Thoughts On Tom Price’s Stock Holdings And Congressional Ethics
Opinion writers scrutinize how health industry investments held by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., as a member of Congress impact his nomination to be the head of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Bloomberg:
Trump Nominee's Stock Trades Flunk The Smell Test
But what also pops out at you is how many of those companies are in the health-care arena: Pfizer, Athena Health, Gilead Science, Eli Lilly, and so on. Did the broker overweight Price's portfolio with health care stocks without his client's knowledge? That's a lot harder to believe. And Price -- or his broker -- traded those stocks: according to the Wall Street Journal, Price bought and sold $300,000 worth of shares in health-care companies over the past four years...Are these all "coincidences?" Even if the answer is yes, the fact that Price has been so cavalier about owning health-care stocks while taking action that can move these stocks makes it nearly impossible to accept his claims of innocence at face value. (Joe Nocera, 1/24)
The Washington Post:
Tom Price’s Stock Controversy Shows An Urgent Need For A New Law
President Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), held stock in dozens of companies in the health-care, biomedical and pharmaceutical industries even as he was voting on, and often sponsoring or promoting, legislation that could affect the value of his investments. Some of his stock purchases have sparked concerns under the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (Stock) Act of 2012, which makes clear that the insider-trading prohibitions arising under the federal securities laws apply to members of Congress. I testified in Senate and House hearings on the act. As then, I believe it did not go far enough. (Donna M. Nagy, 1/24)
The Washington Post:
Tom Price Is Exhibit A For Congressional Ethics Reform
President Trump’s pick to run the Department of Health and Human Services, is a walking, talking example of the ways in which congressional ethics requirements are too lax. While in Congress, Mr. Price traded hundreds of thousands of dollars in health-care-related stocks. In at least one case, a trade coincided with legislative efforts from Mr. Price that, if successful, would have affected the company he owned a piece of. In another case, the congressman was one of a select group of investors offered a private stock-purchasing deal in an Australian biotechnology company. Making the picture only more unattractive, Mr. Price apparently learned about the company from another House member, Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), who was on the firm’s board. (1/24)