8 Comments
User's avatar
Jack Caffery's avatar

Great episode. What the heck was going on with the Heaton-side audio?

Expand full comment
Alan Holcomb's avatar

Very informative and somewhat revealing episode! One question that was not brought up: why are congresspersons exempt from Obamacare?

Anyone know the answer?

Expand full comment
Cathy Reisenwitz's avatar

Doesn't Congress have their own health insurance plan? How would that even interact with Obamacare?

Expand full comment
Cathy Reisenwitz's avatar

This issue seems like a much better fit for journalism than law. Reveal what these guys are doing and let the voters decide.

Expand full comment
Sean's avatar

Maybe we should take a cue from Star Trek Next Generation "Justice" (S01 E08) and rather than lethal injection for Wesley retrieving a ball from a forbidden area, if you are a elected official, congressional staff, employee of registered lobbying firm and violate code of ethics you are punished with a lifetime ban to work with the federal government or parent company/subsidiary company of a registered lobbying firm as well as losing the right to voting and making political contributions, ostensibly a political ex-communication. The punishment is so severe that all the individuals who are potential to violate ethic code will be incentivized to behave above reproach or restrain from being participants in influencing public policy, either way corruption will be perceived as far more extinguished than today. If it doesn't work, then we move on to the Rubicun III solution of lethal injection.

Expand full comment
Murph's avatar

At around 21:30, Congressman Klug was noting how you didn't need to change your votes to get money because you'd get money simply because of the positions you've already taken. I almost laughed out loud because I couldn't help thinking of the movie, "The Distinguished Gentleman." During one scene in particular, Eddie Murphy's character (who has just been elected to Congress) is chatting with an attorney who is offering to assist with fundraising:

Where do you stand on sugar price supports?

Where should I stand, Jerry?

Shit, it makes no difference to me. If you're for them, I've got money for you from my sugar producers in Louisiana and Hawaii. If you're against them, I've got money for you from the candy manufacturers.

...How about putting limits on malpractice awards? If you're for them, I've got money for you from the doctors and insurance companies. If you're against them, I've got money for you from the trial lawyers.

Expand full comment
Ian Andersen's avatar

Since most trades are done via apps or websites these days, why not create a site specifically for Congress to do their trades on? Make it law that they use that platform and no other; that way there's near instant reporting and total transparency in trading. Congress people can trade as much as they want but create stiff penalties if they're found to have traded elsewhere while in office.

Expand full comment
jdrafts's avatar

I support graft in congress instead of a salary. It’s going to happen anyway, I’m going to put it in the such a part of human nature in people that seek power that you aren’t designing a system to stop it. So put it in the open where we can see it and save money on pay and benefits for them and their staffs. Congressman Bob Incorporated can see to supporting his employees out of his corporation’s budget. I had my research assistant, chatgpt, crunch the numbers and per said research assistant we are talking 1.3-1.4 billion a year in pay and benefits for the 535 of them and what my research assistant says is around 13,000 staffers.

Expand full comment