Divestment For Thee ...
By Ed Morrissey on War on Terror
Captain's Quarters
ABC News reports that a major benefactor to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has ties to companies doing business with the Sudanese government currently committing genocide in Darfur. Despite Hillary's prescription for "moving quickly on divestment" to spur an end to the conflict in Darfur, Warren Buffet has no intention of selling his stock:
<<< Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have taken tough, conscientious stances against the genocidal Sudanese government and the companies which help fund it. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, America's second richest man, has not.
In what activists are calling "a definite contradiction," Buffett -- whose estimated $3 billion in Sudan-linked holdings have been disparaged by anti-genocide watchdogs -- is helping raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the White House aspirants.
Over the past several years, the Sudanese government has been widely accused of sponsoring the killing of more than 400,000 of its own people and displacing more than two million more, in what has been called one of the worst humanitarian crises of the new century.
Buffett, the legendary 76-year-old investor, has turned away pleas from shareholders and activists to sell his firm's massive stake in PetroChina, a public subsidiary of China's national petroleum company, which watchdogs have tagged a "chief corporate sponsor" of the Sudanese government. Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway, reportedly owns the majority of publicly-traded stock in PetroChina. >>>
Obviously, Hillary and Obama can't force Buffet to divest. However, it seems more than just a little contradictory for them to offer that as a prescription to other investors while the super-rich Buffet -- who could afford to take a little loss on the transaction -- continues to both fund PetroChina and their campaigns. Some of those proceeds arguably go into those donations.
In fact, both Senators have sponsored a bill to push states into divesting from these same companies that do business with the Sudanese. That may or may not be good policy on its own. Divestment doesn't have that much of an effect on international governments; it just opens the markets to other companies with less exposure to American investment. It would be difficult to convince these states to comply while the bill's co-sponsors take major contributions from an investor in these same companies -- and who could profit by purchasing stock at cheaper prices on the basis of this divestment policy.
If Hillary and Obama want to be taken seriously, they should refuse Buffett's contributions. The likelihood of that happening is about the same as the chances of success for the UN peacekeeping mission that has just been approved, and which can't get staffed. If they don't, they're taking money that they demand others to eschew, a rather rank form of hypocrisy.
captainsquartersblog.com
blogs.abcnews.com
captainsquartersblog.com |
