It isn't surprising that Richard Burr was one of only three U.S. senators to vote against the STOCK Act last week. In 2008, when the banking system collapsed, the Republican senator from Winston-Salem used his advance knowledge of the disaster to warn his wife.

What's more, the Huffington Post reported on Saturday that Burr owns stock in two companies which would benefit from a bill he co-sponsored giving tax breaks to those exploring natural gas-fueled vehicles:

Burr has investments in the gas industry valued from $133,298 to $219,337, according to his 2010 filings. His portfolio includes $36,000 worth of stock in Chesapeake Energy Corp., the second-largest U.S. producer of natural gas. He also holds more than $25,000 in shares of Loews Corp., a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in the exploration, production, marketing and transmission of natural gas.

The Senate passed the STOCK Act — which stands for Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge — by an overwhelming majority of 96-3 on Thursday, barring members of Congress from using nonpublic information obtained in their work to trade stocks. The bill still needs to pass the House before it goes to President Obama, who is eager to sign it.

If enacted the Stock Act would prevent members of Congress from using information not available to the general public for their own personal financial gain. Or from giving that valuable information to others to trade with. And it would require members to file public online reports within 30 days of buying or selling stock.

Though insider trading laws already apply to members of Congress, there is hardly any precedent for members being charged with violating those laws. And when members of Congress continue to get rich during their careers, despite meager congressional salaries, it only adds fuel to the fires of disdain burning against that institution. That's why it isn't exactly a surprise that so many senators approved the act when they typically agree on nothing.

Not Burr, though. He says such a law would be redundant, as there are already laws on the books regarding insider trading that apply to all citizens. In a recent interview with Jerri Jameson of News Radio 570 WWNC, he called the Act “political theater” and mocked the intent of the bill:

“We should be focused on jobs, the economy. We should be taking up real legislation. It’s like me saying to you, ‘Jerri, before you come to work this morning and you’re going to drive your car, I’m going to pass a law that says you have to have a driver’s license.’”

But laws are worthless if they're not enforced, which is why police officers ask for proof of a license when they pull people. Insider trading laws might already apply to Congress, but it seems members of Congress are not being pulled over and checked, and the STOCK Act is designed to help tighten the scrutiny.

Not to mention that the U.S. Senate and U.S. Supreme Court are the only two of the government's 975 agencies that do not have their own internal rules against insider trading.

We can't say Burr voted against the measure to protect his own interests, and under normal circumstances Burr should get the benefit of the doubt, being the esteemed senior senator from our state.

But that 2008 incident when he used his advance knowledge to warn his wife about the banking collapse still hangs over his head. He even told the Hendersonville Chamber of Commerce about it in a speech that the Hendersonville Times News covered:

“On Friday night, I called my wife and I said, ‘Brooke, I am not coming home this weekend. I will call you on Monday. Tonight, I want you to go to the ATM machine, and I want you to draw out everything it will let you take. And I want you to tomorrow, and I want you to go Sunday.’ I was convinced on Friday night that if you put a plastic card in an ATM machine the last thing you were going to get was cash.”

That may have been a reasonable response to advanced warning of a crisis that ripped the heart out of the American economy. Who wouldn’t warn his or her spouse that the bottom was about to fall out? But that response did not come from an ultra-ethical public servant who puts country first.

In a time of crisis, Burr used nonpublic information to put his family at an advantage over his constituents. He sponsors bills that help companies he invests in. Is is a stretch to assume he might continue doing it with other investments?

According to OpenSecrets, Burr’s 2010 net worth was between $981,075 and $2.19 million with assets that included shares of The Home Depot, Dell, Campbell’s Soup and Walt Disney. And that is actually a modest portfolio and overall net worth compared to N.C. Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan and Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx.

But Burr hasn’t exactly used his office to build a massive record as a successful lawmaker — which is, you know, his job. The Wikipedia page on Burr even calls him “non-controversial and non-remarkable,” a euphemistic understatement about the lawnmower salesman who slithered into Washington during the 1994 Republican landslide and has been a backbench legislator ever since.

Let's go out on a limb and say Sen. Burr isn't actually the corrupt insider trader who uses secret information available only to Congress to make wiser investment choices. If he's not, why wouldn't he want to see closer scrutiny on those who do?



Image credit: Newscom