Latest news with #ETHICS
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Freaks Out Over Report Tesla Is Trying to Force Him Out
Elon Musk isn't happy about a report that his own company is looking to replace him. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Tesla's board of directors had begun the process of finding a new CEO to replace the billionaire bureaucrat who was galavanting around Washington with a chain saw, people familiar with the discussions told the paper. The board reached out to several executive search firms, and was ultimately able to narrow its efforts to one major firm, the outlet reported. Following an initial spike after Musk had effectively bought Donald Trump the White House, the electric vehicle-maker spent the first three months of the year watching its value deflate and its brand curdle as its CEO spent more time cozying up to the increasingly unpopular president. It's unclear whether Musk, who stepped down as the chairman of the board of directors in 2018, was aware that the company was beginning to look for new leadership. As the board of directors first embarked on their search about a month ago, they warned the CEO that he needed to spend more time at the company, and Musk didn't argue. In a furious post on X Thursday, Musk claimed that the report was a complete fiction. 'It is an EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS that the @WSJ would publish a DELIBERATELY FALSE ARTICLE and fail to include an unequivocal denial beforehand by the Tesla board of directors!' he wrote. Robyn Denholm, the chairman of Tesla's board of directors, flat-out denied the reporting. 'Earlier today, there was a media report erroneously claiming that the Tesla Board had contacted recruitment firms to initiate a CEO search at the company. This is absolutely false (and this was communicated to the media before the report was published),' Denholm said in a statement Thursday. 'The CEO of Tesla is Elon Musk and the Board is highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the exciting growth plan ahead.' Last week, in a humiliating first-quarter earnings report, Tesla said that profits had crashed by a whopping 71 percent, falling to a mere $409 million, compared with $1.39 billion from the same quarter last year. The drop was a direct result of Musk's entanglement with Trump's administration. Tesla has become a symbol of the Department of Government Efficiency's likely unconstitutional government overhaul and extreme cost-cutting measures that have led to sweeping layoffs and essential services being gutted. Teslas have quickly become the target of widespread protests against the administration. Trump's embrace of a sweeping 'reciprocal tariff' policy, and steep tariffs on imported cars and auto parts, also rocked the industry, hurting Musk's value personally. In Trump's first 100 days in office, Musk lost a whopping 25 percent of his total personal wealth. Following the earnings report last week, Musk told investors that he planned to cut down his time in Washington to two days a week, but said that he would likely continue working with the Trump administration until the end of the president's term. Musk insisted that he would continue to advocate for lower tariffs but said that the decision was 'entirely up to the president of the United States.'
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Should Congress be banned from stock trading? The devil is in the details.
A January 2025 report by Unusual Whales, a financial data platform for retail traders, revealed how members of Congress once again beat average market returns last year. Not surprisingly, debate has resurfaced in Washington about whether it is time to pass legislation, such as that proposed by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), to ban stock trading by elected representatives. Ossoff has championed this issue in one form or another since first being elected to the Senate in 2020, and its current, bipartisan permutation, the Ending Trading and Holdings In Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, reflects a principle with which I and a large majority of the American electorate agree. However, as former presidential candidate Ross Perot famously opined, 'the devil is in the details.' By any reasoned standard, government officials profiting from the regulations and laws they help enact constitutes a serious ethical issue. The magnitude of this problem was revealed starkly last September, when it was reported that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) husband sold 2,000 shares of Visa stock for $500,000 just weeks before the Justice Department sued the company's debit card business in a lawsuit many legal experts consider unjustified. The actions by Mr. Pelosi ignited increased public concern that officials may be using their positions, and the inside information they obtain as a result, to influence the market for their own benefit. It is not just Pelosi's husband who appears to be a beneficiary of such maneuvering. The new Unusual Whales report shows that in 2024 one member of Congress gained an eye-popping 149 percent in stock trades — more than 124 percent greater than the S&P 500's 2024 benchmark. While this report highlights the significance of this potential conflict of interest problem, an outright ban on members trading stocks is not the appropriate remedy. In 2012, Congress passed the STOCK Act, which bars lawmakers from trading on insider information. The Pelosi scandal, however, shows why that law needs strengthening. For example, the ban must apply to representatives' immediate family members as a way to close loopholes like the one by which Pelosi's husband profited so handsomely. An outright stock trading ban for all members paints with too broad a brush and would be grossly unfair. Contrary to popular belief, not all members of Congress are extraordinarily wealthy. Members earn $174,000 annually, with those in leadership positions receiving slightly more. That is, of course, a comfortable salary, but it does not represent 'I don't need to invest' wealth, especially considering the high cost of living in the Washington, D.C. environs. Broadly speaking, the stock market remains one of the best tools with which all Americans can build their financial futures, and public servants should not be excluded from participating in it. That said, reform is necessary to address the unresolved conflicts of interest that come with congressional stock trading. Instead of outright banning members' stock trading, federal lawmakers should focus on improving the enforcement of the STOCK Act by strengthening its penalties — as low as $200 for a first-term violation. Such de minimus penalties may be why Business Insider's investigation of financial disclosures found that 57 members of Congress and at least 182 top Capitol Hill staffers were late in filing their stock trades as demanded by the STOCK Act in 2020 and 2021 alone. Increasing the STOCK Act's penalties would go a long way toward improving members' compliance and rooting out corruption and insider trading. Federal decisionmakers' proposals and lawsuits should also be subject to greater scrutiny from key congressional committees of jurisdiction — oversight that surely would help limit, if not stop actions that are either illegal or unjustly motivated by personal or political gain. For example, if the House Judiciary Committee, on which I served during my eight years in Congress, had held the Justice Department's feet to the fire over its seemingly baseless Visa debit card lawsuit, and demanded that it explain the reasoning behind its actions (or inactions), then the lawsuit may not have ever been filed, and the appearance or reality of Congress profiteering from such overreach would have been avoided. Finally, incoming Attorney General Pam Bondi can (and should) establish an independent ethics panel and task it with regularly examining the financial activities of federal officials and their families. Through stronger enforcement of existing law, Congress can better address the root of the congressional stock trading problem without unduly constraining the financial freedom of its members. Bob Barr currently serves as president of the National Rifle Association. He represented Georgia's 7th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and in the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta and serves as head of Liberty Guard. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
06-02-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Should Congress be banned from stock trading? The devil is in the details.
A January 2025 report by Unusual Whales, a financial data platform for retail traders, revealed how members of Congress once again beat average market returns last year. Not surprisingly, debate has resurfaced in Washington about whether it is time to pass legislation, such as that proposed by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), to ban stock trading by elected representatives. Ossoff has championed this issue in one form or another since first being elected to the Senate in 2020, and its current, bipartisan permutation, the Ending Trading and Holdings In Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, reflects a principle with which I and a large majority of the American electorate agree. However, as former presidential candidate Ross Perot famously opined, 'the devil is in the details.' By any reasoned standard, government officials profiting from the regulations and laws they help enact constitutes a serious ethical issue. The magnitude of this problem was revealed starkly last September, when it was reported that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) husband sold 2,000 shares of Visa stock for $500,000 just weeks before the Justice Department sued the company's debit card business in a lawsuit many legal experts consider unjustified. The actions by Mr. Pelosi ignited increased public concern that officials may be using their positions, and the inside information they obtain as a result, to influence the market for their own benefit. It is not just Pelosi's husband who appears to be a beneficiary of such maneuvering. The new Unusual Whales report shows that in 2024 one member of Congress gained an eye-popping 149 percent in stock trades — more than 124 percent greater than the S&P 500's 2024 benchmark. While this report highlights the significance of this potential conflict of interest problem, an outright ban on members trading stocks is not the appropriate remedy. In 2012, Congress passed the STOCK Act, which bars lawmakers from trading on insider information. The Pelosi scandal, however, shows why that law needs strengthening. For example, the ban must apply to representatives' immediate family members as a way to close loopholes like the one by which Pelosi's husband profited so handsomely. An outright stock trading ban for all members paints with too broad a brush and would be grossly unfair. Contrary to popular belief, not all members of Congress are extraordinarily wealthy. Members earn $174,000 annually, with those in leadership positions receiving slightly more. That is, of course, a comfortable salary, but it does not represent 'I don't need to invest' wealth, especially considering the high cost of living in the Washington, D.C. environs. Broadly speaking, the stock market remains one of the best tools with which all Americans can build their financial futures, and public servants should not be excluded from participating in it. That said, reform is necessary to address the unresolved conflicts of interest that come with congressional stock trading. Instead of outright banning members' stock trading, federal lawmakers should focus on improving the enforcement of the STOCK Act by strengthening its penalties — as low as $200 for a first-term violation. Such de minimus penalties may be why Business Insider's investigation of financial disclosures found that 57 members of Congress and at least 182 top Capitol Hill staffers were late in filing their stock trades as demanded by the STOCK Act in 2020 and 2021 alone. Increasing the STOCK Act's penalties would go a long way toward improving members' compliance and rooting out corruption and insider trading. Federal decisionmakers' proposals and lawsuits should also be subject to greater scrutiny from key congressional committees of jurisdiction — oversight that surely would help limit, if not stop actions that are either illegal or unjustly motivated by personal or political gain. For example, if the House Judiciary Committee, on which I served during my eight years in Congress, had held the Justice Department's feet to the fire over its seemingly baseless Visa debit card lawsuit, and demanded that it explain the reasoning behind its actions (or inactions), then the lawsuit may not have ever been filed, and the appearance or reality of Congress profiteering from such overreach would have been avoided. Finally, incoming Attorney General Pam Bondi can (and should) establish an independent ethics panel and task it with regularly examining the financial activities of federal officials and their families. Through stronger enforcement of existing law, Congress can better address the root of the congressional stock trading problem without unduly constraining the financial freedom of its members. Bob Barr currently serves as president of the National Rifle Association. He represented Georgia's 7th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and in the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta and serves as head of Liberty Guard.
