trxrider500 t1_j054y8j wrote
I vote dem all the time, but if this is true:
“the veteran lawmaker objected to the legislation being tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act — a must-pass bill — without any hearings.”
I agree with his blocking of it. Packing unrelated amendments and provisions into defense spending authorization is shady af, especially for banking. Anything that changes the banking system should have open hearings.
Ps - will also be glad when Toomey is gone, but I agree with him blocking this.
thesonofdarwin t1_j0571u7 wrote
Would you be shocked to learn Toomey has sponsored or co-sponsored unrelated bills/amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act almost every time? I was able to find them all the way back to 2012, which I believe is the first year he'd have been able to vote on it. This isn't about him holding firm, consistent standards, despite what he may say.
trxrider500 t1_j05758c wrote
Nope, I wouldn’t be shocked at all. The guy is a scumbag and I’ll be happy when he’s out of the Senate, however, this particular objection is legitimate.
poopfeast t1_j05dgqq wrote
Toomey votes with his own self interest. His objection isn’t legitimate, it’s convenient. Chances are if he voted against it, this would have affected him and his own finances personally.
ktappe t1_j05pwd4 wrote
It’s hypocritical as fuck. You don’t get to support him doing the right thing when he’s been doing the exact same wrong thing for the past 12 years.
[deleted] t1_j05l6wf wrote
[deleted]
raunchyfartbomb t1_j055tma wrote
Unfortunately it’s not just defense spending that gets these riders. Most bills do, and it’s awful.
All bills should state a scope, and anything outside of it should be in a different bill. If that means voting on 200+ additional bills, so be it. Or even package those into a ‘cleanup’ bill to take care of any miscellaneous items that don’t fit cleanly elsewhere.
trxrider500 t1_j0565b4 wrote
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Packing a bunch of extra crap into a must pass bill without any hearings or discovery phase is BS. It’s one of the biggest things contributing to corruption at the federal level.
ktappe t1_j05pz5t wrote
Money laundering is one of the biggest things contributing to corruption at the federal level. And he just voted to not stop money laundering.
cpr4life8 OP t1_j055kaf wrote
Right, because we should definitely have lengthy hearings on (checks notes) money laundering.
trxrider500 t1_j055vot wrote
There’s a lot that can be put under the umbrella term of “money laundering” wouldn’t you want a hearing or two too get an idea of exactly what the law is meant to target?
Legit question, what’s wrong with one or two hearings to find out what this new law is supposed to cover that existing laws on the books already don’t?
PirinTablets13 t1_j057a6x wrote
If you read the text of the existing anti-money laundering regulations, you will see that this pretty clearly closes off a loophole that allows certain fiduciaries to circumvent the due diligence requirements that banks are subject to follow.
cpr4life8 OP t1_j056o2p wrote
"While there is no record of Senate sessions on the bill, advocates say the key issues over the roles of enablers, including financial advisors and others who set up trusts and other conduits to take in shadowy money, has been debated for decades.
The alarm over enablers — or go-betweens — in moving the money has led to “thousands of hours of congressional discussions,” said Nate Sibley, a research fellow with the Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative.
He said the troubling concerns about people who help kleptocrats and others secretly plow their money into the US dates as far back as 9/11, but the most recent surge to pass reforms was triggered by explosive reporting in the Washington Post and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists which showed how the U.S. has increasingly become one of the world’s foremost havens for dirty dollars."
It's been discussed.
Redlar t1_j07ny4a wrote
>the U.S. has increasingly become one of the world’s foremost havens for dirty dollars."
Looks like we're taking over for the UK
The UK made it so the rich (only non-citizens iirc) have to prove their assets have not been bought with ill-gotten gains.
They've had a laundered money problem for quite a while and had turned a blind eye because, of course, it was good for business
trxrider500 t1_j0576k0 wrote
”advocates say”
Yeah, I bet they do.
cpr4life8 OP t1_j057dm2 wrote
Well at least we know we can trust the party that tried to overthrow the fucking government. Jfc dude, get real. This is a real problem that has been a problem for decades and has been discussed for decades and there has been no action. And fuck head Toomey just shit all over it knowing that the GOP is taking control of the house.
ktappe t1_j05q7hh wrote
Maybe you could read the bill for yourself? Stop criticizing advocates without knowing what they actually are advocating for.
ktappe t1_j05q2m6 wrote
You’re assuming hearings are the only way to learn who the bill targets. Or maybe, hear me out on this, he could fucking read it for himself?
Excelius t1_j06qevi wrote
The devil is in the details.
Just because you declare a piece of legislation is anti-something-bad, doesn't mean it gets a pass from basic scrutiny.
cpr4life8 OP t1_j06qsd3 wrote
It's been scrutinized for decades and no one has done a thing about it. Now they tried and Toomey tanked it.
drewbaccaAWD t1_j05r278 wrote
I agree in spirit.
But the sad reality is that unrelated packaged bills and reconciliation on budget bills is about the only way to get anything done so long as they continue to allow the filibuster to be a tool of near endless opposition.
He blocked this but what did he offer up in return?
LowNo5584 t1_j056320 wrote
That happens often, for this exact reason. The media will pick out one item in, what would have been an otherwise, phenomenal bill and roast the no voters over it. In this case, a provision for investigating money laundering was inserted into the NDAA bill. If you wasn't a money laundering law, write a stand alone bill.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments