• Home
  • Independent Voter News
  • Quizzes
  • Election Dissection
  • Sections
  • Events
  • Directory
  • About Us
  • Glossary
  • Opinion
  • Campaign Finance
  • Redistricting
  • Civic Ed
  • Voting
  • Fact Check
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Government Ethics>
  3. ethics>

Why prosecuting senators for trading on Covid would be so tough

Stanley M. Brand
April 20, 2020
Sen. Richard Burr

Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that what Sen. Richard Burr and others heard was "insider" information could be very difficult, writes Brand.

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Brand, director of Penn State Law School's Washington internship program, was general counsel of the U.S. House from 1976 to 1983 and for decades a prominent public corruption defense attorney.


Recent allegations regarding stock trading by members of Congress in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic have raised calls for the investigation of these politicians for illegal "insider trading."

But successful prosecutions would be very difficult. Even federal judges struggle with writing clear instructions to jurors in insider trading cases. Often, verdicts are reversed on appeal due to errors in explaining complicated legal terms.

Two different laws could criminalize trading activity by senators and congressional staff. But proving a violation and convicting them is not likely.

The first is known as Rule 10(b)(5), after the section of the law under which it was issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This rule makes it illegal for anyone who has nonpublic information about a company to use that information to trade in the company's stock before that information is available to the public. And it applies to members of Congress because it applies to everyone.

But the second applies only to Congress: Known as the STOCK Act, since 2012 it has barred members and staff from taking advantage of nonpublic information, gained in the performance of their duties, by trading on that information before it is public.

Recently, GOP Rep. Chris Collins of New York pled guilty to violating Rule 10(b)(5). He has resigned and been sentenced to 26 months in prison. His crime was trading stock in a pharmacy company on whose board he served after receiving inside information regarding failed drug trials.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

This was not difficult to prosecute under the first provision as federal prosecutor's had evidence: Collins' incriminating telephone records. The activity had nothing to do with his congressional duties.

In the current cases involving trading by senators, successful prosecution under either provision will likely be substantially more complicated than the Collins case.

The STOCK Acts defines nonpublic information as confidential and not widely disseminated to the public. That's a hard standard to prove.

Then there's the problem of so much talking by, and information flowing from, multiple sources within Congress. How can it be proved that lawmakers used only information from a confidential briefing to inform decisions to sell stocks?

There is another defense senators might raise, or that might prevent them from being formally charged. The Constitution gives members of Congress immunity for acts they take when performing their legislative duties, in a part of Article I saying that "for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place." That could make prosecution impossible for certain types of information received officially in committee or other legislative settings.

The clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover more than literal speech or debate and include anything "generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it" including voting, holding hearings, writing reports or gathering information from outsiders.

The language was added to the Constitution to reinforce the separation of powers. But as the Supreme Court has stated, it "has enabled reckless men to slander or even destroy others with impunity."

George Canellos, when he was co-chief of the SEC's enforcement division, said during an earlier insider trading scandal that cases involving information from public companies are different from cases in which a member of Congress sells stock. And when it comes to information that could affect a stock price coming from Congress, he said, "the lines aren't quite as bright and the opportunities for arguments by the defense are greater."

One example is a 2014 case involving Height Securities, a stock brokerage. A confidential decision by Medicare to raise some reimbursement rates had been leaked by a congressional staffer to a Height lobbyist. The lobbyist passed it on to clients, setting off a flurry of trading in health stocks before the decision was made public.

During the subsequent investigation, the FBI discovered that as many as 400 people at the Medicare agency knew the decision before it was announced. The size of that group made it difficult to determine if the lobbyist based his conclusion on his own analysis or publicly available information.

Senate Ethics Committee guidance on the STOCK Act acknowledges how common this problem can be. "While senators and staff are prohibited from using non-public information for making a trade, a great deal of congressional work is conducted on the public record or in the public realm," it says, so whether a lawmaker gets information in a nonpublic briefing or in public proceedings is hard to determine.

Republican Richard Burr of North Carolina, one of at least four senators allegedly involved in trading, heard from intelligence officials about how other countries were responding to the World Health Organization's declaration of a global emergency. The briefing was not classified, but drawn instead from diplomatic wires and publicly reported sources. The attending senators could have gotten the same information elsewhere.

So proving beyond a reasonable doubt that what they heard was "insider" information could be very difficult.

Speech or debate clause immunity doomed previous prosecutions that depended on actions taken during a legislative hearing or related to that hearing.

In 1972, after Democrat Mike Gravel of Alaska placed a purloined copy of the Pentagon Papers into a public Senate hearing record, the Justice Department began a criminal inquiry. In the end, the Supreme Court said the speech or debate clause meant the senator was absolutely immune for anything done at the hearing or in communications with his staff beforehand.

In the Height case, when the SEC subpoenaed records from the House Ways and Means Committee to determine the source of the leak, the court upheld the speech or debate protection for committee documents. That made prosecution for insider trading impossible.

These same problems would make prosecuting the insider trading cases difficult.

And while the constitutional shield would not bar the Senate Ethics Committee from getting at the evidence — because it is "the place" where members may be questioned — senators would still be able to defend by showing that the information was based on publicly available non confidential sources.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.


The Conversation

From Your Site Articles
  • Warren expands her anti-corruption plan to address more than Trump ›
  • Watchdogs want to extend limits on board service by House members ›
  • Senators propose ban on individual stock holdings by members of ... ›
  • What does censure mean? - The Fulcrum ›
  • Endemic Covid-19 should be cause for celebration - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • Senators Accused Of Insider Trading, Dumping Stocks After ... ›
  • Congress moves to end its crisis over insider trading on outbreak ... ›
  • Congress's Insider-Trading Problem - The Atlantic ›
  • How Congress Quietly Overhauled Its Insider-Trading Law : It's All ... ›
ethics
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Follow
Contributors

But what can I do?

Pedro Silva

Are large donor networks still needed to win in a fairer election system?

Paige Chan

Independent voters want to be heard. Is anybody listening?

David Thornburgh
John Opdycke

The U.S. has been seeking the center since the days of Teddy Roosevelt

Dave Anderson

Imperfection and perseverance

Jeff Clements

We’ve expanded the Supreme Court before. It’s time to do so again.

Anushka Sarkar
latest News

Podcast: 100% Democracy

Our Staff
4h

Americans want action on gun control, but the Senate can’t move forward

David Meyers
23h

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Our Staff
25 May

Nearly 20 states have restricted private funding of elections

David Meyers
24 May

Video: Will Trump run in 2024?

Our Staff
24 May

The state of voting: May 23, 2022

Our Staff
23 May
Videos

Video: Helping loved ones divided by politics

Our Staff

Video: What happened in Virginia?

Our Staff

Video: Infrastructure past, present, and future

Our Staff

Video: Beyond the headlines SCOTUS 2021 - 2022

Our Staff

Video: Should we even have a debt limit

Our Staff

Video: #ListenFirstFriday Yap Politics

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Did economists move the Democrats to the right?

Our Staff
02 May

Podcast: The future of depolarization

Our Staff
11 February

Podcast: Sore losers are bad for democracy

Our Staff
20 January

Deconstructed Podcast from IVN

Our Staff
08 November 2021
Recommended
Podcast: 100% Democracy

Podcast: 100% Democracy

Leadership
people talking

But what can I do?

Leveraging big ideas
Shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas

Americans want action on gun control, but the Senate can’t move forward

Congress
Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Big Picture
First-ever majority-female New York city council

Are large donor networks still needed to win in a fairer election system?

Campaign Finance
Independent voters want to be heard. Is anybody listening?

Independent voters want to be heard. Is anybody listening?

Voting