Does it also block them from executing stock trades and polymarket bets?
this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
208 points (99.5% liked)
politics
29778 readers
1712 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What is this supposed to do exactly? Hurt only the senators that aren't independently wealthy / doing insider trading?
We're supposed to pretend most of them are there for the paycheck and not the power?
Yeah, this sounds like a better idea than it may actually be.
I'm also no really appreciating the president that they'll get paid when they do what we want.
There's a fine point hidden in there that I don't Love.
And by "power" of course you mean "bribes"
Any senator not taking bribes, or insider trade, or already wealthy, are now financially stressed during a shutdown. More war on the working class by the wealthy. If you haven't noticed, the wealthy are driving changes they've long desired while they can.
I would rather a government shutdown result in a near immediate general election for every single senator, representative, and the president and vice president, but that would require a whole extra constitutional amendment and this fine for what is realistic.
This is not what a pay freeze achieves.
Almost all of them are independently wealthy stock traders.
This precisely weakens the senators who are working class enough to need the salary.
It sounds good, but ends up hurting only the senators who aren’t filthy rich.
Doing a Papal conclave would force them to come to a fair agreement because the ones taking bribes would have to suffer too.
That‘s going to be younger democrats. They‘re more likely to be independent women or minorities that probably won‘t have the money or financial backing the typical white male republican will have.
they literally have laws to allow themselves to insider trade the stock market. which poor senators are you talkin about here?
The Senate has banned insider trading.
The House welcomes insider trading.
Yeah, capitalism has wholly captured and groomed the worst of the political class to the state and federal level, and everyone's still acting like the average politician is just some ineffective idealist, instead of a white collar criminal positioned because they were corrupt.
It's like how people still default to "won't someone think of the small businesses and competition" when regulations are mentioned. Everyone still acts like it's the 50's and we still have mom & pop style small businesses, when capitalism has already destroyed the lions share of small or family owned businesses, and achieved a functional-monopoly in every major industry.
The last century of corporate propaganda was a roaring success.
If we did this for everything, it would also be a defecto requirement to be fairly young.
Of course limiting our repsentation to only the able bodied is inherently undemocratic, but goddamn I am tired of these octogenarians deciding policy they don't understand or have to live with.
Why would we send them to Italy..
I get that the above poster was just referring to the isolation part... but maybe we do exile them to another country and lock them in a room until they agree.
Or maybe just lock them in a room.
Now ban congressmen from stock trading
hahahah this is like when ceos take that 1$ salary... you know it aint about the fucking salary.
A meaningless gesture while that sweet lobby money keeps rolling in.
And is this shit supposed to make them look good all of a sudden? We're going to just forgive and forget the treason they commit/allow to happen on a daily basis?
No, I dont think so. Bunch of cockgobblers, riding a demented old fuck to hell and dragging all of the rest of us down with them. I bet the sycophants on Fox are praising them like mad too.
Gentle reminder that the US pays ~$100M/yr to their congresspersons. What an insane waste of money.
I mean between the House and the Senate you're looking at upwards of 500 people, or ~$200k per person per year. That's senior software developer money, which if anything is too low for the highest authority of the current global hegemon.
If you're an anarchist then I guess the view is that they're all superfluous. And that money would be better spent being given to direct action.
I mean sure but "how to build the best possible society" and "how to build the best possible capitalist society" are different questions with different answers. The state is/can be superfluous under socialism, but under capitalism it's an unavoidable arena for fighting over political power, and the less political leadership is paid the more that arena is rigged in favor of the rich. Also you could multiply those hundred million dollars by ten and it'd still be a rounding error in the wider US government budget, so it's not like that money is actually competing with anything.
I disagree they should be paid that much. But software developers work significantly more than Congress. More days, more hours. In addition, when was the last time you were able to speak with your rep personally in recess? Never for me. My wife works 80 hrs at the peak of her busy season, and I'm supposed to pretend her job is worth less than Congress? A senior manager at her firm, one step away from partner, is worth less than a Congress person. I disagree.
It's not about worth; it's about opportunity cost. Worse paid people are easier to bribe. It just shouldn't be possible to buy off people with that much authority with a luxury cruise or a cushy K-street job. You can't do that with, say, the CCP and it shows.