Democratic Hub
About Us
Tour
FAQ
Signup
Login
  
Home
Forums
Pages
Issues
Laws
Elections
Arguments
Events
Government
U.S.
World
Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.
Forums > All Posts > Conflicts of interest?
  • Forums
  • Categories
  • All Posts
  • Forum Rules
  • FAQ\Help
Displaying all 4 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.
2010-06-17 02:42 PM
Square Main Photo
Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 938
Source: Here

When the recent financial disclosure of Congress was recently released, it noticed quite a few congressmen had significant funds invested in BP and other oil companies. Our elected officials make more money through their stocks and investments than they do in office. Does this pose a conflict of interests between what should be done and what helps the congressmen?
2010-06-17 02:59 PM

RDissen
Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1

This does pose a conflict of interest for our elected officials in Washington. Unfortunately, such conflicts of interest occur all the time. They are detrimental to the citizens of this country and should be prevented. The only question is how. The most common response is creating an ethics commission. This poses problems of its own. It allows old men to persecute other old men for investments designed to protect their families. I consent that there are times when these said investments truly are unlawful in nature, but I reject the idea that every cent put into an oil company by a congressmen should be seen as evil. My own view is that the only reliable way to prevent this problem is for the congressmen himself to police his own investments. But again, this poses problems when the leader has no moral fortitude. My main point is here revealed: most conflicts of interest are moral questions, not legal ones.

2010-06-17 03:38 PM
Square Main Photo
Zach F
Denton, TX
Posts: 938
I agree completely. I'm not saying that the investments are evil, nor do I think it is a legal question. It just makes me uneasy knowing that our elected officials may choose the comfort of their families over the well-being of an entire region.
2010-06-20 07:46 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058
For anyone with savings invested in the stock market, the investment choices are probably more driven by one's view of what parts of the economy present good long term investments.  Oil company stocks are probably on that list because of the belief that after "peak oil" the global competition for oil supplies will drive prices up once again. I don't really see most politicians investing in these stocks with the specific intent that their legislative actions can help drive the price up, but there may be a more passive love for a particular industry if it affects the constituents in their state.  Louisiana and Texas politicians, for example, are generally pro oil, and I would expect their portfolios to have oil company stocks.

The bigger problem in my mind is not the equity investments, but rather campaign contributions by these firms that total in the millions.  And now with the recent Supreme Court ruling removing monetary limits, we can expect even heftier donations extracted by the politicians for "legislative favors."  It would seem the only way to limit an Exxon in this kind of activity would be for stockholders to vote in resolutions to 1) require full disclosure of their contributions and 2) place limits on contributions.

However, placing restrictions on publicly traded companies like Exxon is only half the battle.  Private firms like Koch Industries can still donate unlimited funds.
You must be logged in to reply to a post.


 
About Us
Contact Us
FAQ
Advertise
Links
Login
Sign Up
  


� Copyright 2009-2012 Democratic Hub. All Rights Reserved.
Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy


OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES