Barack Obama Financial Investigation?

Question

I read at the site below that officials were investigating Barack Obama's personal finances. Did you guys hear of this before? I think its just breaking. See what you think. http://www.vote4obama.org

My intent isn't to discredit Obama. But if the NYT is leading with it tomorow, i dont exactly think I'm using deceptive sources. I'm FOR Obama, but you should know both sides and your enemy...

Answer 1

So that's where my money went...thanks for the scoop dude!!

Answer 2

Obama lost money on stock. That's about it.

Obamapedia:

From Media Matters:
"[t]here is no evidence that any of [Obama's] actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks."
NYT

From the Hotline Blog:
"The Substance Of The Times Story On Obama

Ok, now to the merits. This is an interesting story, and it suggests that Obama was not as careful as he ought to have bee, or could have been. But our political antennae are buzzing here; our ethical antennae are silent. If Obama has a problem, this isn't it.


If a senior Disney Co. executive or a partner in a major institutional shareholder raises money for a candidate and the candidate's qualified visually impaired trust invests in Disney, it wouldn't raise any hackles. Say the candidate also supports, say, an FCC candidate who promises not to over police network television. So what?

In this case, Obama donor George W. Haywood, suggested that Obama employ UBS to manage his money. Obama's UBS-managed trust invested in, among many entities, a very small pharmaceutical company that was new to its field, and in a satellite communications "concerned" that was partly owned by one of his major contributors, the wonderfully named Jared Abbruzzese.


The difference here is not one of kind -- it's one of magnitude. The smaller the company, the more obscure the company is, the more a company’s backer has ties to the “Swift Boats,” the more suspicious one is supposed to become of the dynamics underlying the purchase. (Were the companies really obscure? Opinions differ. But if the Times pronounces them as "relatively obscure," then maybe they are.)


But if the ethical principle is: it's OK to invest in companies owned by your fundraisers, then journalists covering the story need to justify why the standard changes: in this telling, it's the obscurity of a purchase and not the purchase itself that's the issue. The Times suggests that Haywood recommended that Obama use UBS's broker in part because he knew that UBS would invest some of Obama's assets in the two companies partly owned by Haywood.


The ultimate consequences of the purchase provide no help, here. Obama lost money overall and divested himself as soon as the purchases were disclosed to him. The facts are on his side.

If you think Obama is lying and somehow directed his broker to purchase these stocks on Haywood's advice (and knew that Haywood was an investor in those companies), and if Obama planned to use his office to appropriate avian flu funds to the pharma company, then... say that. The circumstantial evidence does not begin to prove it.


The Times justifies the content of its story, and by implication, its page A-1 placement, by pointing to the fact that Obama "has made ethics a signature issue." Fair point. Media critics we're not, but we wonder if the Times editors hope this story sends a message to the candidates and the Times' competitors that it will closely scrutinize every ink mark, iota and giblit.

By the way: who's the broker? He/she's at the center of the storm, and we don't know who he/she is.
"

Answer 3

It's a standard practice for political candidates (especially presidential) to get their finances scrutinized. Barack Obama ranks 50th out of 50 U.S. Senators in terms of net worth ($1million to $2million). (That's dead last!).

Hillary Clinton ranks 14th out of 50 ($10 Million to $50 Million with Bill's speeches and appearances accounting for a lot of this. It is is amazing to think that the Clintons were $12 million in debt thanks to Bill's legal troubles when he left office).

Rudy Guiliani's net worth was estimated to be about $20 million in 2002. (Based on his ex-wife's divorce filing. Much has come to Rudy since 9/11. He was charging ~$100,000 per speech!)

John McCain's net worth is around $15 million. His second wife is some beer magnate heiress.

Answer 4

The story is legitimate but it won't have legs. The money invested was relatively small, it was sold off, at a loss, when he realized there was a conflict of interest. It is unlikely there will be any ethics investigation let alone violations.

Answer 5

A non-starter pal. Did Bush ever earn any money through his own initiative?

Obama will be, the 44th President of the United States!!

Answer 6

Boy, you guys are sure running scared from Obama to lie like that!

Answer 7

You might not want to get your information from deceptive websites initiated to discredit Democratic candidates.

But hey, maybe you like it that way.

Answer 8

He's clean as a whistle at this point. I find it hilarious that people are so desperately grasping for straws on this guy that they have to make up **** like he's Muslim and was schooled in a madrassah. If you can't beat them, lie!

Answer 9

This is no surprise and nothing new. All of them have their finances checked out.

Answer 10

Smell something?? It smells like the Clinton power team is getting ready to cook some Obama goose...Only Dems eat Dems....

Answer 11

I do think the man have nothing to hide, so let them look ,and look, and look, and not find anything worth holding him back.