Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- -- causing Washington to repeal the stock -- just two weeks after it was signed into law the group behind the effort.
Claims the law which -- insider trading in congress is burdensome and invasive.
But that's not stopping the man behind -- bill from saying that it doesn't go far enough.
Peter Schweitzer is author of throw them all out he's here to tell us why -- and tell us about his next -- to crack down on cronyism in government Peter great to see again.
That we're used to get -- C has some people argue of course they squeal like pigs down and in the beltway when -- when -- get -- of by their by the right parts but then the fact is is that.
The traffic shifts and and let it.
They get a lot of -- I don't -- across -- -- -- that.
You say it's been diluted so much that there will still be insider trading going on right.
Yeah that's right David I mean any laws only as good as its enforcement mechanism in the here were led to believe that the Securities and Exchange Commission.
If they believe that he powerful member of congress -- member of congress whose.
Committee writes their bill who may be approves the IF CC commissioner.
That they're going to have the guts to go -- for powerful member of congress I just don't believe that so I think the enforcement mechanism.
Is really nonexistent.
-- there are a couple of good things in the bill.
Not used to be the only had to disclose once a year -- happy dude every 45 days.
So they're trading a lot of health care stocks during a health care debate -- will know about it more immediately that's a good thing.
IPO deals what's -- house Republicans.
Call people who see provision in the bill so it -- it gets rid of that formal legalized bribery so those are two good things but.
It's not gonna really worked very effectively because I don't believe the enforcement mechanisms there would you have liked to see them banned from trading altogether you -- -- -- severe.
Well I think they ought to restrict or ban their trading in the area where they have committee responsible really and if you.
Yeah I mean if you're on the senate banking committee got really should you be buying Wells Fargo -- shorting wells Fargo's stock.
A lot when you're considering important legislation I don't think so.
In the treasury department of course there's restrictions on that.
You know what you probably.
Experienced daily in the media world if you cover certain sectors.
It's company policy to say you can't trade stocks so I think members of congress to write the defense budget -- Regulates -- the pharmaceutical industry if they have responsibility and committees in those areas there should be an outright ban of them trading and owning stocks in that sector I think that should be an obvious -- OK another focus for you was executive loans of course everybody saw that -- lender that put it all in unified focus but.
Imagine this is one thing that has been pushed by both Republicans and Democrats although more Democrats -- -- this national infrastructure bank.
If we have -- Baghdad government owned infrastructure bank you can bet they're gonna be dozens more so lenders who wouldn't there.
Yes exactly I mean Fannie Fannie Mae Freddie Mac worked out so well as -- government supported enterprises.
Here's the problem are you happy in Washington when they decide to give out loans.
It's not ultimately an economic decision it's a political one.
Because -- individuals that are running those departments would say the Department of Energy -- the Department of Transportation are.
Guess what their political appointees.
We don't have a bunch of accountants and scientists and engineers who were evaluating things so they're gonna be political in nature government needs to get out of that business.
Because it's not capable of making those decisions and any other way except in a way to like give -- dollars to their friends and political allies -- avenue crusade tell us about it.
Well new crusade we're gonna be -- launching new organization soon.
With projects that are gonna focus on.
This issue of cronyism and corruption on very concerned about.
The future of our country that increasingly the private sector is coming to the conclusion.
That they're better off -- basically investing more in campaign contributions and lobbyists.
They are new technologies and new products are because crony capitalism -- so.
-- -- -- -- -- working in targeting and rooting out cronyism and corruption as it relates to government officials also as it relates to a private company.
Got to bring it back to the news the GSA scandal -- -- that seems to be to be a perfect example of of corruption.
Based on people spending other people's money what what are your thoughts on the GSA scandal.
Well I think you're exactly right I mean you know two things that come to mind his didn't number one or any of us really surprised but you know we're we're shocked.
-- how you know bald faced it was.
But we're not really surprise in this is the problem government -- other people's money.
So we need to be mindful of that whenever we give them the opportunity throw money around.
Alright Peter Schweitzer thank you so much author of throw them all out I love that title.
Thanks for coming -- we appreciated earlier appreciated.
Filter by section