Wyden Tries To Get Anti-ACTA/TPP Amendments Included In JOBS Act Vote
from the won't-happen dept
There's a lot of talk about how the Senate is likely to approve the JOBS Act today with a procedural plan put in place by Harry Reid that limits the ability for any real amendments to be debated or discussed. Unfortunately, the JOBS Act has been more controversial than it should be, based on some misinformation being spread about how it's somehow dismantling all investor protections from Sarbanes Oxley.The fact is, this is a situation where the original rules clearly went too far in requiring onerous regulations on businesses that didn't actually do much to stop fraud and abuse, but did make it prohibitively expensive for many good companies to go (or stay) public. There should be a middle ground that is not the "anyone can go public based on hype" days of the late 90s, and the much more limited public markets we have today. The JOBS Act may go a bit too far in raising the ceiling for the IPO "on ramp" to $1 billion in sales, but it's not the free for all that some have made it out to be. It gives companies more time to meet full (expensive) Sarbanes Oxley compliance, but opponents make it out like in these five years, companies will just completely make up their financial documents (even knowing that they'll face a reckoning when the on-ramp is over). Making the on-ramp slightly smaller probably would have made sense (and there was an attempt to do that, which appears to be dead in the water), but this is a case where you have a basic trade-off. Yes, you can add regulations to public companies, but it means you'll have fewer public companies, and less money to spend on creating jobs. That's a real trade-off, and one where those advocating specific plans do need to recognize the costs and the benefits.
Separately, there are many other features of the JOBS Act that make plenty of sense -- such as allowing small businesses to make use of crowdfunding. Currently, crowdfunding is possible for pre-sales or donations, but not in exchange for equity. Yes, there is risk involved, but there are some limits here, and to some extent, people should learn to understand the basic risks of what they're investing in before they do so anyway. These crowdfunded operations aren't going to be giant companies dealing with Wall Street for the most part, so the talk of how this helps Wall Street is mostly bogus.
That said, because of the political process that will get this through quickly, it appears that Senator Wyden won't get to introduce two amendments he proposed, one of which would have made it clear that the US can't agree to ACTA without Congressional approval, and a second that would have required the USTR to make its proposals public on international trade agreements. Hopefully, we'll see those proposals turn up elsewhere.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, jobs act, ron wyden, sarbanes oxley, silicon valley, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOX is a complete joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOX is a complete joke
Glass�Steagall might have.
How much regulation is necessary in order to curtail wanton abuse? One could probably surmise that based upon the events spanning the past decade+, the present amount is somewhat lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOX is a complete joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SOX is a complete joke
In the market we have today, competitors are kept artificially low.
Often the 'solution' to people breaking a law is not to simply add new laws. That's the problem with politicians, every time someone breaks a law, they think the solution is more laws.
Imagine if every time someone jay-walked or murdered someone or sped on a highway, a politician passed a new law to curtail further law breaking. That's just silly. We don't need new laws every single time someone breaks a law, we need to have law enforcement enforcing existing laws. They need to do investigative work and keep their eyes open, kinda like how police keep their eyes open for people who speed, for any telling signs of fraud, and they need to acknowledge that, just like murder will continue no matter how many laws are against it, fraud and lawbreaking will continue regardless of how many laws are against it. Often times punishing the behavior after the fact, for violating existing laws, is suffice, without the need to constantly pass new laws every single time laws are broken.
But, alas, political grandstanding is often more important than common sense and so we end up with a clutter of so many detrimental and expensive to follow laws, a new set of laws for every time someone broke the law.
As a result we have fewer people competing in markets and so 'unethical' (even if not necessarily illegal) behavior is easier to get away with because there are fewer competitors to switch to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SOX is a complete joke
And in a perfect world there would be no need for antitrust regulations.
"every time someone breaks a law, they think the solution is more laws."
Unless the perp is a campaign contributor, then regulations are removed for their benefit.
"we end up with a clutter of so many detrimental and expensive to follow laws,"
Glass�Steagall worked well for over half a century and I assume it was easy to follow. It simply got in the way of corrupt and greedy people.
"we have fewer people competing in markets"
not to mention the many stupid patent, copyright, trademark law suits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's deregulation like this that helped cause the economic meltdown in the first place. I mean really, is it any surprise that no more then 10 years after repealing the laws put in place as a result of the great depression that we had an economic meltdown so bad that many called it 'the great recession'?
I'd gladly take slower economic growth for less recessions, and less severe recessions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The stock market here is going to be very volatile because there are increased fraud risks involved. I'm pretty close to saying this is SOPA for the investment industry. Sure, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act went too far with bad regulations, but think about how much crony capitalism has been chipping away at deregulating in the two party system for the past 30 years. When the Dodd-Frank bill occurred, we had the crash of 2008. I expect that the JOBS bill will do more to eliminate jobs and cause even more calamity for everyone but the crooks in charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm really curious as to where this idea originated from, because it's completely, demonstrably untrue, but there's a ton of people out there who seem to believe it.
You want to understand the current financial crisis, look at the one that came before it: the Savings & Loan crisis of the late 1980s. The government ended up having to bail out the institutions involved to prevent a deeper, systemwide financial crisis. They called them "too big to fail." (Yes, that term was not invented in 2008.) And the banks looked at that and realized something: if you're too big to fail, you can get all the rewards of high-risk behavior without any actual high risk.
So they started pushing for more deregulation to allow them to do something incredibly stupid: knowingly write up loans to people with little to no chance of ever paying them back. (That used to be illegal, before they got the regulations changed.)
They get it both ways with subprime mortgages: because it's "risky," they can charge a higher interest rate and make more money off of it, but because they're too big to fail, that "risk" doesn't truly exist. When the whole house of cards finally collapsed, the government came to the rescue with our money, again, exactly as planned. The bankers were laughing all the way to the... well, you know.
No one ever passed any law forcing banks to make bad loans. If they did, then why are there so many banks out there (such as the one I bank with) that didn't have any trouble in 2008 because they never made any bad loans? Had this supposed law forcing them to do so existed, that would not have been possible! The government wasn't the one pushing this; it was the banks from beginning to end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Community Reinvestment Act allows the banks to underwrite the loans, then give the loan to the government. Since Freddie and Fannie were Government Sponsored Entities, they were approved by Congress but acted like a private enterprise. In other words, they were the worst of a merge between government and private interests.
The problem comes from a number of laws that have chipped away at regulations that helped the market considerably. Sure, the bad loans was the government. But the problems started with the banks attacking Glass-Steagall and making those regulations weaker in the marketplace for stockholders and investors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elsewhere
And it would be nice if "elsewhere" meant in its own legislation instead of tacked onto a completely unrelated bill. I'm guessing that I'd agree with much of Wyden is proposing, but that doesn't make this kind of thing OK. It's a sign of how lawmaking is more about backroom deals and underhanded maneuvers than judging a proposal based its merits and on facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elsewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Elsewhere
Just because the legislation is a good idea doesn't mean Wyden should get away with sneaking it into a bill where it doesn't belong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Elsewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tag alongs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tag alongs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How you can celebrate the idea is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The senate must approve treaties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2008 Remember
NO MORE LOOPHOLES END OF STORY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]