Ethical issues deal with the right or wrong behavior (Makarenko par 3). In government, public officers are expected to possess specific virtues that promote the delivery of services to the citizens. Ethical issues are found in the constitution, and public officials are required to have particular qualities and adhere to certain rules of the code of conduct (Makarenko par 4). Vices are discouraged, and government employees are expected to avoid them at all cost. In this context, there are rules and regulations that provide the guidelines about right and wrong behaviors of government workers. However, sometimes, most of the officers engage in unethical behaviors and end up being forced to resign or sacked (Makarenko par 4). This is so, especially when the officers’ actions hinder the provision of basic services to the taxpayers. To shed more light concerning ethical occurrences in government, this paper discusses one of a recent ethical occurrence within the government that involved ethical issues.
The occurrence involved the repeal of the insider trading ban. The repeal was critical to freeing the top management to benefit themselves without considering the effects on the public members (Taboola par 1). In 2012, there was the enactment of Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge, which resulted from the increased public demand for the use of the existing laws to benefit the members who were serving insider trading (Taboola par 1). It is surprising to note that what was wrong for the citizens was right to the members of the congress as well as their staff. To respond to citizens’ demands, the Act required all the members of the Congress and government officers to place their economic position online (Taboola par 2). Additionally, it outlawed trading on nonpublic information by the lawmakers and expanded financial disclosure. In this context, data that are searchable would be made available, rendering it easy to detect the conflict of interest. However, some members of the Congress found it difficult to protect their income because of the tough rules of the Act. In fact, it eradicated the capability of staff to boast of their resources, yet, they did not follow the same law as the citizens (Masnick par 1). Another fact about the significance of the repeal of the Act is that the organizations that do not want their insider to exchange using their internal data will be forced to invest in their private monitoring and means of firm-level regulations (Masnick par 1). This does not seem to please many companies because it would be expensive for them to conduct such businesses. Moreover, the STOCK Act allowed companies that did not worry to spend in insider to consider applying permissive insider trading regulations, which should act as the supplementary reimbursement to the workers. It is crucial to note that the laws regarding the insider had damaged the public trust toward the Congress. However, it was able to regain it after it went back on its promise of promoting liability and intelligibility. It did this to maximize the profit from inside information regarding the monetary activities it supervises.
It is imperative to note that the first Act that governed the insider trading was questionable. Ethically, all people in a country are equal and should be exposed to similar laws. This implies that the lawmakers and the government staffs were considered to be superior to the citizens, and this is the reason the law was interpreted to them differently. Additionally, the initial act encouraged corruption, which is the unethical practice among the government officials. It is worrying to state that even after the STOCK Act was repealed, the Congress conspired with it, an event that took less “than ten seconds in the Senate and fourteen seconds in the House of the Representative” (Masnick par 3). Government officials, the elected members included are supposed to promote accountability and transparency. The code of conduct is established in the constitution, and the government staff is expected to be ethical in their practice.
It is vital to state that the interference of the bill, which took less than twenty minutes, could be avoided or done in a different manner. The part that was required them to disclose the information to the public was the one that was altered. In fact, I think the members of the Congress would have informed the members of the public first. This could be attained if all the stakeholders in the government were involved. The department that is concerned with the provision of the civic education of the citizen would have enlightened them on the national risk associated with the STOCK Act. Moreover, it would have been better if the members of Congress were given the usual three days to read and understand the bill. This is because the bill was critical to everyone, and it was imperative that each of them read and understood before it was passed.
It is vital to underscore that the responsible parties can be taught ethics. The members of the Senate and, the Congress, can be taught that it is not ethical to pass bills that show favoritism in any way. Insider trading is not only discriminating, but also illegal. The Congress and the Senate belong to particular professions, and they have learned the code of ethics in them. In fact, they should review them because they are well written in the constitution. Accountability and transparency are key elements of officials holding public offices. In fact, it is not right to practice corruption and officers who give or receive bribes are forced to resign. Therefore, it is recommended that administrators should be ethical in their dealings.
- Makarenko, Jay, Ethics in Government: Concepts, issues & debates. 2007. PDF file. 28 Oct. 2015. < http://mapleleafweb.com/features/ethics-government-concepts-issues-debates>.
- Masnick, Mike, Congress quickly and quietly rolls back the insider trading rules for itself. 2013. PDF file. 28 Oct. 2015. < https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130416/08344222725/congress-quickly-quietly-rolls-back-insider-trading-rules-itself.shtml>.
- Taboola, “Repeal of insider trading ban frees top officials to line their pockets again”. The
Baltimore Sun. 24 April. 2013. Web. 28 Oct 2015.
