Connect with us

Published

on

A US lawmaker who has long campaigned against congressional stock trading is among the nearly one-in-five in the Senate who own or likely own chunks of Apple stock and watchdogs warn the conflicts of interest could derail major legislation aimed at reining in the Big Tech firms anticompetitive practices.

Sen. John Ossoff (D-Ga.) who famously ripped his Republican opponent David Perdue as a crook over his personal stock trades during his successful bid for the Senate in 2020 has portrayed himself as a champion of the movement to ban congressional stock trading.

The Georgia Democrat co-sponsors a bill that would ban members of Congress their spouses or children from trading stocks while in office and require them to place pre-existing assets into a blind trust or divest them entirely.

However, Ossoff himself owned between $1 million and $5 million in Apple stock prior to setting up his own blind trust in early 2021 and is likely still a shareholder, even while sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee responsible for regulating the company.

The issue is getting a fresh spotlight as advocates push for Congressional leadership to reintroduce the Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA) two long-stalled bipartisan bills would impose add new restrictions on how Apple and Google operate their controversial app stores.

Both bills advanced out of committee in 2022, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer never brought them up for a full floor vote.

In both instances, Ossoff voted in favor of advancing the legislation. But behind closed doors, the Georgia Democrat pushed back and raised concerns about the bills, such as the potential harmful effects they could have for user security and data privacy, a source familiar with the process that year said.

While Ossoff is well-known on the Hill as a user privacy advocate, his stance also happened to align with Apples arguments against the legislation.

Having to deal with a senator who regularly repeated Apple talking points as if it wasnt obvious they were Apple talking points was bad enough, the source said. But it was even worse that in all likelihood he owned millions of dollars in Apple stock as he was doing it.

Ossoff only got on board for the votes after some arm-twisting by the bills supporters, the source said.

Ossoff is a walking embodiment of why his bill is weak, the source added. His Apple stock demonstrates it.

When reached for comment, an Ossoff spokesperson declined to comment on the status of his Apple stake, citing the blind trust, and called criticism “laughable” given his public support for reform.

“As first reported by the New York Post, Sen. Ossoff authored the leading legislation to ban stock trading by members of Congress,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Sen. Ossoff is one of just six senators who has put his stocks in a qualified blind trust, which the Senate Ethics Committee calls the most comprehensive approach to eliminate conflicts of interests.”

As for the policy, Sen. Ossoff will ask tech companies tough questions on privacy, security, and competition  as he has throughout his tenure,” the spokesperson added. “He will continue thoroughly vetting all proposed legislation.”

The terms of Ossoffs blind trust require that his trustee disclose if the Apple stake or any other stock has been completely sold off or if its value has fallen below $1,000. So far, no disclosure of that kind has surfaced. Any stock sale would trigger capital gains, meaning Ossoff would become aware of major shifts in his holdings while filing his taxes.

Congress has faced growing calls to implement a stock trading ban in recent years amid revelations of massive personal stock trading windfalls for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others. Proposals by Ossoff, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and others to impose more restrictions generated some buzz but quickly fizzled out as Congressional leaders declined to pursue them.

Richard Painter, who served as the White Houses chief ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, said Ossoff has showed really bad judgment by not divesting his Apple stake entirely upon taking office and dismissed his proposal as ineffective.

You cant put Apple stock in a blind trust and pretend you dont have Apple stock, Painter told The Post. This blind trust business, it doesnt work unless you actually sell the underlying assets. Thats why so few people set up blind trusts for the disposition of major assets. Youve got to make a decision whether youre going to sell the assets or not.

Stock trading is widespread in Congress — with one report finding that nearly 20% of lawmakers had done transactions that presented a conflict of interest with their committee assignments. As of 2021, 53% of lawmakers — 223 representatives and 61 senators — owned stocks, according to a study by the Campaign Legal Center.

Ossoff is one of just a handful of senators who have even taken the step of transferring assets into a blind trust managed by a third party, effectively giving up control of their holdings while in office.

Ossoff’s stock trading bill has drawn endorsements from ethics watchdogs including the Project on Government Oversight, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, FreedomWorks, and Issue One.

Still, not everyone is convinced that qualified blind trusts are effective.

“Regardless of what he’s said, up and until he is no longer the known beneficiary of this significant investment, it is a conflict of interest,” said Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project. “Optimally, what would happen is people would divest holdings before entering office, rather than rely on a trust. That is even easier when it is such a liquid asset.”

Donald Sherman, chief counsel for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, agreed, adding, “Even in cases where members of Congress are not engaged in unethical conduct, their ownership interests in companies that they oversee can create an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

“The questions being raised here are exactly why Senators and members of Congress should ban the ownership and trading of individual stock and that any use of blind trusts must be truly blind,” Sherman added.

The Senate Ethics Committees own guidelines on qualified blind trusts note that initial holdings because they are known to the grantor, continue to pose a potential conflict of interest until they have been sold or reduced to a value less than $1,000.

Ossoff needs to be able to commit proper oversight and look at the legislation in the way that represent his constituents and not stock trades, said Garrett Ventry, a Republican and former Senate Judiciary staffer. Any time you have members with those kinds of holdings, it looks very, very bad.

If they proceed, the pro-competition bills would represent a major headache for Apple, which was sued by the Justice Department this month for allegedly using illegal tactics to ensure the iPhones dominance.

As The Post reported, Apple has enlisted an army of lobbyists whose role in part is to lobby against the renewed consideration of those bills.

Proponents say the competition legislation which reportedly worried Apple boss Tim Cook enough in 2022 that he personally called senators to lobby against it could be held up by lawmakers whose personal profits stand to take a hit in the event of a crackdown.

Momentum for other legislation, such as the House-backed measure that could ban TikTok and the bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act, could delay consideration even longer.

Antitrust advocates point out the problem isnt limited to Ossoff. At least 14 other US senators currently own Apple stock, according to a review of pblic financial disclosures. The Post reached out to their offices for comment.

Republicans who have disclosed owning shares of Apple include Sens. Kate Britt, Tommy Tuberville, John Boozman, Susan Collins, Markwayne Mullin, Tim Scott, Bill Hagerty and Shelley Moore Capito.

Representatives for Mullin and Boozman each side the investments were managed by independent third parties and in compliance with disclosure requirements. A Capito representative said she and her husband comply with all disclosure requirements.

On the Democratic side, Apple shareholders include Sens. Ossoff, John Hickenlooper, Thomas Carper, Jacky Rosen, Ron Wyden and Sheldon Whitehouse. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, also owns shares.

Despite his holdings, a spokesperson for Whitehouse pointed out that he co-sponsored both AICOA and the Open App Markets Act.

The Senator and his wife do not trade stocks, and their account manager acts independently without any input from the Senator or his wife per the terms of a formal agreement, the spokesperson said.

Other than Ossoff, five other senators are known to have assets in blind trusts Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), John Hoeven (R-ND), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

Continue Reading

Business

Post Office spin doctor said he was in a ‘corporate cover up’ – years before apology issued to Horizon victims

Published

on

By

Post Office spin doctor said he was in a 'corporate cover up' - years before apology issued to Horizon victims

A former Post Office communications director told fellow employees he was at “the heart of a corporate cover-up”, at the same time as sub-postmaster prosecutions were taking place and years before an apology was made to victims.

The inquiry into faulty Horizon software, and the associated prosecution of 700 sub-postmasters for theft and false accounting, is taking place to establish a clear account of the implementation and failure of the Fujitsu created software.

As well as the wrongful convictions many more sub-postmasters racked up large debts, lost homes, livelihoods, and reputations as they borrowed heavily to plug Horizon’s incorrectly generated shortfalls in their Post Office branches.

The issue has received renewed attention after the January airing of ITV drama Mr Bates v The Post Office.

An email presented to the inquiry on Tuesday showed the Post Office’s former group communications and corporate affairs director Mark Davies believed he was part of a cover-up and conspiracy.

“It’s fascinating to be part of a conspiracy. To be at the heart of a corporate cover-up,” Mr Davies said in an email to Post Office communications staff, a legal team member, and another director.

Read more
Scottish govt plan to exonerate wrongly convicted sub-postmasters
Review ordered into another Post Office IT system
New redress body rejected by government

More on Post Office Scandal

At the time the email was sent, in January 2015, the Post Office was prosecuting sub-postmasters using data from Horizon.

It wasn’t until 2019 that an apology was issued to sub-postmasters as part of their successful High Court challenge of Horizon and related prosecutions.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

A barrister representing sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses has told Sky News there is evidence of faults with some

‘Blaming the journalists’

Despite this, it was known at the time that branch accounts could be accessed and altered remotely by the maker Fujitsu or by the Post Office IT helpdesk.

Mr Davies, appearing at the inquiry, said he thought this remote access was only used once when asked why one of his employees said the idea of remote access was “totally loony” and a “conspiracy theory”.

Emails sent by him were consistently “blaming the journalists” for asking questions about Horizon failings, a barrister for the inquiry Julian Blake said.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

It was a characterisation accepted by Mr Davies, who said: “With the benefit of hindsight, they absolutely, some of [the emails] look ludicrous, I agree.”

A report into Horizon flaws conducted by forensic accountants Second Sight commissioned by Post Office had identified bugs but Mr Davies and his team viewed its authors as lacking independence.

Second Sight were “colluding” with sub-postmasters, Mr Davies said in an email to the Post Office’s then chief executive Paula Vennells.

Various emails shown to Mr Davies on Tuesday described journalists and Second Sight as “attackers” and media reports as “sloppy”.

Additional reporting by Evan Dale.

Continue Reading

Business

Labour leader reassures union bosses in row over workers’ rights plans – but it’s not over yet

Published

on

By

Labour leader reassures union bosses in row over workers' rights plans – but it's not over yet

Sir Keir Starmer has moved to reassure trade union bosses about his party’s plans to strengthen workers’ rights, after he was accused of watering them down.

The party has promised a radical shake-up for workers if they win office – including banning zero hours contracts, employment rights from day one, and ending the practice of “fire and rehire”.

The new deal for working people was billed as the biggest advance in workers’ rights for decades when first unveiled by Angela Rayner in 2021.

The party made some changes last summer, but union bosses claimed a new document circulated to them last week was an attempt to row back further on these commitments.

Sharon Graham, the general secretary of the Unite union, called the new document – which has not been made public – a “betrayal” and “unrecognisable” from the original plans.

Politics latest: Sunak’s speech ‘should be investigated’, say Lib Dems

With tensions running high, bosses of trade unions affiliated to Labour met with Sir Keir, deputy leader Angela Rayner and shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves and agreed to scrap the new draft.

More on Labour

In a joint statement they said: “Labour and the affiliated unions had a constructive discussion today. Together we have reiterated Labour’s full commitment to the new deal for working people as agreed in July.

“We will continue to work together at pace on how a Labour government would implement it in legislation.”

Union sources who feared the Labour leadership were bowing to pressure from big business ahead of the election, claimed the party had been talked into a retreat.

After three hours at Labour’s south London headquarters – although it is understood Sir Keir was not there for the whole meeting – Ms Graham said Labour’s position had changed.

 Sharon Graham
Image:
Unite leader Sharon Graham

She told Sky News: “It was constructive. I think it was really important to have the workers’ voices heard in the meeting itself, because we wanted to reaffirm our position that the New Deal for Working People must be implemented.

“We’ve got a really good position where that has been recommitted to. We’re meeting again in three weeks’ time after we put some information together to discuss a new document. It was a crunch meeting. It was a red line meeting. But I think we’ve got there.” She added: “I think it [Labour’s position] has changed”.

The new deal had originally come with a promise that an “employment rights bill” to legislate for it would be introduced within 100 days of winning power, although this is now seen as unrealistic.

Some changes were agreed last summer at the national policy forum, a gathering of party officials, MPs and union leaders, which the Unite boss claimed was an attempt to “curry favour with big business”.

The Financial Times reported last week that a new draft included even more business-friendly language on fire and rehire – essentially sacking workers and hiring them back on less favourable terms.

The paper reported that it contained a line about the importance of allowing businesses to “restructure to remain viable and preserve their workforce when there is genuinely no alternative”.

It was also claimed that zero hours contracts would not be completely banned because some people choose to have them – but give workers rights to a contract reflecting their usual work pattern.

Labour has also promised to bring in fair pay agreements for social care workers, which a right-wing research group Policy Exchange claimed could add £225 to the average council tax bill.

Read more:
Labour ‘shouldn’t return money to union backer’
Rayner’s plan for workers’ rights sets up key battle

Sir Keir’s party has already pruned back their 2021 plans to invest £28bn in green energy, after a protracted battle within the party.

Union leaders will be holding Sir Keir and his shadow chancellors’ feet to the fire to ensure another of his party’s more radical dividing lines does not go the same way, under the glare of an election campaign.

But despite the smiles today, this is a row delayed, with more wrangling to be done.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tory MPs share despair at PM’s top team over Commons vote in leaked WhatsApps

Published

on

By

Tory MPs share despair at PM's top team over Commons vote in leaked WhatsApps

The frustration and despair of Tory MPs felt towards Rishi Sunak’s top team is revealed in leaked WhatsApp messages obtained by Sky News.

One MP called the parliamentary operation a “shitshow” and “crazy”, while another said they were “at a loss” at the handling of a crunch Monday night vote on excluding MPs arrested on suspicion of serious sexual or violent offences.

They echo comments Tory MPs have made privately to Sky News.

Politics latest: UK to build new warship

There is fury today among Tory MPs after most found themselves on the losing side of a vote on a Lib Dem and Labour motion to exclude any MP arrested for a serious offence from the parliamentary estate, which would bring Westminster into line with many other workplaces.

The bulk of Tory MPs backed a different plan – to exclude MPs at the point of charge, arguing that MPs could easily become the target of vexatious complaints.

It was a free vote, which meant MPs did not have to vote on party lines.

More on Conservatives

However, in a move that baffled Conservative MPs, when the Commons came to vote to overturn the opposition motion, the Tory whips did not put up “tellers” – vote counters – and so it could not be held, meaning the opposition motion passed.

This often happens because of disorganisation or confusion about events in the chamber, and often marks a failing of either the Tory whips or the Commons leader’s office – figures appointed by Mr Sunak.

The WhatsApps show a government minister – Anne Marie Trevelyan – summoning Tories after initially losing the Lib Dem vote: “Anyone on estate who didn’t vote on amendment O please return asap! Lost amend by one vote. Otherwise the decision is arrest Not charge.”

Other Tories – Jill Mortimer and Jack Brereton – add weight to the appeal to vote down the Lib Dem motion, as does minister Greg Hands.

Brendan Clarke-Smith calls the Lib Dem plan to exclude MPs from parliament on arrest “an attack on basic civil liberties”.

Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

Tap here

However, Cambridgeshire MP Anthony Browne suddenly announces three minutes later: “Division off!”

There is incredulity with Pauline Latham demanding to know what has happened, adding: “This is crazy.”

Conservative MP Angela Richardson. Pic: House of Commons
Image:
Conservative MP Angela Richardson said the vote was a shitshow. Pic: House of Commons

Miriam Cates explains to colleagues there were no tellers, Angela Richardson says “what a shitshow!”, Andrea Leadsom says “A sad day”. Ms Cates says: “I am completely at a loss to understand why those of us who shouted ‘no’ were not told that there were no tellers” – indicating frustration with Mr Sunak’s parliamentary operation.

Mr Clarke-Smith says: “Angela better hope her interview goes well then. Unbelievable.” This is a reference to Angela Rayner, who is currently under police investigation and could be interviewed under caution in coming weeks. She denies all allegations and has not been arrested and Labour says this will not happen, but even if she were, she would not be excluded because the reason for arrest is unlikely to pass the serious offence test.

👉 Listen above then tap here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts 👈

The dialogue concludes with Mr Brereton saying: “We’re all going to be banned from the estate now…” and Ms Cates saying, “Watch the vexatious complaints roll in…”

One Tory said there was an “end of days vibe” in the Tory Party and the messages were evidence of a “meltdown” because the Tory whips can’t handle simple votes.

They too call it a “shitshow”.

Continue Reading

Trending