Don’t Bore Me With Your Conflicts of Interest
Thursday, March 06, 2008 at 4:52 pm
In the “how-dare-you-question-my-virtue” category of political certitude, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) had a somehow refreshingly honest response Thursday to a reporter with the temerity to assume that she suffers the same temptations and proclivities as the rest of the race. The transcript speaks for itself:
Reporter: There are some critics who are have said that your support for the Early Treatment of HIV Act last year and your pharmaceutical holdings represent a conflict. Would you consider divesting your stock from Johnson & Johnson?
Ms. Pelosi: No.
Reporter: Or do you think you should have at least announced your campaign contributions from Amgen and your holdings before introducing the bill last year?
Ms. Pelosi: Absolutely not. My first speech on the floor of the House in 1987, over 20 years ago, was on the subject of HIV/AIDS and research. My work in the Congress has had this as a priority. I would no more do that than I would say my support for broadband means I have to divest any technology stock I have, or my interest in preserving the planet means I have to divest of any interest I may or may not have – I don’t even know – in any green technologies. No.
Sorry. Our bad. We forgot that Democrats would never use their seats of power for financial gain.
6 Comments
Comment posted March 7, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
All office holders should be required to invest only in Treasuries.
Comment posted March 7, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Hi Sunset. Thanks for the comments. And the purpose is this: With millions, sometimes billions of dollars in corporate windfalls often riding on the fate of specific legislation — and with lawmakers in a position to decide the fate of that legislation — well, you can see how quickly conflicts of interest might arise based on the personal investments of the lawmakers casting the votes. (This is particularly true of party leaders like Pelosi, who, by themselves, can decide if a bill merits floor consideration.) That’s not to say that lawmakers are inherently crooked, or even that they should be forced to divest their corporate holdings. But they are inherently human, and therefore suffer all the temptations that the rest of us do, as numerous scandals prove. It’s also interesting that we recognize these conflicts of interest in the judiciary branch (ie, judges must recuse themselves when they have investments related to parties appearing in their courtrooms), but not in the legislature. In this sense, the reporter’s question yesterday, as I read it, was much less an accusation that Pelosi might vote her wallet then it was a condemnation of a system that would allow her the opportunity to do so. (And you’ll have to ask the folks at the Politico if they consider themselves a serious publication. We’re a different office over here.)
Comment posted March 6, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Please, what is your purpose in writing such egregious nastiness. Speaker Pelosie’s response was, I believe entirely reasonable given the "when did you stop beating your wife" category of questioning?
I’m new to this site and would like to know. Does Politico consider itself a serious publication? Frankly this is an adolescent piece if I ever saw one and I wonder if there is any editorial discretion being applied.
Comment posted March 6, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Please, what is your purpose in writing such egregious nastiness. Speaker Pelosie's response was, I believe entirely reasonable given the "when did you stop beating your wife" category of questioning?
I'm new to this site and would like to know. Does Politico consider itself a serious publication? Frankly this is an adolescent piece if I ever saw one and I wonder if there is any editorial discretion being applied.
Comment posted March 7, 2008 @ 3:50 am
Hi Sunset. Thanks for the comments. And the purpose is this: With millions, sometimes billions of dollars in corporate windfalls often riding on the fate of specific legislation — and with lawmakers in a position to decide the fate of that legislation — well, you can see how quickly conflicts of interest might arise based on the personal investments of the lawmakers casting the votes. (This is particularly true of party leaders like Pelosi, who, by themselves, can decide if a bill merits floor consideration.) That's not to say that lawmakers are inherently crooked, or even that they should be forced to divest their corporate holdings. But they are inherently human, and therefore suffer all the temptations that the rest of us do, as numerous scandals prove. It's also interesting that we recognize these conflicts of interest in the judiciary branch (ie, judges must recuse themselves when they have investments related to parties appearing in their courtrooms), but not in the legislature. In this sense, the reporter's question yesterday, as I read it, was much less an accusation that Pelosi might vote her wallet then it was a condemnation of a system that would allow her the opportunity to do so. (And you'll have to ask the folks at the Politico if they consider themselves a serious publication. We're a different office over here.)
Comment posted March 7, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
All office holders should be required to invest only in Treasuries.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
rss