The Senate today, by an overwhelming vote of 96-3, passed the STOCK Act, a bill crafted in response to a 60 Minutes investigation showing that members of Congress had personally profited from insider information. Most notably, House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) made tens of thousands of dollars trading on information he received during private economic briefings at the height of the 2008 economic crisis.

However, the bill that the Senate adopted is the same one that the House passed last month, not a stronger version that the Senate had written earlier and approved by a huge margin. The earlier version included a provision, championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), that would have required Washington insiders who sell intelligence to corporate America to register as lobbyists. Grassley, who was one of the three votes against the bill, today took to the Senate floor to blast Congress for adopting the watered down House version:

On Tuesday the Republican Majority Leader of the House and the Democrat [sic] Majority Leader of the Senate worked together to thwart the will of 60 Senators and 286 Members of Congress. This is not the kind of bipartisan cooperation we need.

I won’t ascribe motives to anyone in this body, but I know that today’s actions only serve the desires of obscure and powerful Wall Street interests and undercut the will of an overwhelming majority of Congress. [...]

There are over 2,000 people working in the completely unregulated world of political intelligence, or political espionage as I call it. Right now, they are celebrating. They are celebrating because they know that its business as usual. They can continue to pass along tips they get from Members of Congress, Senators and staff and no one will be the wiser. They pass along these tips to hedge funds, private equity firms and other investors who pay them top dollar.

The lobbyists get rich. Wall Street traders get rich. But the American people lose.

The weaker House version of the bill was drawn up by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), who had earlier blocked the GOP from moving an anti-insider trading bill at all. Last month, Grassley reacted to the House removing his political intelligence provision by saying, “it’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision.”

As the improving economy has robbed conservatives of the chief talking points against President Obama, some have resorted to creative explanations for the upswing that avoids giving any credit to the current occupant of the Oval Office. Tea Party darling Rep. Allen West (R-FL) employed this tactic recently, wondering if “someone [is] playing around” with positive unemployment data, and he did so again today, this time to explain away the bullish stock market.

The Nasdaq topped 3,000 today for the first time since 2000 and the Dow finished strong, up 217 points at 13,177 — its highest level since the end of 2007.

But on Fox News this afternoon, West said the markets were only up because traders think Republicans will win big in November. Host Neil Cavuto seemed taken aback by the suggestion and pressed West for clarification, but the Congressman stood by his claim:

CAVUTO: What do you think about that? That the markets say you’re wrong, that the pick up is alive and well.

WEST: Well, I would think maybe the markets are maybe looking five to six months down the road, when we have a change in leadership in this country –

CAVUTO: Wait a minute, you think that this is built on a Republican either capturing the White House or Republicans capturing the Senate? … That might or might not be a stretch, but it is out there as a factor. You think that’s a genuine factor? You think that the markets are getting bubbly in anticipation of a Republican taking the White House?

WEST: Oh, absolutely. Well, I think that there is a hope that may be out there, is that we can get a person that has practical viable solutions for job creation here in the Unite States of America [in the presidency].

Watch it:

Moments ago, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed over 13,000 for the first time since May 19, 2008. The stock market is now up over 56 percent since Obama took office. Today, the stock market was buoyed, in the view of one economist, by “job and income gains…leading to higher confidence and spending growth, in turn driving further spending gains.” Here’s how the stock market has fared under our last three presidents:

The success of the stock market under Obama is particularly notable considering the majority of Republicans believe he is a “socialist,” presumably out to destroy private enterprise.

The stock market has been flirting with 13,000 for days, a level at which it has not closed since 2008. As ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes reported, Republicans have been at pains to explain why President Obama deserves no credit for the Dow’s rebound (even though the GOP was quite willing to blame Obama when the Dow tanked in 2008 and 2009).

But as it turns out, Obama is not the only Democratic President under whom the stock market has done well for investors. A Bloomberg Government report shows that since the 1960′s, stocks have done significantly better under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones:

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

Even eliminating the best stock performance under a Democrat, which occurred under President Clinton, and the worst under a Republican, which was under President George W. Bush, the Democrats still come out ahead. “I dare say that most people on Wall Street are Republicans,” said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research. “But it appears the bread is buttered on the Democratic side.”

Of course, the stock market is a terrible proxy for actual economic health, giving little to no indication of how the economy is working for the average American, but these numbers should put the lie to the constant GOP claim that Democrats and the policies they pursue are anti-business and anti-investor.

MESA, Arizona — Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) refused to give President Obama any credit Wednesday for recent economic and business improvements in the country, arguing instead that “anyone who’s paying attention knows that this president has done irreparable harm to the economy.”

ThinkProgress spoke with Franks to get his thoughts on the recent stock market gains and what they say about Republican critiques that President Obama is supposedly “anti-business.” (The Dow Jones Industrial Average crossed 13,000 at points earlier this week after a low of 6,626 in March 2009.) The five-term Arizona congressman dismissed the notion that Obama’s policies could have aided the economic recovery. There’s “no question” that the economy is improving in spite of President Obama, Franks said. “It’s a strong country, but Mr. Obama seems to be doing everything he can to hold it back.”

KEYES: A lot of other folks might say that under [President Obama's] watch the stock market has gone up over 5,000 points. What do you think?

FRANKS: Anyone who’s paying attention knows that this president has done irreparable harm to the economy, at least in the short run. [...]

KEYES: So it sounds like [the economy's] improved in spite of President Obama?

FRANKS: No question about it. No question about it. It’s a strong country, but Mr. Obama seems to be doing everything he can to hold it back.

Watch it:

The stock market is not a good indicator of an ecnomy’s health, but even a cursory look other figures shows just how spurious the claim is that Obama has been “anti-business.” As ThinkProgress’ Pat Garofalo noted, “in 2011, corporate profits hit their highest level since 1950.” Unfortunately, these record corporate gains have not trickled down into workers’ pockets; workers’ wages and purchasing power has been largely stagnant, even as their bosses do better than they have in 60 years.

It goes without saying that Franks is no fan of President Obama’s. Last year, he told ThinkProgress in an interview that even he supported impeaching Obama over the White House’s opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Still, Franks is not the only GOPer reluctant to give even a shred of credit to Obama. From the economic recovery to the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi, Republicans have done all they can to ensure they can continue criticizing the president, regardless of the facts.

The Senate passed its version of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act by an overwhelming 96-3 margin. Included in the bill is a provision inserted by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) under which “Washington insiders who collect political intelligence and sell it to corporate America would have to register under the lobbying disclosure law.” “When these people come around to get information from you that they sell to hedge funds, that you’ll know who they are. You don’t know that now,” Grassley said in defense of the provision.

The House Republicans’ version of the bill, however, does not include Grassley’s provision. In fact, the House version, crafted by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), is significantly weaker than the Senate version, leading Grassley to slam his own party for granting “Wall Street’s wishes” on the legislation:

It’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision. The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that’s behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? I hope to see a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a House-Senate conference or other means. If Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.

The House is planing to vote on its version of the STOCK Act this week. It’s worth remembering that, before he introduced this weak tea version of the legislation, Cantor blocked his own party from moving an insider trading bill at all.

Since a 60 Minutes report showed that Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) profited from information he obtained in private economic briefings in 2008, Congress has moved quickly to pass a bill to ban insider trading by its members. The Senate passed its version by a vote of 96-3 on February 2nd. President Obama praised the vote and promised to sign the bill — he had called for insider trading legislation in his State of the Union address in January.

Before any of that can happen, however, the House needs to vote on its version, which could happen as early as this week. The House’s version of the bill, however, is shaping up to be considerably different than the Senate’s.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has made several changes to the legislation which appear intended to at least weaken the final product, if not to kill it outright. The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) laid out some of those changes:

CREW strongly supported the Senate approved version of the STOCK Act (S. 2038) passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 96 to 3. S. 2038 goes well beyond merely prohibiting insider trading by, among other things, requiring registration by political intelligence consultants, stripping pension benefits from corrupt members of Congress and closing serious loopholes in the nation’s anti-corruption laws.

The bill Rep. Cantor is bringing to the floor removes several of these provisions. Although the House Judiciary Committee passed nearly identical legislation late last year, the new bill drops the Leahy-Cornyn amendment, which responds to court decisions that have undermined prosecutors’ efforts to target public corruption. It also excludes the Grassley Amendment, which would require political intelligence consultants to register with Congress.

Cantor had also tried to expand the legislation to ban other transactions, such as land deals. As UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge noted, “Cantor obviously hopes that including a vast array of economic activity within the bill, exposing members of Congress to disclosure obligations and other restrictions, as well as increasing their liability exposure, will make the bill sufficiently unpopular so as to prevent its passage.”

Despite Cantor’s public protestations that “it is unacceptable for anybody in this body to profit personally from non-public information,” his changes to the STOCK Act have unnecessarily made it weaker. As Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), a chief sponsor of the bill, put it, “I think strengthening here is a euphemism for weakening.” It is also worth noting that, when Bachus proposed an insider trading bill to help repair his image, Cantor blocked it from going forward.

If the House passes a different piece of legislation than the Senate, they will need to be reconciled before they can be signed into law. As the statement from CREW notes, the sections which Cantor removed could still be added back to the final bill in conference, which is why they are still calling for members to vote for passage.

– Zachary Bernstein

During his State of the Union address, President Obama said “send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact.” The remark stemmed from a 60 Minutes investigation showing that House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) profited from information he received in private briefings during the economic crisis of 2008.

The Senate, in a rare display of bipartisanship, opened debate on an insider trading ban by a vote of 93-2. However, the bill has since become bogged down under a sea of unrelated amendments.

Over in the House, meanwhile, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) — who reportedly blocked Bachus from bringing up a ban on congressional insider trading in committee — wants to expand the legislation to include bans on other sorts of transactions, such as land deals. UCLA Law Prof. Stephen Bainbridge notes that this is likely an attempt by Cantor to kill the bill by making it so overly broad that no one will vote for it:

[Cantor's] now trying to extend the STOCK Act “so it includes land deals and other types of transactions and not just stock trades.” Classic taking a good idea too far. The problem is insider trading in stocks, not insider trading in land deals. Cantor obviously hopes that including a vast array of economic activity within the bill, exposing members of Congress to disclosure obligations and other restrictions, as well as increasing their liability exposure, will make the bill sufficiently unpopular so as to prevent its passage.

The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act has picked up 273 co-sponsors, after languishing for months with nearly no interest.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL)

Last month, a 60 Minutes investigation revealed that House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) made stock trades based on information that he received in private briefings during the financial crisis of 2008. Bachus’ trades reportedly netted him around $30,000.

Following the story, Congress suddenly found an interest in blocking its members from trading on information they receive in their official capacity. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, which would ban this sort of activity, picked up dozens of co-sponsors, after it had languished for months with nearly no interest. Bachus was evidently ready and willing to move the bill forward, in an attempt to clean up his own image, but several other Republicans, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), put the kibosh on that plan, according to Politico:

A day after Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus said he would move forward on an insider-trading bill, Majority Leader Eric Cantor stopped him dead in his tracks.

In a Wednesday meeting described by one source as “extremely direct” and by another as “very blunt,” Cantor (R-Va.) ripped into Bachus, explaining in no uncertain terms that it was unacceptable for Bachus to mark up the bill without having run it by GOP leaders and other chairmen with jurisdiction over its provisions. The Alabama Republican abruptly canceled the vote, which was scheduled for next week. [...]

“We’re not going to cover Spencer’s ass by passing a half-baked bill,” one Republican member of the panel told POLITICO. “Even Barney Frank didn’t pass it in his two terms as chairman and Dem[ocrats] are the lead sponsors. It’s all about Spencer’s bad political position, not the contents of the policy.”

“The public has an absolute right to demand that the people they elect to represent them in Congress conduct themselves according to the highest ethical standards and do not seek to profit from their positions,” Bachus said while announcing his intention to move the legislation forward. However, it seems that his leadership doesn’t quite see things that way.