The Washington Post reported today that the SEC is issuing subpoenas to investigate the possibility that a “political intelligence” firm used congressional sources to gather insider information about health care funding, launching a surge of trading in health companies after the nonpublic information was made available to Height Securities, a stock brokerage firm.

Subpoenas, lengthy investigations and anonymous sources are one way to get to the bottom of whether some lucky investors used insider information from Congress to profit from timely stock trades. But here’s another thought. What if Congress enacted disclosure laws to help enforce rules against insider trading? What if political intelligence professionals were somehow required to publicly disclose their clients and the issues they are working on, the same way registered lobbyists have to publicly disclose information about their work? Seems like such disclosures might help cut to the chase, streamlining investigations and maybe even providing a check on the system to prevent the possibility of insider trading on congressional information in the first place. Too bad no one ever thought of that.

Oh wait. Someone did.

The original incarnation of the STOCK Act mandated disclosures by political intelligence professionals, and, in both the House and the Senate, had enough votes to pass. But even a majority in favor of greater transparency was not enough to save the political intelligence disclosure provisions. Even before their most recent slash and burn attack on the STOCK Act, which gutted the bill’s disclosure provisions, Eric Cantor bowed to pressure from Wall Street and stripped the political intelligence language from the bill before allowing it to come to a vote. Rather than holding firm on its own stronger version of the bill, the Senate simply took up the weaker House version.

And now the SEC is questioning Mark Hayes, a lawyer who served for seven years under Senator Grassley as Health Policy Director and Chief Health Counsel for the Senate Finance Committee. We don’t know the full extent of the relationship between Hayes and Height Securities, or whether Height had multiple sources feeding it information from Congress—mandatory disclosures would probably help clear that up—but an email from Hayes to a Height Security analyst said that a “high-level deal had been made that would provide a benefit to health insurers.” Soon after, the surge in trading on health company stocks began.

It often takes a scandal to convince Congress to act. Perhaps the SEC’s investigation will result in enough outrage that a bill providing disclosure of political intelligence activities can be signed into law.

Since resigning from Congress two years ago as a result of some seriously icky tweets, Anthony Weiner has cashed in on his congressional contacts to become another “stealth lobbyist,” earning enough from his corporate clients to move on up to a deluxe Park Avenue Apartment from more humble digs in Queens, all without registering and reporting who he is working for and what he is working on.

Shock and outrage (and some really amusing if not-ready-for-prime-time bits on the Daily Show) accompanied the former representative’s slimy use of social media. But there’s no shock or outrage accompanying his even slimier use of his former position for profit. Indeed, the New York Times seems to think Weiner’s secret lobbying on behalf of corporate clients somehow serves “as a compelling campaign credential” as he considers a run for mayor.

Rather than touting it as a career booster, Weiner’s stealth lobbying should be seen as still more evidence for the need to strengthen current lobbying disclosure laws. The only people in Washington who seem to support secret lobbying are the members of Congress who want to keep that lucrative career path open to themselves when they leave government service. For the rest, closing the 20 percent loophole that allows people like Tom Daschle, Newt Gingrich and now, Anthony Weiner to lobby without registering and reporting makes perfect sense from a transparency and accountability perspective. It is good policy for a junior lobbyist for a nonprofit organization, a mid-level associate for law firm and a named partner in a major lobbying outfit to register and report their lobbying activities. So why aren’t former members of Congress—some of the most powerful influence peddlers inside the Beltway—subject to the same disclosure requirements?

Only a few weeks after Weiner left Congress, he opened up his stealth lobbying shop. But the public became aware of his clients only after they signed waivers, at a time when the former Congressman decided to flaunt his assets (a recurring theme in his life?) declaring himself “a good capitalist.”

His prior “disclosures” on Twitter notwithstanding, Weiner’s most valuable asset may be his easy access to his former congressional colleagues. And although in some respects we have waaay too much information about the former congressman, we don’t know nearly enough about his work as a stealth lobbyist.

This week, Senators Wyden and Murkowski introduced S. 791, the Follow the Money Act, their bipartisan effort at disclosing money in politics. The bill would require groups spending $10,000 or more on election-related activity to register and disclose contributions above $1,000. The bill would also raise the threshold for contributor disclosure by candidates and political parties from $200 to $1,000.

New ideas and new voices are welcome in the effort to expose dark money in the political process. Congress should be alarmed that shadowy groups spent $1.2 billion on election-related activity in 2012, and a decision about the best way to shed light on the donors behind that money should not be based on a crass political calculation about whether the secret expenditures were worse for the other party. Democrats and Republicans alike should recognize that dark money is bad for democracy—buying access and influence to elected officials, funding negative and misleading ads that turn off voters, and taking the message of a campaign out of the candidates’ control.

Elected officials on both sides of the Capitol should follow the lead of their colleagues who are working towards bipartisan consensus on disclosing dark money.

Last week the Senate, House, and President Obama came together to continue their history of poorly thought out, bipartisan action on the STOCK Act.

The legislation, signed by President Obama earlier this week, specifically targeted two sections of the law. Section 8, which deals with disclosure and reporting for members of Congress and their staff, and Section 11 which deals with disclosure and reporting for executive branch employees.

The legislation ensures that most federal employees will not see their personal financial disclosure documents posted publicly online. These documents are already public information. Keeping them off the internet for the sake of "security through obscurity" sets a bad precedent by making public information effectively inaccessible.

Members of Congress, the President, Vice President, candidates for those offices, and certain high ranking executive branch officials would still have their disclosures posted online. But, provisions in the law would basically nullify the effectiveness of online disclosure.

The law does not require high ranking officials and members of Congress to file their personal financial disclosures electronically, it merely allows them to if they so choose. Even worse, while the disclosures will still eventually make their way online, the new law ensures that they will not be searchable, sortable, or particularly useful to anyone.

We have created a redline version of the STOCK Act showing exactly how the new law changes the original legislation. The action starts on page 4.

STOCK Act Redline