Congress cares ⅛ about ethics

On the one hand, congress has passed legislation making inside trades by government employees and officials illegal. Although long overdue, that's a good thing. On the other hand, congress continued to allow the political intelligence industry (PII) to make insider trades based on knowledge of what congress is planning to do or not do. Congress didn't even have courage to simply require people trading on congressional inside knowledge to register as lobbyists. That's arguably a bad thing. From the standard point of view, one might ask if the glass is half empty or half full.

Supernova remnant G350.1-0.3 

Stellar debris field 14,700 light years from Earth 

toward the Milky Way center

The non-standard point of view: The glass is one-eighth full

From a non-ideological, pragmatic point of view, one can reasonably argue that congress as an institution does not care about ethics. There are individuals in congress who do care, e.g., representative Louise Slaughter. But none of them with the power to do so, e.g., senator Charles Grassley, actually assert themselves like they really mean it, i.e., by filibustering a half-measure bill like this one. Tea Party republicans routinely filibuster all kinds of bills, big and small, which shows that they really care. There is no irreconcilable Tea Party-type commitment to ethics in congress. There never has been in recent times (1950-2012).

Of course, a criticism of that criticism is that one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or at least the better than nothing. That's fair. Americans should be grateful for whatever congress gives us, although that speaks to how low the performance bar is for congress.

Galaxy NGC 1097 

50 million light-years

The initial reaction here as to why congress protected the PII is that its protection is based on (i) political/religious ideology that says the private sector's impulses (the invisible hand) should be allowed to roam the economy free and unfettered by fairness and/or (ii) the PII purchased protection from key people in congress via "campaign contributions".

Maybe political intelligence is a critical strategic national interest

The PII has been criticized here before, so maybe the criticism of what congress did for the PII is hasty and/or unfair. Maybe it is in the public interest to allow people with access to key people in congress and/or government to freely trade securities based on that inside information. For example, it may be good to allow that because . . . . . hm. Because what? Can't think of anything. Try harder. OK. What congress did in protecting the PII is good because . . . . because (grunt, grunt), uh, um, . . . . because congress protected it. Huh, that's one hell of a rationale.

Peony nebula

Gas ball with equivalent light of 3.2 million suns

No one is going to defend the PII by arguing that it is fair to allow insiders with access to make trades against people without that information. At least people on the losing side of those trade would not argue that. Maybe an unregulated PII is good because it facilitates the flow of information from government to the public. That's what the press is supposed to do, so why handle information flow in that manner? That's just implausible and bizarre. Maybe language in the bill was too vague, as representative Eric Cantor argued. Opinion here and elsewhere, is that Cantor's vagueness argument is obvious sleight of hand to protect the PII, which is his real objective. Vague language can always be made clear - that's the job of congress. That's Cantor's job, but he chose not to do it.

A defensible conclusion is that allowing the PII to graze freely on lush public pastures while the rest of us are kept on the dusty rock quarry outside the electrified fence is unethical. No regular person has access to the information. Just try walking into some congress person's office - you will be kicked out or arrested the instant you walk into the building to try to collect your little aliquot of inside information. We can thank people like Eric Cantor for not doing his job, thereby protecting the PII. One can reasonably wonder how much in campaign contributions Cantor harvested for his heroic defense of the PII. Was it none, some or a boatload of PII cash. Specifically, was it ideology alone, ideology plus money or just money? Those are questions with no answer.

Peony nebula with 2nd brightest star 

in the Milky Way

Congress - fixed itself, or not?

Ignoring the baffling gift congress gave the PII, how can one reasonably view what congress did in banning its own insider trade privileges? Why did they do that now after resisting doing it for years? According to at least some mainstream press, opinion (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4) is that (i) its a little thing in the overall scheme of things (small ball or a crumb) and (ii) in view of its dismal public approval ratings, congress is desperate to make it look like the institution is not the corrupt, dysfunctional (divided) mess that it in fact is. In other words, Congress passed this ethics fix for the optics, not out of conviction there was any ethics issue of concern. If congress had an approval rating as 'high' as 25% or more, they probably would not have considered this legislation, much less passed it.

Given that view of reality, arguing that the ethics glass is ⅛ full is just common sense. Or, has something important been overlooked? You decide.