Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

Optimistic Rep. Tim Walz testifies on STOCK Act

Rep. Tim Walz
REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
Rep. Tim Walz

Walz said he’d be open to adopting some of those changes and even endorsed major parts of them. But he said he was concerned about bogging down passable legislation with provisions that some lawmakers could see as overkill.

“It might be [a poison pill] and that’s what I’m worried about,” Walz said after the meeting. “[They’re] talking the full step, taking it all the way — the half step took a heavy lift and a ’60 Minutes’ article. … Pass something then improve upon it if it doesn’t get there, but show the public you’re serious about this.”

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (3)

  1. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 12/06/2011 - 03:34 pm.

    Tim may be an optimist; he’s also a pretty savvy politician.
    Maybe the bill’s time has come.

  2. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 12/06/2011 - 04:20 pm.

    When there’s 170 co-sponsors, it’s more like jumping to the head of the parade. His name wasn’t even mentioned in the 60 Minutes piece, and according to most articles on the internet, the bill is the work of Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York.

  3. Submitted by Mike CD1 on 12/08/2011 - 12:36 pm.

    Sorry Dennis, but you’re kind of wrong about this one. Walz has been pushing this since he first got elected in 2006. I’ll include some sources so you believe me. 🙂

    “In 2006, Democratic Representatives Louise Slaughter (left) and Tim Walz introduced the STOCK Act (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge), intended to stop members of Congress from benefiting from insider knowledge of stocks.” (Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9864-stock-act-banning-congress-from-insider-trading-is-revived)

    There have been many iterations of this bill over the years, even before the STOCK Act was introduced, but to say he’s a latecomer or to imply he’s doing this just for show is incorrect. The 60 Minutes piece didn’t mention him, but that is their error, not his.

Leave a Reply