Um Submittard, please point out the relevant statute that says congresspeople cannot own stock?

Dinki: Um Submittard, please point out the relevant statute that says congresspeople cannot own stock?

Hey! Look over there!

Dinki: Um Submittard, please point out the relevant statute that says congresspeople cannot own stock?

It's a conflict of interest, which according to the ethics guidelines of the US House of Representatives is a Really Bad Thing.

Not that anyone in D.C. really cares about ethical behavior. It's more of an 'us vs them' neo-tribal thing than anything else these days. But Pelosi made a big deal about maintaining high standards of ethical behavior. Now she's wiping her ass with the ethics guidelines. Expected, sure....but it's still hypocritical.

Politicians don't follow their own rules.

1) Pelosi advocates methods of combating HIV/AIDS
2) Pelosi invests in companies looking for ways to combat HIV/AIDS
3) Pelosi pushes for legsislation aimed at combating HIV/AIDS
Conflict?

This doesn't seem like a conflict of interest so much as it seems like a confluence of interest.

Nuuu: This doesn't seem like a conflict of interest so much as it seems like a confluence of interest

Replace "combating HIV/AIDS" with "getting wonderful new military technology to the armed forces" and see if you'd still say the same thing. The supposed goodness of the cause in question doesn't change the fact that it's a conflict of interest.

Nuuu: 1) Pelosi advocates methods of combating HIV/AIDS terrorism.
2) Pelosi invests in companies looking for ways to combat HIV/AIDS terrorism.
3) Pelosi pushes for legsislation aimed at HIV/AIDS terrorism.

Conflict?

This doesn't seem like a conflict of interest so much as it seems like a confluence of interest.

still have a problem with it?

Churchill2004: Nuuu: This doesn't seem like a conflict of interest so much as it seems like a confluence of interest

Replace "combating HIV/AIDS" with "getting wonderful new military technology to the armed forces" and see if you'd still say the same thing. The supposed goodness of the cause in question doesn't change the fact that it's a conflict of interest.

Dianne Feinstein has that covered.

Im just here for pics of Pelosi's Rack!

Weaver95: still have a problem with it?

Great minds, etc., etc...

Weaver95: It's a conflict of interest, which according to the ethics guidelines of the US House of Representatives is a Really Bad Thing.

Instead of just asserting that this is a conflict of interest, and against the rules, why don't we....y'know...look at the rules?

"Ownership of stock in a publicly-traded company generally will not present a conflict of interest requiring recusal from voting"
(source)

The rules require a full & fair disclosure, not recusal. Shady? perhaps, but not a conflict of interest, as defined by the House ethics rules.

Weaver95: Nuuu: 1) Pelosi advocates methods of combating HIV/AIDS terrorism.
2) Pelosi invests in companies looking for ways to combat HIV/AIDS terrorism.
3) Pelosi pushes for legsislation aimed at HIV/AIDS terrorism.

Conflict?

This doesn't seem like a conflict of interest so much as it seems like a confluence of interest.

still have a problem with it?

I'm not saying what she did was right but are you really comparing AIDS to terrorism?

I guess if you look at how Reagan handled the early years of the virus you have a case...

El_Perro: Instead of just asserting that this is a conflict of interest, and against the rules, why don't we....y'know...look at the rules?

I'm not surprised that this isn't against the rules. That doesn't mean it's not still a conflict of interest.

Gwendolyn: I'm not saying what she did was right but are you really comparing AIDS to terrorism?

No, he's making the point that it makes no difference whether or not the conflict of interest is supposedly for a "good cause".

Churchill2004: Nuuu: This doesn't seem like a conflict of interest so much as it seems like a confluence of interest

Replace "combating HIV/AIDS" with "getting wonderful new military technology to the armed forces" and see if you'd still say the same thing. The supposed goodness of the cause in question doesn't change the fact that it's a conflict of interest.

Different politician, same party interestingly enough:

Ethics challenge to Feinstein
She chaired subcommittee on military spending; husband had defense firm investments.
By Michael Doyle - Bee Washington Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, April 14, 2007

"The latest round now comes powered by the Internet, fanned by activists on both right and left. The partisans find common cause in questioning Feinstein's role in Pentagon spending while Blum was investing in defense firms. "


"Critics have accused Feinstein of having a conflict of interest by serving as chairwoman and ranking member of the Senate's military construction appropriations subcommittee at the same time that her husband had financial interests in two firms that rely on defense contracts.

The Senate panel approves about $16 billion annually for military construction projects.

Until 2005, Blum had major holdings in two firms, URS Corp. and Perini Corp., that rely on defense contracts.

Perini received $200 million in federal contracts from 2000 to 2006, primarily with the Army, according to records compiled by the private watchdog group OMB Watch. URS received $1.8 billion worth of contracts -- primarily Air Force, Army and Navy -- during the same period."

So Nancy Pelosi is profiting from a greedy pharmaceutical company. Who would have thunk.

somehow i'm a little angrier at presidents and people in congress who vote to get our troops killed and then see a rise in value in their military industrial complex investment funds.

The problem is the Democratic leadership is just as bad as the Republican leadership. I wish Pelosi and Reid had been cast out in 2006 with the rest of the garbage.

(new window)

It's only bad when republicans do it......

El_Perro:
"Ownership of stock in a publicly-traded company generally will not present a conflict of interest requiring recusal from voting"

Followed by the very next line, which you left out for some reason:

"Additional caution is required in deciding whether to sponsor legislation affecting personal financial interests, in view of the greater degree of advocacy involved in sponsorship"

In other words, while voting for or against something that might affect a company you own stock in is sorta okay (by the rules, not by how most votoers consider it), SPONSORING that legislation is getting into the no-no range.

Disgruntled Postal Worker: It's only bad when republicans do it......

Yep, party fanatics turn a blind eye to their own party. And that is how the corruption continues in both parties.

Churchill2004: Replace "combating HIV/AIDS" with "getting wonderful new military technology to the armed forces" and see if you'd still say the same thing. The supposed goodness of the cause in question doesn't change the fact that it's a conflict of interest.

Weaver95: still have a problem with it?

honestly? not really.
It doesn't seem fundamentally all that different from a North Carolina Congressman advocating tobacco, or a Washington Senator advocating airplane manufacturer subsidies. Sure in this case, Pelosi has a personal financial interest, but its not significantly less proximate when a Congress-critter is stumping for campaign donations instead of stock returns.

There is a short list of things that WOULD piss me off in this sort of situation:
1)Did she buy the stocks based on knowledge that the legislation would pass which wasn't available to the public?
2)Did she hide or fail to disclose her stocks, or even just try to mislead people about them?
3)Does the legislation have no rational basis aside from helping her personally profit?
4)Do the other Congressmen have similar financial interest such that J&J or some other company/industry has a controlling interest over Congress?

If all of those questions are a no then I've got no problem with it.

If you want to compare this to the gripes people have with Chaney over Haliburton, that could be different. In my mind some of Haliburton's preferential treatment seems to have no rational basis, and Chaney has consistently mislead people about his interest in the company (saying he has no financial ties to the Co. despite having a deferred salary which is payable when he leaves office).

I have a big problem with this.

she's got a long way to go before she catches The Lizard (LA) or The Duke (CA)

Jefferson didn't think politicians should be disengaged from society, just that the ties should be disclosed, so citizens could make an informed choice. Of course those ties can be abused (cough haliburton cough) but this doesn't seem egregious to me.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Dollars -ollars) continues to clean up the corruption in Congress by refusing to divest in stocks that stand to gain from the Early Treatment of HIV Act


FTFM

Dear Jerk: Jefferson didn't think politicians should be disengaged from society, just that the ties should be disclosed, so citizens could make an informed choice

I actually agree with that. Same goes for campaign financing. Trying to actually control the money is a fool's errand, anyway. Just insist on full disclosure.

Part of that is the individual citizens get to judge. I judge this to be a conflict of interest.

Churchill2004: Part of that is the individual citizens get to judge. I judge this to be a conflict of interest.

The fear with conflicts of interest are that the conflict will make a person compromise their duty to their job.
The only question that really matters here is: do you really think she wouldn't have introduced this legislation if she owned no J&J stock? If she still would have introduced the legislation then you can label it whatever you want, it doesn't matter. It's not unethical.

Nuuu: It's not unethical.

That might be how you judge it. I think it's inappropriate for a Congresscritter to profit from legislation without recusing themselves, period.

Early Treatment of HIV Act?

How about the "Early Treatment of Lung Cancer Act"?

Oh wait..that is behavior driven. So let's just relentlessly condemn, outlaw, and tax the behavior.

farking hypocrites - thanks for the SF Values there NP

161 comments about Obama's middle name and 31 about corruption in government.

American Idol meets Presidential politics.

Churchill2004: Nuuu: It's not unethical.

That might be how you judge it. I think it's inappropriate for a Congresscritter to profit from legislation without recusing themselves, period.

Take a step back for a moment. Remember that this isn't Pelosi investing in some little mom & pop HIV clinic that is suddenly going to take off as a result of this legislation. This is Johnson & Johnson. In addition to HIV medication they make baby oil, Listerine, tooth paste, cancer drugs, Rogaine, and almost everything else on the farking planet. If they pass Medicare legislation, it will affect J&J's bottom line. If they fund the NIH/NSF it will affect J&J's bottom line. If they pass a defense funding bill, it will probably affect J&J's bottom line. If you wanted Nancy Pelosi to recuse herself from any vote which could affect J&J's profits, about the only thing she COULD vote for would be post office naming bills.

You have to realize just how attenuated a connection this fringe conservative website is trying to make. It would be like if a Senator invested in a steel refinery, you would be saying that they should recuse themselves from a vote on anything made out of steel. If this is seriously your standard for an ethical violation, then every single congressman who has served in the last 50 years is corrupt.

I'll give you a good example. So Nancy Pelosi's husband owns $500,000 in J&J stock, and that means she shouldn't be allowed to vote on HIV research (not to mention medical research bills in general) bills right?
It never seemed to bother you or the Senate ethics committee that Bill Frist, a champion of conservative health care issues, sponsored and voted for numerous health care bills while at the same time owning almost $50,000,000 of Columbia/HCA, one of the nations largest health care corporations.
If Pelosi was bought and paid for by J&J at $500,000, then Frist should have been 100x more bought and paid for. Yet the ethics committee didn't care, because his interests were fully disclosed. If you can find it in your heart to give Bill Frist a pass for his $50m conflict of interest, maybe Pelosi deserves the same respect.

It's ok, she's a democrat.

Kool-aids over on the table next to the door fellas.

CNS.com:
All of the WND crazy, and only half its credibility.


hasty ambush:

While you're posting excerpts of news stories, it's typically a good idea to also include the parts where they quote the accusers admitting that they have no evidence of wrong-doing.

Unless it's your intent to come off as an intellectually dishonest poster, in which case you're doing just fine.

That is the weakest link I have ever seen. A company (J&J) "markets" a drug by Amgen (interestingly, my former employer) which has little to do with early HIV treatment. It's an anemia drug, a hemoglobin deficiency...low blood oxygen. But, here's where the facts just don't hold up to the far right wing extremist talking points and propaganda.

Early treatment of HIV with combination anti-retroviral therapy DECREASES the need for anemia drugs.

She would be doing a disservice to Amgen, and subsequently Johnson & Johnson if she signed legislation for early treatment of HIV, from the perspective of anemia.

This is a good debate.

I'm sad now that I just came in to pick on subby's grammar.