Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday October 01 2019, @06:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-to-elect-criminals dept.

Reuters, BBC report on the resignation of Rep congressman Chris Collins before the enquiry into insiders trading

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chris Collins, a Republican U.S. congressman from New York state, resigned on Monday ahead of his expected guilty plea in a criminal insider trading case.

A senior Democratic aide speaking on condition of anonymity said Monday that the office of U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi had received Collins' letter of resignation, and that it would become effective Tuesday.

Collins, 69, is scheduled to appear in Manhattan federal that day to enter his guilty plea, court records show. Collins' son, Cameron Collins, and another man, Stephen Zarsky, are also scheduled to plead guilty in the case on Thursday.

Chris Collins, an early supporter of President Donald Trump, represents New York's 27th Congressional District, which includes areas surrounding Buffalo and Rochester. He won reelection last November, three months after he was criminally charged.

BBC

He was arrested by the FBI last August after prosecutors alleged that he alerted his son to a failed drug trial, allowing him to divest and avoid more than $500,000 (£406,000) in losses.

Prosecutors allege that he called his son in June 2017 after receiving an email during the congressional picnic at the White House, informing him of the failed drug trial results involving Innate Immunotherapeutics, a company in which his son owned thousands of shares.

abc.net.au

Mr Collins immediately told the trial failure news to his son, who in turn told his fiance, Lauren Zarsky, and her parents, Dorothy and Stephen Zarsky, prosecutors allege.
...
Prosecutors said the congressman was "virtually precluded" from trading, in part because he already faced a congressional ethics probe over Innate.

However, prosecutors said others used the insider information to avoid more than $768,000 in losses when Innate's share price plunged 92 per cent after news of the drug's failure became public.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:58AM (5 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:58AM (#901775) Homepage Journal

    To me the vote for the Party is the wasted vote... whatever, I didn't come to argue that, but how do you get preferential ballot with instant runoff unless there is a demand from the voters?

    Except there *is* demand for that. Perhaps not where you live, in which case it's *your* fault that it isn't being discussed/put on the ballot there.

    You just need to get it on the ballot in an election and have the voters decide that they want it. Just as New York City [politico.com] is doing this November.

    In fact, it's already been approved and is in place in a bunch of places [wikipedia.org] in the United States.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:56PM (4 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:56PM (#901833) Journal

    Well good, people are doing something. Because all I hear around here is a bunch of complaining from the losers about rigged systems, foreign influence, and how nobody can do anything about it because, money... So if voters can defeat the money, where's the problem? I've said all along that the voters are in control. The system works, and we can with the mere desire vote the incumbents out without any concern about Russian ad buys on Facebook.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:18PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:18PM (#901914)

      So if voters can defeat the money, where's the problem?

      Yes, it is possible for voters to "defeat the money" but, honestly, wouldn't you rather live in a democracy in which a few high-rolling donors won't be able to buy the election? Even if they don't succeed the mere attempt is odious enough on it's own.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:27PM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:27PM (#901918) Journal

        Even if they don't succeed the mere attempt is odious enough on it's own.

        Yes it is. And only the voters can control that too through their response at election time. The attempt only happens because it is so extremely successful. Without the attention it will wither and die.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:39PM (1 child)

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:39PM (#902020) Homepage Journal

      we can with the mere desire vote the incumbents out without any concern about Russian ad buys on Facebook.

      Except Advertising/marketing *works*. Not necessarily every ad or marketing plan, but in the aggregate, yes it does.

      And that goes for political candidates just as much as it does toothpaste or laundry detergent.

      You are right that the voters decide. But don't reject the power of money for *effective* advertising/marketing to make a difference in the aisles of a supermarket or in the voting booth (see below for a brief discussion of this).

      But voters, while they generally hate folks in Congress, they like their *own* congressperson much more [fivethirtyeight.com].

      How is that possible? If you think Congress is doing a horrible job (and most folks do), why doesn't that extend to *their own congressperson*? It seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it? But that's how human brains work -- if you're familiar with someone (or at least their name) and they are considered to be "part of the group" (i.e., your party and/or a local boy/girl), you will have a higher opinion of them than others who aren't "part of the group."

      Advertising exploits this. And whether you want to accept it or not, it works. Which explains (in part) why incumbency rates are so high, while general approval ratings are so low.

      The more money you have to spend on advertising, the more you can exploit this. Since incumbents have significantly more access to lobbyists, special interests and big money donors, *and* they have name recognition (are known better to their voters, see "top-of-mind awareness" below), they are usually able to get re-elected.

      Leveling the money playing field (both in terms of lobbyists/big money contributors and money spent on campaigns) can move us toward reducing that incumbent advantage.

      There are lots of other factors involved, and ranked-choice-voting, among other things can help, but the elephant (no pun intended) in the room is the money.

      Which is why If you actually "vote the scoundrels out," the need for more and more money to win re-election will create *new* scoundrels. It's the money that *often* (note, I did not say always) corrupts. Often, really idealistic people are corrupted before they even realize it, because they want to deliver for their constituents -- but they can't do that unless they're in office -- so they take the money and are now beholden.

      I don't have all the answers, or even know all the right questions to ask.

      However, the idea that advertising/marketing is irrelevant, and all we need to do is *vote the bums out* to address the issues we have with Congress, state and local governments (where corruption is even more prevalent and flagrant, as it's much cheaper to buy a city council person or state senator than a member of Congress) is to just "vote them out" isn't viable when the political system forces candidates and elected representatives to focus on the money almost all the time.

      Unfortunately for us, the solutions aren't as simple as you would like them to be. I wish they were. We need better, and more responsive, governance.

      Advertising/Marketing:
      I despise advertising, despite (or perhaps, because of) the fact that it (well, Advertising Research [wikipedia.org]) housed, fed and clothed me for the first 18 years of my life. And then for another five years when I worked in that industry as well.

      The tools and techniques employed are sophisticated and time-tested. And these tools/techniques do (not with everyone and not all the time) work.

      Top-of-mind Awareness:
      An important feature of this is what's known as Top-of-mind Awareness [wikipedia.org]. If you can get a consumer to think of your brand (or candidate -- the same thing in this context) *first* when contemplating a purchase of (or vote for) a particular product, you've won more than half the battle.

      I'll give you an example: Without clicking on the link, do you know who Lenora Fulani might be? No? She ran for President in 1988 and 1992. In fact, she received >250,000 votes in 1988. I'm betting you can name the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates in those election years. Why not Fulani?

      Because her name wasn't forced in everyone's faces all the time as G.H.W. Bush, Scooby Dukakis and Bill Clinton's were. That's top-of-mind awareness. And it makes a *measurable* difference. And *money* spent on advertising/marketing creates it.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:01PM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:01PM (#902033) Journal

        I'm aware of all that. Pstch101. Pavlov and Skinner... And some Freud for the irrational element.

        So then we need to teach resistance to those appeals to animal instincts in the schools, instead of using them to reinforce conformity. The adults are on their own. They need a neuralizer.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..