members were legally allowed to use inside information, information they learned through briefings or reports to make money. something regular people like us would be arrested for. >> why does congress get a pass on this? >> it's really the way the rules have been defined and the people who make the rules are the political class in washington, and they've conveniently written them in such a way that they don't apply to themselves. >> reporter: the buying and selling of stock by corporate insiders who have access to nonpublic information that could affect the stock price can be a criminal offense. just ask hedge fund manager who recently got 11 years in prison for doing it. but congressional lawmakers have no corporate responsibilities and have long been considered exempt from insider trading laws, even though they have daily access to nonpublic information and plenty of opportunities to trade on it. >> we know that during the health care debate, people were trading health care stocks. we know that during the financial crisis of 2008, they were getting out of the market before the rest of america really knew what was going on. >> so that was steve kroft on "60 minutes." but what was going on? he reports that gop congressmen like spencer bachus of alabama and fellow members of the house financial services committee were getting dire, top-secret briefings on the banking crisis back in 2008 from treasury secretary hank paulson. at the same time, congressman baucus started making stock bets that the market would go down. his office says he never trades on nonpublic information, but the timing is certainly suspicious. baucus reported -- his reported take on trades was around $50,000. and it is a bipartisan story. they're doing it on both sides. take democrat nancy pelosi, the former house speaker. in 2008, she took part in visa, the credit card company's invitation-only initial stock offering, buying 5,000 shares just as legislation that would have hurt credit card companies like visa began the trip through the house. legislation that incidentally failed that time, ultimately passed through the senate. steve kroft asked her about that. >> i wanted to ask you why you and your husband, back in march of 2008, accepted and participated in a very large ipo deal from visa in a time there was major legislation affecting the credit card companies making its way through the house. and did you consider that to be a conflict of interest? >> i don't know what your point is of your question. is there some point that you want to make with that? >> well, i guess what i'm asking is, do you think it's all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential, favorable stock deal? >> well, we didn't. >> you participated in the ipo. and at the time you were speaker of the house. you don't think it was a conflict of interest or have the appearance of a conflict of interest? >> no, it only has the appearance if you decide you're going to elaborate on a false premise. but it's not true, and that's that. >> reporter: i don't understand what part's not true. >> yes, sir. that i would act upon an investment. >> house minority leader nancy pelosi talking to "60 minutes'" steve kroft. she denies any wrongdoing. as we mentioned, his report got action. suddenly a bill to curb insider trading called the stock act which had been going nowhere for years gained traction in more than 200 sponsors. we wanted to get every single lawmaker on record. when did we do? we called every single lawmaker now in office in the house and the senate. >> i'm calling from cnn, & er soon cooper 360, and i was hoping to speak about your position on the stock act. >> we called 100 senators, 434 house members. the majority in both chambers said they'd get back to us but haven't yet followed through on that. we did get 201 house members to go on record with 16 maybes, 184 yeses and just one single no. so the bill is clearly gaining support, or so it seems. but now congressman baucus who happens to chair the house financial services committee, is postponing action on it, reportedly on orders from majority leader eric cantor. >> there were issues raised by members on both sides of the aisle about this bill not being brought up in a vetted way. there are many other chairmen who have jurisdiction in this matter who need to be involved in this with the full vetting. and we intend to do that. >> congressman baucus issued a statement saying almost exactly the same thing. but keeping them honest, as recently as last tuesday, he actually seemed eager to move the stock act forward. in fact, he scheduled a markup on the bill which is the last step before a committee vote on it. then on wednesday according to politico, cantor smacked it down. telling a large gup of bipartisan members believe the legislation is flawed and being moved solely in response to media pressure. a co-sponsor and longtime reform democrat louise slaughter saying, quote, oh, for goodness sakes. last week we passed a bill worth hundreds of billions of dollars with less than a two-day layover and no one knew what was in it. this bill has been around for six years. some of chairman baucus' fellow republicans are miffed as well. according to politico, they say baucus was putting them on the line to repair the damage to his reputation from that "60 minutes" report. one of them telling politico, quote, we're not going to cover spencer's ass by passing a half-baked bill. joining us is retired congressman brian baird who tried to pass a similar bill years ago without much luck. also, citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. she recently testified before congress in support of the stock arkt. act. so congressman, you helped introduce the stock back in 2006. it died over and over again in committee. virtually no one even showed up for some of your hearings. do you think it just died again? >> well, it seems like eric cantor would like to see it die. i don't understand his explanation. the chairmen of the other committees say no, we'll let financial services handle it. it's in their baileywick. why doesn't he set a date? he should say by the end of march we'll bring this bill up for a vote and get it done. it's not that complicated. it asks people to do the same thing in congress that we asked the rest of the country to do. he seems unwilling to make that happen. >> melanie, does it to you seem like this is dead? >> i don't think it just died. i think cantor killed it, and his calls for bipartisanship, that's a new one who hasn't cared about bipartisanship since his party took back control of congress. it seems he's doing the bidding of paboehner on wall street and bunch of chairmen of committees who don't want to see themselves tarred with the problem of being held responsible for insider trading laws like everyone else in america. >> congressman, when you were in congress and used to raise this issue, what kind of a response did you get off camera from people? because essentially, i think a lot of americans are stunned to learn that a member of congress could receive some information in a briefing, an off-the-record briefing or behind-closed-doors briefings and use that information and buy stocks with that. i think it defies explanation. >> it does defy explanation. the most troubling response was "a," people did not understand the concept of why insider trading by members of congress would be a problem, that showed an astonishing lack of self-awareness. but beyond that, a number of people said that would be inconvenient. i don't want to have to report my stock trades the way other people do. or this could possibly lead to investigations that would be unwarranted. that's deeply troubling. if people in congress say in some ways they are morally superior and they would never abuse something or that the laws should not apply to them, we've got a serious problem on our hands. the fix was ready to go. we had a solution. it's been through three hearings, one in the senate, two in the house. it may not be perfect. okay, amend it, bring up for vote and let people say where they stand and we'll see what the public says. i think they want to see a change. >> melanie, to his point, if they were serious about wanting to improve this bill, they would say we're setting a new date instead of putting it off indefinitely. >> that's exactly right. that's what's happened in the senate where lieberman and collins have come up with a new bill. it's not exactly the same as the house bill, but it's a new bill improved based on the hearing. and it's still not a perfect bill but better than it was. and they could easily move forward with that bill in the house or pass the bill they have and then work it out in conference. so there were lots of options other than just putting this off indefinitely. this was the way of postponing it without saying we're killing it but really killing it. >> and congressman, when people like nancy pelosi or baucus and boehner deny acting on nonpublic information in their stock trading, i mean, do you think they are just not telling the truth? do you think they're misinformed? what do you make of it? >> well, at the minimum, it serves the appearance of a conflict of interest there. but when someone like spencer bachus gets a classified briefing and trades options the very next day, it defies common sense to believe that he's somehow segregating the knowledge he gets in one committee hearing or a meeting with the secretary of the treasury, he segregates that from the stock trades and then has the audacity to say i'm just a better stock trader than others, that's why i make all this money. the average guy says i don't get briefings from the secretary of treasury. i don't get classified information. and if i did, by the way, i'd probably go to jail. these folks don't. >> melanie, just how is this legal? i don't understand. insider trading is illegal. >> insider trading is illegal, but it's not completely here that the law applies to congress as it's written. that's why this bill would have made it completely clear. the s.e.c. sent over a letter saying no, we could prosecute this if we thought there was a case, but yet they haven't. so it's clear that they need this legislation to make it crystal clear that congress can't trade on inside information. but let me say, this isn't the only time where congress has exempted itself from laws that applied to everyone else. the same goes for whistleblower protections, workplace safety laws. it's something that we often see with congress. why should they have to follow the same rules as everyone else? and it's part of the reason americans don't trust them. >> melanie sloan, congressman brian baird, thank you so much. follow me on twitter. let me know what you think. @anderson. the two top republican contenders promising to stay positive. are they keeping their vows? we're keeping them honest and looking at which one does better against obama in the polls now. and later, a courtroom surprise from jerry sandusky's corner. the move that seemed to come out of nowhere and what his client is saying about the sex abuse charges against him. as well as from attorneys from two of sandusky's accusers. when you're a sports photographer, things can get out of control pretty quickly. so i like control in the rest of my life... especially my finances. that's why i have slate, with blueprint. i can make a plan to pay off big stuff faster... or avoid interest on everyday things. that saves me money. with slate from chase, i'm always in control. financially, anyway. get slate with blueprint and save money. call 855-get-slate today. ♪ ♪ mom? dad? guys? [ engine turns over ] [ engine revs ] ♪ he'll be fine. [ male announcer ] more people are leaving bmw, mercedes, and lexus for audi than ever before. take advantage of exceptional values during the season of audi event. there's a moment where everything comes together. where there's magic. and you now understand what nature's been hiding. ♪ at dow we understand the difference between innovation and invention. invention is important. it's the beginning. it's the spark. but innovation is where we actually create value for dow, for society, and for the world. ♪ at dow, we're constantly searching for how to use our fundamental knowledge of chemistry to solve these difficult problems. science is definitive. there is a right answer out there. [ male announcer ] the same 117 elements do the fundamental work of chemistry. ♪ the difference, the one element that is the catalyst for innovation, the one element that changes everything is the human element. ♪ fantastic! [ man ] pro-gresso they fit! okay-y... okay??? i've been eating progresso and now my favorite old jeans...fit. okay is there a woman i can talk to? [ male announcer ] progresso. 40 soups 100 calories or less. it seems like every four years presidential candidates promise not to go negative and attack their opponents and a few weeks later they go negative and attack their opponents. this time it's republican front-runners on the attack, despite promises not to in a commandment almost from on high. >> when the chips are down and the decisions are made as to who the candidate shall be, then the 11th commandment prevails and everybody goes to work, and that is not shalt speak ill of another republican. >> thou shalt not speak ill of another republican. ronald reagan did not always live up to it, neither has newt gingrich. he is promising to try. take a look at this message to his supporters from gingrich. quote, since i announced my candidacy for president of the united states, i have made it clear that i intend to run a positive, solutions-based campaign. he goes on to say the american people deserve respectful and constructive campaign that focuses on a vision for rebuilding the country we love. all right. well, the question is, has he been living up to that pledge? take a look and decide for yourself. >> let's be candid. the only reason you didn't become a career politician is you lost to teddy kennedy in 1994. >> newt gingrich this weekend. mitt romney says it's important not to weaken anyone who might defeat president obama next november. so how does he explain this attack on gingrich and how does gingrich explain the counterattack? >> if he was working as a spokesman for fannie mae -- excuse me, for freddie mac, if he was there because of his political connections, and then if freddie mac fails, i think a fair question is asked, why did he profit as freddie mac failed? >> i would just say that if governor romney would like to give back all the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years, that i would be glad to then listen to him. >> there you have it. gingrich calling romney a job killer. romney calling gingrich basically a political hack. how do they explain it? remember that message from gingrich to his supporters. he left himself an out. quote, i have refrained from launching attacks on my republican opponents, though i reserve the right to respond when my record has been distorted. joining me, ari fleischer, press secretary during the george w. bush administration. also, democratic strategist and obama 2012 pollster, cornell boettcher. cornell, you look at these polls. do the voting public care about whether or not a candidate goes negative? >> well, this is one of the conflicts among voters, the contradictions. you know, all the voters talk about how they hate negative ads and they hate negative campaigning and how it turns them off. but the truth of the matter is, we know very well that it moves voters. if you have a valid and authentic attack line or strong contrast with your opponent and you put money behind that on television advertising and you keep pushing that message, eventually it does burn in and it does make an impact. and what you have to do is you have to pause those voters for moving to your opponent. look, mitt romney has to attack newt gingrich because he has to get in the way of those voters that 70% of the republican core electorate out there, he has to get in the way of them coalescing around gingrich. because if they coalesce around him, the race is over. >> ari, it does seem like gingrich has been able to stay above the fray or stay out of the fray really until this weekend. previously at other debates, he wasn't a top-tier candidate. he is now. can he continue to say, well, look, i'm not going to go negative? i'm not going to be negative? >> no, i think that's, number one, not newt's nature. and newt, under pressure, of course is going to go negative. he always has. and frankly, anderson, i think people can be a little overly sensitive about this. it's a campaign. they're running against each other. and campaigns are based on what can you do for the country and what's the difference between you and the other guy who wants to do something for the country. so long as it's kept civil and focused on the issue which it largely has been on the republican side, this is the very stuff of campaigns, and it's what people should make up their mind about whether these differences they're arguing about, one person supported a mandate, whether somebody's for or against illegal immigration. these are substantive derchs differences that need to be and should be aired. >> i agree with ari on this one. we've all been to the rodeo before. there are differences between people, and that's why where a lot of this comes from. but is there a danger in saying you're not going to be neglect ty and then being negative, or does it not really matter? >> well, look, i'm a proud political hack, by the way. i do this for a living. if you're the front-runner, it's classic front-runner card to pull out. i'm going to stay negative. we shouldn't level any attacks. >> you mean i'm going to stay positive. >> right, i'm going to stay positive. you can do that because the other people have to catch up with you, and they can't catch up with you unless they take you down. look, we hear this every campaign season, every campaign season people make hard contrasts. and i'm sorry, but negative campaigning works. it does. >> there's this new nbc news/"wall street journal" poll that i want to look at the numbers on. newt gingrich has a commanding lead nationally among republican candidates, 40% compared to romney's 23%. look what happens when you put him up against president obama, he only trails obama by two points. >> that's one of newt's biggest obstacles. if he's going to become the nominee, he's got to show a steady stream of polls. he has a mixed stream of polls that show how he's going to do against barack obama. if americans get convinced that a vote for newt could be a vote for obama, but newt has had some good polls. there's a gallup poll that shows both newt and romney are beating obama in the 12 battleground states that barack obama won last year -- or four years ago. but newt needs to get that across the board. the numbers of the nbc/"wall street journal" poll you just cited are very problematic nor newt, and he's got to change that store. >> james carville was on the program last night. he said he thinks the next week or two for newt gingrich, those numbers are going to come down because there's going to be a steady drumbeat against him from the other candidates. do you agree with that? >> well, two things. one is that those national polls at this point mean absolutely nothing for the general election because the contours of the general election hasn't begun to unfold. you know, and there was a number of polls out. one said hillary clinton would be a better candidate than barack obama. that's not how primary voters and caucusgoers think. the one that shares their values, that's the candidate that's going to be the best candidate in the general election because if not, what you're really saying is, then there's somethin