U.S. Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars

[SHRED]

---

Oh my.
How can you, on the one hand, invest in the war machine and on the other criticize it?

---

FINANCE: U.S. Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars
By Abid Aslam

WASHINGTON, Apr 7 (IPS) - U.S. lawmakers have a financial interest in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a review of their accounts has revealed.

Members of Congress invested nearly 196 million dollars of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon contracts to provide goods and services to U.S. armed forces, say nonpartisan watchdog groups.

David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in Iraq, is to brief the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees on Tuesday and Wednesday. The latest findings are unlikely to have a significant impact on this week's proceedings but could stoke anti-incumbent sentiment in this year of presidential and legislative elections.

Lawmakers charged with overseeing Pentagon contractors hold stock in those very firms, as do vocal critics of the war in Iraq, says the Centre for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts who staked his 2004 presidential bid in part on his opposition to the war, tops the list of investors. His holdings in firms with Pentagon contracts of at least five million dollars stood at between 28.9 million dollars and 38.2 million dollars as of Dec. 31, 2006. Kerry sits on the Senate foreign relations panel.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41893

----

[MadMaddie]

1. I don't care if they are Dems or Repugs this is conflict of

interest and WAr Profiteering. IF they don't have the common sense to not do this then they don't deserve representing any American.

They should not be allowed to invest in Pentegon contractors. WTF?

[karynnj]

7. It includes Pepsi, J&J, Microsoft, and IBM

Read the linked article.

(Also in Kerry's case -the bulk of that has to be Teresa's, because his own assets are far less than this.

[laststeamtrain]

2. K & R. But you're taking all the excitment out of the election(s).

You know, bowling & petty lying & all that important crap?

What? Do you want us to make informed, principled decisions or something?

:sarcasm:

[east texas lib]

3. You just call it "Defense Contracts".

See? All better now, isn't it?

[angrycarpenter]

4. Iw ould be interested in a more detailed breakdown

The article says that much of the investments are in regular companies that supply food and clothes. I think that is OK. It is the ones who make a point to manipulate our politics that I would have a problem with. Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, Any weapon maker.

[KoKo]

9. Here's the rest of the article with more detail:

Other panel chiefs who invested in defence firms include Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Independent who presides over the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Rep. Howard Berman, the California Democrat who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In all, 151 current members of Congress -- more than one-fourth of the total -- have invested between 78.7 million dollars and 195.5 million dollars in companies that received defence contracts of at least 5.0 million dollars, according to CRP.

These companies received more than 275.6 billion dollars from the government in 2006, or 755 million dollars per day, says budget watchdog group OMB Watch.

The investments yielded lawmakers 15.8 million - 62 million dollars in dividend income, capital gains, royalties, and interest from 2004 through 2006, says CRP.

Not all the firms deal in arms or military equipment. Some make soft drinks or medical supplies and military contracts represent a small fraction of their revenues. Many are leaders in their industries and, as such, feature in the investment portfolios of millions of ordinary people who invest at least a portion of their savings in mutual funds, which in turn hold stocks in up to hundreds of companies.

"Giant corporations outside of the defence sector, such as Pepsico, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson, have received defence contracts and are all popular investments for both members of Congress and the general public," says CRP.

"So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defence contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them," the group acknowledges.

If some of the stocks appear innocent, aides say legislators also are. Some did not buy the stocks in question but inherited them. Many hold them in blind trusts, so called because the investments are handled by independent entities, at least theoretically without the politicians' knowledge of how their assets are being managed.

Even so, according to CRP, owning stock in companies under contract with the Pentagon could prove "problematic for members of Congress who sit on committees that oversee defence policy and budgeting."

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees held 3.0 million - 5.1 million dollars in companies specialising in weapons and other exclusively military goods and services, it added.

[karynnj]

12. exactly - and they could have done that analysis - but this was more alarmist

as the numbers for the war companies is a very small part of the total.

[babylonsister]

5. I'd like to hear Kerry answer this charge.

Because this site says this doesn't make it so. He should be applauding this war otherwise, and he's not.

[karynnj]

11. Read the entire article - it includes companies like Pepsi!

Kerry has to declare all of his and Teresa's holdings. The lion's share is Teresa's. His holdings were examined in detail in 2004 - and there is nothing there. (Here is how a current candidate's holdings and income are dissected - and that is what happened in 2004 with the Kerrys, who were found to have lots of money that was invested in very non-controversial ways. - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5422190&mesg_id=5422190)

This article is written in a very irresponsible way, but it does include the information that companies included include Pepsico, Microsoft, J&J and IBM. None of these are companies you think of as war companies. I assume that Teresa Heinz Kerry has someone managing her stock holdings. The holdings are in Senate disclosure forms each year. They were said to be very standard holdings in 2004.

Read the whole article. It also says that the holdings in companies that are exclusively military or war products in between $3 and $5 million for ALL the members of the SFRC and the Armed Services Committee. (By the way, Armed Services, not Foreign Relations overseas that budget.)

[karynnj]

6. This is sensationized and irresponsible and includes stocks like Pepsi, J&J, Microsoft, and IBM

The list will correlate with the amount of money that the legislator has in all stocks. Kerry is always listed as the richest Senator because he needs to disclose both his and Teresa's holdings. John Kerry himself does not have $28 million - as we learned in 2004.
The article also contains the answer:

"Not all the firms deal in arms or military equipment. Some make soft drinks or medical supplies and military contracts represent a small fraction of their revenues. Many are leaders in their industries and, as such, feature in the investment portfolios of millions of ordinary people who invest at least a portion of their savings in mutual funds, which in turn hold stocks in up to hundreds of companies.

"Giant corporations outside of the defence sector, such as Pepsico, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson, have received defence contracts and are all popular investments for both members of Congress and the general public," says CRP.

"So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defence contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them," the group acknowledges.

If some of the stocks appear innocent, aides say legislators also are. Some did not buy the stocks in question but inherited them. Many hold them in blind trusts, so called because the investments are handled by independent entities, at least theoretically without the politicians' knowledge of how their assets are being managed."

In addition, it says that the SFRC and Armed service members hold between 3.0 million - 5.1 million dollars in companies "specialising in weapons and other exclusively military goods and services".

As to Kerry, you might also look at John Kerry's votes - last time I looked - he was a sponsor of Kerry/Feingold and has been working as hard as anyone to end the war.

[Fireweed247]

8. This should be illegal!

www.peacecandidates.com

[karynnj]

14. This is the stupidest list I ever saw - they want to defeat Jim McGovern!

He has an excellent record and he has been very antiwar.

Also, given that you likely have criticized HRC and others for not reading the full NIE - maybe you should read the entire article. Should it be legal for Senators to buy Pepsico?

[wisteria]

10. Self delete

[karynnj]

13. self delete

[Fabio]

15. Couple of points here:

One - let's see how this formulated. You cant in the article. Is this John Kerry's money or his wife's? It is separate and I am sure (quite literally because of blind trust rules) that Kerry cant say where his wife's money goes.

Two - What constitutes a defense company? Boeing? Directv? Dupont? GE? Trimble Navigation? You bet they all do. What's so nefarious about them?

Three - Even if all this was true in the worst degree - Kerry is apparently voting against his own financial self interest.