Posted on Feb 6, 2025
The Elon Musk Act aims to ban ‘special government employees’ from having federal contracts |...
400
18
17
5
5
0
U.S. Democratic Representative Mark Pocan plans to introduce a bill designed to ban “special government employees” like Elon Musk from having federal contracts so they can’t steer spending toward their own self-interest.
The proposed bill is called the ELON MUSK Act, which stands for Eliminate Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy.
The proposed bill is called the ELON MUSK Act, which stands for Eliminate Looting of Our Nation by Mitigating Unethical State Kleptocracy.
The Elon Musk Act aims to ban ‘special government employees’ from having federal contracts |...
Posted from techcrunch.comPosted in these groups: 
Political Opinions
Political Opinions
Posted 1 mo ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
A lot of theories about USAID but little facts presented.
I would support this act.
Now, USAID is a Congressional directed agency, and it would be unconstitutional for Trump and his stooge to close it down.
I would support this act.
Now, USAID is a Congressional directed agency, and it would be unconstitutional for Trump and his stooge to close it down.
(2)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
USAID was formed by Kennedy. The "Foreign Assistance Act" mandates that foreign aid be overseen by a government agency. It does not specify that it has to be USAID.
(0)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
MSG Stan Hutchison - The State Department, where it has been moved, would be a good permanent home. At least there it would be subject to audit and oversight.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
A representative that is bad at math. No majority in either Senate or House and the exposure that is going on is wildly popular with the Republican and Independent voters. Frankly, I sit in my office and laugh every time DOGE finds another cookie jar with the Democrats and/or Federal Bureaucracy's hand in it. USAID is my favorite so far. Anyone that has followed National and International development knew that they were 1. A front for the CIA, 2. A Slush fund for too many of the Progressive NGO's (you didn't think Soros was using his own money?) 3. Watching all the cockroaches run now that the light is on.
(1)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
COL Randall C. - I was pointing to the comments from the news release (since there is no legislative text). And, terminating the contracts is a form of banning someone from self-dealing (preventing future contracts and ending current contracts).
To answer your mirror question, I would have no problem with forbidding anyone from being in a role where they could direct money into their businesses. Divest or disengage.
To answer your mirror question, I would have no problem with forbidding anyone from being in a role where they could direct money into their businesses. Divest or disengage.
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
LTC Kevin B. - Preventing a new contract could possibly be a prevention of self-dealing, but terminating existing contracts is not.
I completely agree with someone not being in a role where they could direct money into their business and so does existing federal law. If a SGE is participating in any particular government matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on their financial interests, they are in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 208* and can be punished with hefty fines and imprisonment.
I fully support prosecuting Musk, or any other SGE, if they are doing that or are breaking any other law or standards of conduct regarding the misuse of their position.
I can only guess at the text of Rep. Pocan's legislation, but if the text matches his words, then it will have a chilling effect on any SGEs from industry. Even if it was just limited to those who are senior officers in a company, that would still apply to a significant number of SGEs that have worked, and currently work, for the federal government.
I completely agree with someone not being in a role where they could direct money into their business and so does existing federal law. If a SGE is participating in any particular government matter that will have a direct and predictable effect on their financial interests, they are in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 208* and can be punished with hefty fines and imprisonment.
I fully support prosecuting Musk, or any other SGE, if they are doing that or are breaking any other law or standards of conduct regarding the misuse of their position.
I can only guess at the text of Rep. Pocan's legislation, but if the text matches his words, then it will have a chilling effect on any SGEs from industry. Even if it was just limited to those who are senior officers in a company, that would still apply to a significant number of SGEs that have worked, and currently work, for the federal government.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
COL Randall C. - Contracts can still be modified after they are awarded. The main goal of specifying current contracts is to prevent modifications and/or to remove current SGEs with known conflicts (and then terminate if they don't go).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
