DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on March 26, 2008, 04:11:52 PM
-
(http://images.bloomberg.com/r06/navigation/logo.gif)
Obamas Donated Less Than 1% of Their 2000-2004 Income
By Ryan J. Donmoyer and Julianna Goldman
March 25, 2008
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=izIQvGDkFdCY)
March 25 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.
The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.
Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman, said the Obamas gave as much as they could afford. He also said the Obamas gave $240,000 to charity in 2007, though they have yet to make last year's tax returns public.
``As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity was as generous as they could be at the time,'' Burton said. The tax returns don't reflect any donations for which they didn't or couldn't claim a deduction or any volunteer work they might have performed.
The Obamas' giving pattern is consistent with that of most other Americans, said University of Georgia Professor Russell James, who has studied the issue.
His analysis of more than 56,000 survey respondents from 1995-2005 found that 90 percent of donors give 2 percent or less of their pre-tax income to charities, including their churches. Americans who earn more than $150,000 on average gave about 2.2 percent of their income.
``It's not shocking,'' James said of the Obamas' philanthropy. ``It's about par for the course for Americans.''
Pressuring Clinton
The Obamas' charitable giving history was revealed as he became the first presidential candidate to release his tax returns for the decade and called on his rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, to do the same.
``Releasing tax returns is a matter of routine, and we believe that the Clinton campaign should meet that standard and meet that routine standard now,'' said Robert Gibbs, Obama's communication director.
Clinton said today at a press conference in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, that she hopes to release her tax returns ``within the next week.'' Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, hasn't released his tax returns.
Presidential candidates aren't required to release their tax returns, which by law are confidential. Most have chosen to do so since the early 1970s.
Donations to Church
In 1998, then-Vice President Al Gore was criticized for donating only $353 to charity in 1997 despite earning $197,729. Gore, who was the 2000 Democratic nominee for president, responded by pointing to a history of philanthropy, including more than $50,000 in royalties from his book, ``Earth in the Balance.''
The Obamas made their church, Trinity United Church of Christ, one of the biggest beneficiaries of their philanthropy, donating $27,500. Obama is under scrutiny for his ties to the church because of comments made by its senior pastor.
The tax returns, 103 pages for all seven years released today, show the couple didn't begin claiming an itemized deduction for donations to the church until 2005, when they donated $5,000. They gave $22,500 a year later.
Angila Faison, a spokeswoman for the church, said it encourages its members to give 10 percent of their income to the church based on biblical instructions.
Little in Savings
The family's donations to all recipients totaled $2,350 in 2000, $1,470 in 2001, $1,050 in 2002, $3,400 in 2003, and $2,500 in 2004. They also paid federal taxes totaling $311,044 during the same period on their $1.2 million of income.
The Obamas' tax returns also show they had little in savings during the same period. They reported no dividends or capital gains over the five years and reported $33 in taxable interest, all of which was received in 2002.
Michelle Obama earned $12,000 in 2005 and $51,200 for serving as a director at Treehouse Foods Inc., a supplier for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The couple earned $2,072 in 2005 from selling 3,400 shares in Avi Biopharma Inc., a Portland, Oregon- based drug company that was working on a treatment for avian flu.
They claimed a loss of $15,208 on the sale of 2,500 shares of Skyterra Communications Inc., a Reston, Virginia-based satellite communications company. The company's major investors included four friends and donors who raised more than $150,000 for his campaign committees, the New York Times reported a year ago.
Their biggest gift in 2005 and 2006 combined was $31,000 to Atlanta-based CARE, an organization fighting global poverty.
The Obamas also gave $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus in 2006 as well as $5,000 to the Muntu Dance Theatre, where Michelle Obama serves on a capital campaign committee with Bob Nash, a deputy campaign manager for Clinton.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHdvU_NJzIcI&refer=home (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHdvU_NJzIcI&refer=home)
-
So they gave about as much as one might pay for a new Chevy Malibu. That's about par fo0r a year's donations.
All churchs think they deserve a tenth of their parishioners' money. Back in Biblical times, this was not just for the church, but for the entire government: spears and slingshots, bows and arrows, a new chariot and a couple of horses for King David, as well as Torahs for the temple and Dreidls for the Bible School kids.
-
XO, didn't millionaire Al Gore get busted a few years ago giving a pathetic amount to charity?
-
XO, didn't millionaire Al Gore get busted a few years ago giving a pathetic amount to charity?
What makes it any of your fucking business who gave how much to what charity? How much did you give?
-
Nobody gets "busted" giving any amount to charity. Charity is not a requirement.
I am guessing that McCain and wife didn't tithe, either. But this doesn't matter, because how fatman has so eloquently pointed out, this is no one's f*cking business, not even if they are "Christians for less government".
-
What makes it any of your fucking business who gave how much to what charity?
I think the charitable giving of those that claim they are big
advocates of the needy can provide some clues about who they really are.
Whether they want to force others to "give" or actually give something themselves.
In the same way that Al Gore's home not being as environmentally
"green" as President Bush's said something about Mr. Gore.
Ya know, Money talks, BS walks
How much did you give?
I am not running for office, nor do I hold myself up as an "advocate
for the needy", although as a businessman I think I provide more for the
general welfare of society than many bureaucrats or liberals that want
to impose forced giving on others and then feel all warm and fuzzy
that they are the "good guys".
Plus whatever my answer is about my personal giving you
would dispute. If I say 5K, 10K, 100K, 250K, whats Fatman
gonna say? It's pointless. Your cup is full, it can't accept
any more information. Your mind is made up.
-
I think the charitable giving of those that claim they are big
advocates of the needy can provide some clues about who they really are.
That still doesn't make it your fucking business.
I am not running for office, nor do I hold myself up as an "advocate
for the needy",
So you hold a different standard for those who run for office or advocate for the poor. How telling.
-
That still doesn't make it your fucking business.
If it is widely reported in media outlets, public information,
and I am deciding on who to cast my vote then sorry Fatman
it is my business. Character in a candidate is my business and
I think this area is one clue about who the person is.
So you hold a different standard for those who run for office or
advocate for the poor. How telling.
It's no so much I hold them to higher standards, reality does.
Someone that campaigns as an advocate for the poor, but yet
is not charitable with their own money will be scrutinized.
Much in the same way that a so called environmentalist
advocate driving around in a Hummer, taking private
jets, and investing in coal plants may be questioned
when someone that is not in public office or a big
advocate of environmentalism would not.
Just like the President Bush home being more "green"
than so called "environmentalist" Al Gore's home. It tells
something about a person.
-
What sort of character are you?
What do you drive?
What did you contribute to, and how much?
Do you separate your paper and your plastics?
Is your detergent 100% bio-degradable? Do you shave with a recyclable cutthroat razor, or are you littering the landscape with used razor blades and shaving cartridges? You should use bar shaving soap, not that foam stuff, which would cause you to pollute by throwing cans away. So tell us the brand name of your straight razor and the brand name of your soapcake shaving soap, because we are judging your character.
According to your criteria, this is important for people to know so they can determine your character, so 'fess up awready.
You call yourself a Christian, so you need to tell us how many prayers you said, and what you prayed for as well, so we can determine what sort of 'Christian' you really are. Plus, show us your rebirth certificate if you were born again, and if you do novenas if you are a Roman Catholic.
Then we also need to know whether you really are expecting too much from your government, since it would be hypocritical of you to use MORE government yourself and want us to do with LESS, even if we would prefer a bigger government.
-
What sort of character are you? What do you drive? What did you contribute to, and how much?
I am not a candidate for President, nor am I asking for the public's trust.
Apples to oranges.
Do you separate your paper and your plastics?
No I don't believe in that and I do not sell myself as an "environmentalist".
Is your detergent 100% bio-degradable? Do you shave with a recyclable cutthroat razor, or are you littering the landscape with used razor blades and shaving cartridges? You should use bar shaving soap, not that foam stuff, which would cause you to pollute by throwing cans away. So tell us the brand name of your straight razor and the brand name of your soapcake shaving soap, because we are judging your character.
see above
I am not living a lie, like ALGORE preaching about environmentalism while he
lives in a huge energy consuming mansion while President Bush lives in an
environmental friendly house.
According to your criteria, this is important for people to know so they can determine your character, so 'fess up awready.
I am not asking for the public trust, I frankly could care less what you
think you know about my character.
You call yourself a Christian
I never called myself a Christian.
You are ASSuming things again you know nothing about.
so you need to tell us how many prayers you said, and what you prayed for as well, so we can determine what sort of 'Christian' you really are. Plus, show us your rebirth certificate if you were born again, and if you do novenas if you are a Roman Catholic.
Again I am not running for public office, I don't need to tell anybody
anything because I am not asking for the public trust and/or anybody's vote.
you're just pissed because the truth hurts!
President Bush gave more in donations* than Obama and Bush lives in a "green" house
and Gore doesn't unless after he got busted he's recently changed it.
If this was reversed you'd be the first screaming "SEE"!
Then we also need to know whether you really are expecting too much from your government, since it would be hypocritical of you to use MORE government yourself and want us to do with LESS, even if we would prefer a bigger government.
see above or you can continue to pretend an apple is an orange
-
Okay, so you have no character,and you think you have the right to apply a different standard to others than to yourself. That makes you a bloody hypocrite, but we all knew that all along.
It's NOT apples and and oranges. If you think that everyone has a right to know about Obama, then everyone has a right to know about you.
You DO call yourself a Christian, as in "Christians 4 less government" What is that all about, pray tell?
Your would be more honest to pick the name John Cass, then we would know that in reality you are a Jack Cass..
-
Okay, so you have no character
I don't?
XO thats an unfair "characterization"! ;)
and you think you have the right to apply a different standard to others than to yourself.
Not really.
The only different standard is I am not a public official and thus do not
need to make my character public to convince others to vote for me.
Plus it is impractical to do in an internet message board.
For one I could claim I gave 10 million in charity last year.
You'd say "bullshit".
So whats the point?
I am not going to post my tax return on an internet message board.
But if I was running for office and everybody else was doing that.
Then I may decide I would do that to convince people to vote for me.
That makes you a bloody hypocrite
Well firstly I think we are all probably hypocrites to some degree.
All know the way, but few walk it.
But besides that my views on this are not hypocrital.
If a public figure releases info as a part of them wanting to get elected
then I see nothing wrong with weighing that information as a part of choosing who to vote for.
but we all knew that all along
"we" did?
Ok XO
LOL
It's NOT apples and and oranges.
Yes it is
If you think that everyone has a right to know about Obama
It's no so much everyone has "the right" to know,
but if others running for office have open records
and another candidate doesn't it may put him at a competitive disadvantage.
I think Obama is even calling for Hillary to release some of her records
because he has. So if she doesn't, it could hurt her. He is trying to
gain an advantage because she has not released info.
It just like in business, you don't have to offer certain
services, but if all your competition is then it may put
you at a disadvantage to not do the same.
then everyone has a right to know about you.
As I said above, I am not running for public office,
so I don't need to release my records. It's
apples and oranges.
You DO call yourself a Christian
I do? When have I done that?
I call myself many things.
as in "Christians 4 less government"
XO, that is a posting name in an internet message board.
Don't pretend you know a person from their internet posting name.
What is that all about, pray tell?
I think it is best left to ambiguity.
Your would be more honest to pick the name John Cass
LOL, so you can make a judgement about my honesty from the the name from which I choose to post?
I will consider John Cass, or how about John C. Ass?
then we would know that in reality you are a Jack Cass..
XO now that is kind of funny, but not really your best.
You're ok somtimes.
-
Are charitable contributions a prerequisite for public office?
-
Are charitable contributions a prerequisite for public office?
Obviously not, look at Gore.
-
Obviously not, look at Gore.
Then why is this a big deal?
-
Then why is this a big deal?
=======================
It's a big deal for the Untied Christian because he dislikes Obama and all Democrats, and he never passes up an opportunity to dump on one, or several.
For everyone else...it's just campaign blather, sound and fury, signifying nada.
-
I wouldn't necessarily call it a "big deal." But it does show that the Obamas are pretty stingy. They are liberals and want to be charitable with other people's money. Obama has called for huge tax increases, including a 20 to 25% increase in the capital gains rate to pay for liberal social programs. Obama is charitable with other people's money, not his own. The Obamas have made millions. They can set a better example than this.
-
It's a big deal for the Untied Christian because he dislikes Obama and all Democrats, and he never passes up an opportunity to dump on one, or several.
Not like a certain someone who "dislikes" Bush & Cheney, and all Republicans, dumping on them at every opportunity, with some of the most vile adjectives he can thnk up now, right? 8)
Ahhh, that fine art of projection, yet again
-
Not like a certain someone who "dislikes" Bush & Cheney, and all Republicans, dumping on them at every opportunity, with some of the most vile adjectives he can thnk up now, right?
Truthfully though sirs, this isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue. If it came out tomorrow that McCain gave 0.05% of his income to charity, I could honestly care less. To judge someone's generosity by financial contributions to charity is a myopic view of the situation. There are other ways to give to charity than by just cash. Volunteering, items, and undocumented contributions for example. Personally, I don't write off my contributions, I tend to find it morally disingenuous to give money and then write it off of my taxes. I'm not faulting anyone else who does so, to each their own, but this thing is a tempest in a teapot, because all you're seeing is the contributions listed on his tax return. I'd rather give because I want to give, or believe in that cause, than give because it makes me appear more generous or because it makes a nice write off.
A side story real quick, if you'll allow. As you probably know, I live in a small town (7K) in a rural area. There is one family that is extremely wealthy, they own several businesses in logging, waste management, a machine shop, and now they're investing heavily into composite molding and biofuel. They also give a ridiculous amount of money to local charity, the only reason that I know that is because I served on the boards of a couple. When they gift the money, it is gifted anonymously, with a non-disclosure agreement. As far as I know, they don't claim it on their taxes (why would they do so when they require the charities to keep the source a secret?), which may not be financially wise, but tells me something about their own character.
To pretend that someone, even a Presidential candidate, only gives what is listed on their tax return, is rather foolish.
-
Not like a certain someone who "dislikes" Bush & Cheney, and all Republicans, dumping on them at every opportunity, with some of the most vile adjectives he can thnk up now, right?
Truthfully though sirs, this isn't (or shouldn't be) an issue.
Oh I agree......mostly. It just tends to reinforce a certain sterotype, on how great Democrats are at spending other people's money for "social causes and injustice". That's all
-
Then why is this a big deal?
BT I never said it was a "big deal".
It's one piece of a puzzle.
Of course the only way to defend the stingy-ness
is to say "well they may give alot to charity off the record".
Well President Bush may also give alot "off the record" and
on the record. I think our leaders should set an example
of being charitable both on and off the record because
it sends a great positive message and example to millions
of Americans.
-
This is what i think.
I think this is juvenile gotcha gaming.
Oh sure i guess it points out the hypocrisy of liberals who are all for helping the downtrodden.
But is it really hypocritical? Liberals want the government to handle social services. Last i looked Obama paid taxes, which go to the government, which they can if desired spend on social services.
Seems he is being consistent.
On the other hand, Republicans and conservatives think the money they earned is better left in their own hands. That they will contribute to charities that they deem worthy without the giovt being the middle man.
Using that logic, one would expect charitable deductions to much higher on the right side of the aisle and much less on the left side of the aisle.
The second point i would like to make is this.
Is it not hypocritcal for conservs and republicans who are more individuaistic than the communal liberals and democrats to shame a fellow individual for how they choose to spend THEIR money?
just asking!
-
This is what i think. I think this is juvenile gotcha gaming. Oh sure i guess it points out the hypocrisy of liberals who are all for helping the downtrodden.
This is perhaps, but not the Rev Wright debacle
-
It all boils down to this:
Should a society guarantee a minimum standard, beneath which none of its members should be allowed to fall by the decision of that society, or should those who fall beneath the minimum standard or are in danger of falling beneath it be rescued at random and buy the whim of compassionate individuals who might or might not be relied upon to do this?
Liberals want our society to have a minimum standard and are willing to pay taxes to pay for it, while conservatives want poverty to remain at the option of the wealthy and privileged.
Having hungry workers standing constantly at the factory gate ensures productivity for the factory and wealth for its owners.
When workers understand that all of society maintains a standard of dececy, they get all uppity, and the megabillionaires are faced with becoming only billionaires.
"I have always depended on the kindness of strangers" was a good line from a Tennesee Williams play, but it should not be our national motto.
-
It all boils down to this: Liberals want our society to have a minimum standard and are willing to pay taxes to pay for it, while conservatives want poverty to remain at the option of the wealthy and privileged.
Start with a false premise......no need to read futher
-
Deny the truth all you wish. It doesn't change its truthful nature.
-
Naaa, I'll deny the hyperbolic distortion being reported as a so-called truth, instead
-
>>Obama is charitable with other people's money, not his own.<<
Of course.
Doesn't it always seem to be that way with liberals? Especially the super rich ones? Kerry gives next to nothing (it's not his money anyway), The Clinton give away used underwear and then claim it as a tax write off. No, the left doesn't have much to give when it's their own money.
Apparently Obama isn't interested in doing what is required of all successful Black folks. Give something back. For Obama, he first has to take from the people, THEN give it to the government, who THEN deems who's worthy and who's not.
-
Why don't you tell us what percentage McCain gave to charity?
Did Mitt Romney contribute one cent other than to the Mormon Church?
How about Thompson, Giulani and Huckabee? How about YOU, you bogus assemblage of Christians?
You don't care about charity, you only care about blathering on about "Liberals".
There are no conservatives left. What used to call themselves conservatives are now interested in pissing away money on imperial wars and spying on everyone without motive, permission or knowledge. Juniorbush claims he can viloate any law he does not like by describing what parts he disagrees with in some stupid "signing statement".
Freedom is what this country always about, but you are more interested in deciding how much people you don't know give to charity.
-
Did Mitt Romney contribute one cent other than to the Mormon Church?
Because I was actually considering voting for him, I checked.
Yes.
-
"Because I was actually considering voting for him, I checked"
uh oh ami
you checked?
how dare you?
better watch it
this is not supposed to be any of our "F-ing" business!
::)
-
What interest me is how the Obamas made their money.
If in stocks-and who doesn't play the market at that level?-who oh who does he have stock in? Wouldn't it be delightfully hypocritical if Obama speaks out against the war, only to have stock in Lockheed Martin? Hahaha, that was my first thought when the story broke...
-
this is not supposed to be any of our "F-ing" business!
So, how much did you give?
-
>> ... only to have stock in Lockheed Martin?<<
Kind of like Michael Moore owning stock in Halliburton?
;)
-
Picking Apart Obama's Stock Portfolio
Nat Worden
03/05/07 - 08:02 AM EST
Editor's note: Nat Worden sat down with Wall Street Confidential's Gregg Greenberg to discuss the making of this story. Click here for the Webcast.
If presidential candidates were stocks, then Sen. Barack Obama might be the quintessential momentum play.
The young senator from Illinois stands as the current rock star candidate for the White House in 2008. Unlike his rivals, who are longtime fixtures on the national political scene, his reputation is pure. So, like a trendy new stock that is soaring on wings of speculation, either Obama can flame out under a long-term dose of public scrutiny or he can deliver enormous returns to believers.
A look at his recent investment record reveals that, like his supporters, Obama has a taste for betting on long shots. But two such bets placed in 2005 raise questions about the senator's judgment when it comes to buying stock in companies that are in line for federal funding.
In the second installment of TheStreet.com's review of the investing and Wall Street affiliations of 2008 presidential candidates , we peruse Obama's investment portfolio. (Click here to see the first installment on likely Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani.) The data are based on information reported on Stockpickr.com that is drawn from public filings combined with information provided by Obama's presidential campaign.
Obama's lean portfolio from 2005 -- the most recent data available to the public -- reflects his status as a newcomer and an outsider to the establishment of beltway presidential politics. The more conventional candidates, such as the early Democratic frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and her Republican counterpart, Sen. John McCain, boast vast networks of investments that are typical of a public figure heading up a well-oiled political machine. Obama's investments, meanwhile, are mostly tied up in a short list of conservative mutual funds.
A closer look, however, shows that in 2005 he dabbled in two obscure stocks -- Skyterra Communications SKYT and AVI Biopharma AVII -- that happened to get large amounts of revenue from a source with which Obama has some familiarity: the federal government.
Aside from sharing the same deep-pocketed benefactor, the two have one more thing in common. They both provide services in an area that has become a hot-button issue on Capitol Hill and with the electorate: homeland security.
"Homeland Security is a field that has really sprung up in the years following the [terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001], and you have a lot of small companies that are vying for a lot of big government contracts," says Massie Ritsch, the communications director for Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money and influence in U.S. politics. "When the people controlling the purse strings for government contracts are invested in the companies that stand to get those contracts, it definitely raises ethical questions."
To be sure, it's not uncommon to find elected officials in Congress who hold investments in companies that receive federal funding or provide testimony to their legislative committees. In fact, it's hard to find any politicians with money in the stock market who aren't at least indirectly invested in a major government contractor, such as General ElectricGE or Boeing BA.
But Obama's 2005 trades raise questions in that Skyterra Communications and AVI Biopharma are far more speculative and uncommon stocks than those blue-chip staples. They both have much smaller market caps -- less than $700 million -- and lower trading volumes. While there's no evidence that Obama had a role in the contracts for the companies, given his other investments, it seems an unlikely coincidence that the senator would be familiar with either company except through his work as a legislator.
Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's presidential campaign, says that in the process of setting up a blind trust for the senator, the stocks were recommended and purchased by a broker at UBS.
"The broker's intention was to hold on to them long-term -- but to avoid any potential conflict, he sold the stock to reinvest the money in mutual funds," says Burton.
Betting on Satellites
Public filings show that Obama bought somewhere between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of Skyterra shares in February 2005. Burton says there was a mistake made on the senator's disclosure form and that he actually invested between $50,000 and $100,000 in shares of Skyterra. The discrepancy is in the process of being corrected.
Skyterra, based in Reston, Va., is controlled by the New York private equity firm Apollo Management. The company, which didn't return repeated calls seeking comment for this story, holds stakes in several technology companies, including a satellite communications outfit called Mobile Satellite Ventures.
In 2005, Skyterra was viewed by Wall Street as a way to speculate in the public markets on the fortunes of MSV, which provides testimony and white papers to Congress about the value of satellite communications to the U.S. military and the Department of Homeland Security.
Obama's purchase came right around the time that MSV received approval from the Federal Communications Commission to construct a nationwide wireless network with both satellite and terrestrial components. That ruling raised the prospect that MSV would form an alliance with a major terrestrial phone carrier, such as Verizon VZ or AT&T T.
Like other investors, Obama may have purchased the stock in February based on the company's new prospects, but MSV also got a huge influx of public money that year.
"Satellite has tremendous value to the public interest, especially in times of emergency, because you're not dependent on the terrestrial infrastructure for communications," says Dale Hatfield, an independent consultant and telecommunications professor at University of Colorado who was recently commissioned by MSV to write a white paper for policymakers. "If everything else fails, you can still make a satellite call."
According to OMB Watch, which tracks the spending habits of the federal government, MSV received $167,064 in federal funds in 2004, and 28% of that money came from so-called no-bid contracts.
In 2005, the year Obama traded Skyterra stock, the amount of federal funds MSV received swelled to more than $250 million, and 76.4% of that came from no-bid contracts.
Obama sold his Skyterra holdings on Nov. 1, 2005, when the stock closed at $31. Based on the stock's closing price of $39.10 on Feb. 10, the day he bought the shares, he recorded a loss of about 21% on the investment.
Burton says Obama lost $15,000 on his Skyterra trade. Still, the sale was timely because Skyterra shares then dropped off precipitously in early 2006 after a partnership with a major phone carrier never materialized.
Bioterror Stock Takes Off
Some of the senator's losses in Skyterra were mitigated by his investment in AVI Biopharma. That company makes drugs that can be used to treat a number of infectious diseases, some of which are listed on the Department of Homeland Security list of bioterrorism viruses, including West Nile, bird flu, Dengue, SARS and Ebola.
AVI spokeswoman Jenny Moede says the company, based in Portland, Ore., has collaborated with various agencies of the federal government to test its technology on animals. It has not yet been used on humans, and the government has yet to stockpile any of its drugs.
OMB Watch reports that AVI received $164,078 in 2004 for research grants. In the first three quarters of 2005, the year that Obama made his trades in the stock, that amount increased nearly three times to $471,696.
According to public filings, Obama purchased between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in AVI on Feb. 22, 2005, when the stock was trading at just above $2. He then sold his stake on Oct. 28 of that year, when the stock closed at $3.47 that day, suggesting Obama had roughly a 73% gain.
AVI shares had popped in early October 2005 on news that the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations had approved $22 million for AVI's research and development programs as part of a 2006 defense spending bill.
That money was contingent on approval by the full Senate, and AVI ultimately received $11 million from that bill. Last December, the company announced that it was awarded a two-year $28 million research contract to explore treatments for biological warfare and bioterrorism agents. That was a big deal for a company that recorded just $4.7 million in annual revenue in 2005.
AVI's Moede says executives told her that they've had no interactions with Obama and that they were not aware of his buying and selling in AVI shares.
Burton says the Senator recorded a profit of roughly $2,000 on the trade, leaving him in the red for his stock trading in 2005 by $13,000.
Murky Rules
While Obama ultimately lost money on his stock trades, these two moves do raise the question of whether there are ethical issues that should have restrained the senator from investing in shares of such unusual companies at a time when they were benefiting from federal funding.
There are no rules for senators prescribed by the Senate Ethics Committee that directly prohibit them from owning shares in companies that deal with the federal government. They are not, however, allowed to trade on information that isn't available to the public, and they are supposed to avoid conflicts of interest between their legislative duties and their personal financial interests.
"The senator was not on the Homeland Security Committee at the time [he made these investments] and has never been an appropriator," says Burton. "The senator has never taken any legislative or official action in order to specifically benefit either one of those companies."
Alex Knott, political editor for the Center for Public Integrity, says that, despite the rules in place, conflicts of interest for elected officials in Congress arise all the time.
"Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue connect in so many ways, and lawmakers constantly have the ability to drop earmarks or amendments into legislation that could make a stock on the Nasdaq rise or fall dramatically," says Knott.
To address whatever shortcomings may exist in the rules, lawmakers are required to disclose their personal investment holdings so they can be held up to public scrutiny.
"The best thing for a lawmaker to do is avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, because they get you in positions that you don't want to be in politically," says Ritsch.
http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/10342170.html
-
"Obama purchased between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in AVI on Feb. 22, 2005, when the stock was trading at just above $2. He then sold his stake on Oct. 28 of that year, when the stock closed at $3.47 that day, suggesting Obama had roughly a 73% gain.
AVI shares had popped in early October 2005 on news that the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations had approved $22 million for AVI's research and development programs as part of a 2006 defense spending bill"
::)
-
Looks like he sold after the announcement.
-
yeah but do we really want US Senators short term investing in stocks of companies
that are being approved for tens of millions in appropriations by the US Senate?
ps: plus of course he sold afterward, thats when the stock probably went up after
they got the appropriation?
-
plus of course he sold afterward, thats when the stock probably went up after
they got the appropriation?
That seems to follow the logic of buying low and selling high.
And yeah i want politicians to have working knowledge of money matters, including short as well a long term investments.
As long as he wasn't insider trading, i see no ethical problems with what he has done with the stocks, just as i don't see a problem with how GWB made his money with the Rangers.