CT-SEN: Ned Lamont to Joe Lieberman: My Money Manager Did It
This is fun. This morning a local station in Connecticut carried the news that Joe Lieberman is now criticizing Ned Lamont for his investments in ... Halliburton. That would be the same Halliburton that has gotten rich -- or richer -- off the war that Lieberman has supported with so much enthusiasm.
And Lamont's defense? I didn't do the investment. My money manager did.
Things are just getting weirder and weirder in this race, aren't they?
Here's what happened:
Lieberman, who's trying to make an issue of Lamont's alleged foot-dragging on releasing his tax returns, said this:
"From the limited disclosure he had under the 'Senate ethics' that he has stock in 'Halliburton,' and he has stock in, more stock in some of the big oil companies. That's something for everybody to judge."
To which the Lamont camp responded:
Lamont's campaign says when the IRS filing is released, it will show that he has less than $50,000 invested in Halliburton and it was selected by a money management firm, not him.
Now, since it's perfectly possible that Lamont -- er, his money manager -- made the investment in Halliburton before the company was controversial, I'm not sure whether there's much of a story here. Yes, one could ask why Lamont didn't divest since, but still, it seems likely that he didn't know about it to begin with, so who cares?
Still, the Lamont camp can't have been too happy about having to respond the way they did. After all, the response serves as a reminder that (a) Lamont is so wealthy that he considers "less than $50,000" a niggling investment; and (b) Lamont is so wealthy that he isn't aware of his own investments. And Lamont should be responsible for investments made in his name.
At any rate, we thought it would be a good idea to get in touch with Lamont's money management company ourselves to ask what gives. It could then confirm Lamont's case, telling us how much the investment was, when it was made, and whether Lamont knew about it. So we put in a request to the Lamont camp. They said they'd think it over and get back to us.
They're still thinking it over.
My guess is that, since it doesn't look like anyone's grabbing on to this story, they'll realize that there's little percentage in keeping this thing going, and they'll say No. And they'll be right, I have to admit it -- it doesn't look like this story's going anywhere. There's just nothing here.
So I guess we'll have to wait for those tax returns. Here at Election Central, we're disappointed. We wanted to talk to Lamont's money manager.
UPDATE: Props to TPM intern Rachel Weiner for digging out this story.
Of course, Lieberman's investment advisor, according to his Financial Disclosure Forms, is Merrill Lynch, the very bank he investigated for ties to Enron when he was head of the government affairs committee. So, if Lamont's to be criticized for owning a few defense stocks while opposing a war, then Lieberman's to be criticized for giving his business to an investment bank that his own Senate committee had determined was dirty.
Also, if Lieberman thinks there's something wrong with investing in defense stocks while opposing a war, then doesn't that make Lieberman himself a war profiteer? A quick look through the holdings of some of his mutual funds reveals that quite a few hold Lockheed Martin in their top ten holdings...
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 18, 2006 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So who cares? Hmmm.. the radical left didn't care either when it was found that their hero, Ralph Nader had investments that included Halliburton, Raytheon Occidental Oil, Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Petroleum (raping the Niger Delta), big pharmaceuticals, the corporation creating the frankenfood, the genetic corn that kills butterflies, plus much more, approx 8 millions worth.
How can one take the far left seriously when they are so consistently inconsistent on what constitutes their so called ideological purity?
July 18, 2006 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
One might also note that Lieberman had objections to Halliburton, he might have brought some of them up when he had the opportunity in 2000, when he spent an hour and a half "debating" the CEO of that company. The word "Halliburton" did not come up, although many of the issues regarding the stock price, exec compensation, and performance on federal contracts were already known.
July 18, 2006 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a long-time Dem, I think Lamont has to divest himself of Halliburton stock. $50,000 doesn't seem like a small amount to most Americans. Why start acting like Holy Joe? Just act like an adult, clean up where it needs to be done and move on. Ignoring stuff is what the Dems have been doing for 6 years in Congress.
July 18, 2006 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a better question, Mary: how can anyone take you seriously when you describe Ned Lamont as being part of the "radical left" and compare his supporters in the Connecticut Democratic primary to Democrat-hating Green Party members?
July 18, 2006 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, destor23, stop! You're such a wet blanket. Don't you know you're wrecking a perfectly good Ned Lamont non-scandal?
July 18, 2006 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
News Flash! Wealthy man owns stock in large, profitable company!
July 18, 2006 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is the ranking dem on the governental affairs committee.
If he thinks that Haliburton has acted improperly, why hasn't he called for the committee to do an investigation?
If he thinks Haliburton has been great, then why call Lamont on an investment?
July 18, 2006 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
News flash: Senatorial canditate is a capitalist! Can someone notify the Politbureau please?
The list of companies one could "ethically" avoid is pretty long. Genentech is profiteering on the despair of cancer patients at ca. 100,000 per one sick person -- without even pretending that the amount has anything to do with costs. I for one think that it is up to companies to pursue profit and up to lawmakers to harmonize the individual (and corporate) profit with the common weal. "Disinvesting" may be nice, but as a tactic to change the world it is not effective.
Disclaimer: for all I know, I can have some stocks in assorted "unethical" companies. I never studied the mutual funds' reports.
July 18, 2006 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Errrr...Mary....unless I read the original item incorrectly, it was Lieberman's campaign who tried to attack Lamont on the basis of this investment. Since when is Lieberman part of the "far left"? As for Nader's hypocrisy, there's a long history behind that, at least according to a Harpers or Atlantic article I read years ago: for a long time, trial attorneys were the main ones funding his pro-consumer activities (some of which, like some trial attorneys, actually did probably do good for consumers, n.b.). But Nader left rationality far behind when he wilfully threw the 2000 election to Bush. His (and his followers') argument that "there's no difference between a Dem and a Repub" is looking awfully hollow, and has for years now.
July 18, 2006 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops...got lost among the perspectives, there. Mary's point, I suppose, is meant to apply to Lamont's "far left" supporters, and dear old Joe is simply revealing their (supposed) hypocrisy.
Frankly, if I were Lamont, I'd have dumped a direct investment in Halliburton a while ago; of course, anyone who owns an index fund would presumably own a little, but that's hardly an issue. "Purity/hypocrisy" are memes that the right likes to use against the far left, and the left against the far right, mostly (in part because there's usually some truth to both the desire for purity and the reality that politics requires compromise). But for the 90% of us not at either extreme, the charges don't much matter, and it doesn't appear to me that either Lamont or Lieberman are "far" anything.
July 18, 2006 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello all, this is my first post here and I too am so frustrated with Joe Lieberman, his hypocricy and what he stands for. I made this flash game out of anger:
Slap the Truth out of Joe Lieberman
While you are there check out other stories and pages, you might be surprised at what other political games you might find there. And cheers to Georgia.
empty your mind, expect nothing and see through the illusion
July 19, 2006 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me, this is the first time that Lamont has wrong-footed. Instead of respnding defensively Swan shoulda said "Hell yeah. Halliburton was a sure thing, given that Joe and his fellow Republicans would give a free pass to no-bid contracts and would provide no oversight on the contracts' execution." I continue to be astounded at Jor's campaign. Does he really want Democrats thinking about Halliburton in the primary? Does he really want to argue that investing in Halliburton is somehow immoral in the general?
July 19, 2006 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me, this is the first time that Lamont has wrong-footed. Instead of respnding defensively Swan shoulda said "Hell yeah. Halliburton was a sure thing, given that Joe and his fellow Republicans would give a free pass to no-bid contracts and would provide no oversight on the contracts' execution." I continue to be astounded at Jor's campaign. Does he really want Democrats thinking about Halliburton in the primary? Does he really want to argue that investing in Halliburton is somehow immoral in the general?
July 19, 2006 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may seem like typical political smear and much ado about nothing to some, but it does reveal a level of hypocrisy on Lamont's part. By investing in Halliburton, he is profiting off of Bush's war(s), particularly the one he opposes.
The extent to which he delegated his investment decisions to a money manager is unknown. If this was a mutual fund type of set up, Lamont may not have direct control which stocks the fund invests in. But based upon this reporting, it sounds like $50K was invested directly in Halliburton stock. When was it invested? Pre-Iraq war? Post-Iraq war?
To many Americans, that is no small amount money to play with on Wall Street.
While I don't like it, I can't blame Lierberman for exploiting this. I'd still like to know a little bit more.
July 19, 2006 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the porn music is interesting. I managed to click and drag the hand, but that was the extent of my accomplishment.
July 19, 2006 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously! I'm sure almost everyone with a 401(k) owns some stocks that they wouldn't go out and choose to buy themselves (tobacco, oil, defense, etc.). It's the same for him, only writ large since he's wealthy. If we're going to ban wealthy Dem politicians, over half of our Senators are going to have to pack their bags.
These are systemic issues, not ones to be solved by individual divestment. The appropriate way to deal with Halliburton and the oil companies is to use appropriate methods of contracting and not to subsidize them through phony energy policies, respectively.
I think they may have said less than $50k b/c that's the disclosure amount or range on the form.
July 19, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think generally money managers pick stocks for you, that's why you hire them.
Does Joe own any mutual funds? If so, I'm sure he owns some stock in controversial companies.
It might be no small money, but I believe they said less than $50k, not $50k. Regardless, everyone already knew Lamont was wealthy. If that's a disqualifier, half of the Senate Dems have to go home.
Joe should have been exercising oversight over Halliburton in the Senate rather than cheerleading for the President and the neo-cons, chatting amiably with Sean Hannity on Fox News. If he sides with them so closely, you'd at least think he'd get some sway to get them to fix their mistakes and address their total incompetence -- a seat at the table, so to speak.
Instead, he sells out the Dems (criticize the president at our peril) for what? Absolutely nothing in return.
It's not just Iraq, either. Bankruptcy bill, Alito, the list goes on.
July 19, 2006 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why empower Lieberman's floundering Rove-like campaign with a non-story like this?
Anyone with half an iota of investing knowledge knew after the 2004 elections that the best investments to have for the subsequent 4-year period, if you wanted to get rich in the stock market, were oil stocks, munitions stocks and coffin stocks. This article is in a tone of blaming Lamont for being a shrewd investor. Question: is Lamont a war profiteer to the extent of Dick Cheney and others in the Bush Administration? Answer: $50,000 worth of stock means an emphatic "NO!".
Lieberman is grasping at straws hoping something will stick. We're collectively watching a three-term incumbent implode before our eyes. For the sake of giggles, I can't wait to see what he does next.
July 19, 2006 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
If your point about money managers picking the stocks (presuming the owner's approval isn't needed) is correct, then I concede Lamont shouldn't be blemished by this.
But if he was aware he was profiting off a war that he opposes, it strikes me, at the very least, as a conflict of interest. And I don't believe Democrats are necessarily exempt from hypocrisy.
While Lieberman's stock holdings are certainly fair game for analysis and since he is pro-Iraq war, I would expect him to want to profit from it.
And I never said having a money was a disqualifier from being able to running for office. In fact, in our current political climate, money is a prerequisite.
Whether it was more or less than $50K in stock is irrelevant. What is relevant is how voters perceive his cavalier attention to his own money. Because if he is that indifferent to his own money, then how can he be trusted to handle their money.
Yes, there are other issues for voters to be concerned about with Joe Lieberman. And Lamont owning Halliburton stock shouldn't be the deciding issue.
But it is fair game and Lamont owes the voters of Connecticut a better response.
July 19, 2006 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be hypocritical, not a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is what Dick Cheney has, as he has a retirement package from Halliburton and has an interest in them doing well (or at least remaining solvent and continuing to pay him), and he is in a position to continue influencing their performance (i.e. via launching wars). The same would be true to a lesser extent if Lieberman (or really any Senator) owned stock in defense contractors (since they vote to authorize use of force), although I'm sure the Senate Ethics Committee doesn't see it that way.
Same for Bill Frist and his non-blind blind trust with his family stock in the healthcare company they founded.
July 20, 2006 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Lamont's wife is with the Oakmont Investments Group, perhaps she was the one purchasing Neddy's mutual and other funds that included Halliburton.. interesting as well that Neddy decided to stop filing joint returns with his wife for the first time this year..I wonder what else there is to hide.
What I'd like to know is what has been happening to his employees jobs since 2001, why he's gutted his own workforce, when he likes to paint himself as a potential savior of US jobs.. could that be why he doesn't want to disclose his returns for the past five years.. we might see how much his income has gone up as a result of all the outsourcing? BTW, I got that info from an article written by socialist wanker Nick Flynn of New Haven, who proclaims your darling Neddy is a pro-war type just like Joe. lol!
July 22, 2006 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink