seat, I seriously wonder if folks realize just how insanely well-funded they nearly always are anyway by corporate donors. Sorry, but the $200 you just sent Suzie McBlue-Candidate probably just went to subsidizing the caviar she "splurged" on at the big donor lunch.
Most of us don't. We do damn well depending on the company and what type of engineer you are, but most don't. If you include base + incentives, you will have a number that's closer. I've been doing this for 15 years and have moved up. Being good with hella experience helps a lot.
You laugh, but there are A LOT of people who think "legal = moral/good" and "illegal = immoral/bad" and it's kinda scary tbh.
Literally the same response Trump gave to questions on his taxes. At least no one is calling her "smart" yet.
Buying call means you are going long and want it to go up.
Since it's public knowledge, wouldn't that co flict of interest be apparent in any situation where there is a conflict and as such raise questions if she were to be in a position where she has to make a decision on a legislation that affects these directly?
Her involvement with the Visa IPO raised questions.
Not talking about what the public thinks.
It's all legal, she's not breaking any law with this stuff, Congress made sure it is.
www.businessinsider.com
There was a good summary by NYT
Again, I'm not really talking about the legality of buying the trades. That's obvious that that's legal.It's all legal, she's not breaking any law with this stuff, Congress made sure it is.
Also, even when congress break their own super permissive rules (which the do all the time) the penalties are so small that they just don't care.
Congress and top Capitol Hill staff have violated the STOCK Act hundreds of times. But the consequences are minimal, inconsistent, and not recorded publicly.
Most lawmakers who've broken the conflict-of-interest law refused to prove that they've paid their fines.
For example, if Pelosi decided she just doesn't feel like disclosing her stock buys this year, her punishment would have been $200 fine, and she could probably just not pay that if she doesn't feel like it.
This would make sense, but if the internet can find the link between those then so can whoever's regulating this, as well as investigative journalists.
As far as I know there isn't a law requiring members of congress to recuse themselves from writing bills that could affect their portfolio, that's the problem.
Divide on social issues but when it comes to money, all of them are on the same side. The progressives are the outliers.
They wouldn't do it unless people really demand that, that's for sure.
I don't think passing a law that members of congress and their staff have to put their stock portfolio in a blind trust is anywhere as difficult as amending the constitution.
I think the reason why we don't have poor people in congress is way more about the financial barriers that stand between a poor person and having a chance at get elected than the fact that the salary is not enough for them to bother.
