Political Punch

jeff - so true

Thanks Flyover

DKNY - that is what the whole argument is over, whether Federal Funding for the research should happen, I know the libs believe that if you are against Federal Funding of something you are against the item. See Pres. Bush Vetoed the Federal Funding of it, not a law allowing it. the research can happen but not with federal funding.

By the way does anyone know what it will cure? That adult Stem cells don't already or can't? Please Answer? If you do your smarter than all the scientists out there , and then I would recommend you finance it, then you will be rich?

See companies want to make money off the taxpayers, (I thought libs were against companies) since when the government funds something, they do not get anything back, the company does that was financed, so the company has zero investment, but gets all the profit.

A blind trust is an easy way of saying, make me as much money as you can and if anyone questions the investments I have deniability of not knowing what was invested in. I think public officals should not be allowed to have assets in blind trusts.

Flyover, are you suggesting that Romney's position is that he actually in favor of stem cell research and is opposed only to GOVERNMENT FUNDING of stem cell research? I think that is incorrect.

I don't care what side you are on...In this day and age, you had better know where your money is coming from, whether it's investments or campaign money...because if you don't, the Googling Monkeys will find out and then the poo will hit the fan

Points for Spock. The stem cell issuse is over government funding of research. Guess that leaves only Sen Clinton as the duplicitous one

First Hilary is a Hypocrite and a Crook, see she knows what she invests in, but see the Libs ignore the practices of the candidates, look at NJ perfect example. So she knows she will get away with it. And also look at the posts most are talking about romney and ignoring Hilary.

As far as Governor Romney the issue is different because the issue is not about Embryonic research per say, but whether the goverment should finance it, and that answer is no, see if there was a cure from it then private individuals would finance it, and not give millions in ads to want goverment to pay.

Oh and FYI Hilary also owns Stock in Walmart and Exxon.

This is a very interesting and difficult question and I think there are a few things to consider.

First is whether the candidate knew or should have known of the investment in the enterrise engaging in the opposed practice. Mitt Romney is a pretty wealthy guy and probably owns a number of mutual funds, among other things. Is he expected to research the 10-Ks of every company that each mutual fund invests in? I wouldn't think so. Alternatively, he should be expected not to invest directly in a company that engages in practices that--he alleges--are offensive to him.

Second is the timing of the investment. What of investments made in companies whose "ofensive" practices only come to the attention of the candidate after the investments are made. In those instances I think the candidate should be expected to divest her/himself of those investments. I beieve this is what Romney did in this instance.

The final consideration is the strength of the alleged opposition by the candidate. Most would agree that it would be inappropriate for, say, Sam Brownback to invest in abortion clinics or for Dennis Kucinich to invest in enterprises that are homophobic. Less clear however, are investments in, say, tobacco companies, or automobile companies that oppose improved gas mileage requirements.

I think what we should expect from our candidates is honest disclosure (or a defense of non-disclosure) and then an explanation. We can either accept that explanation or reject it and selct our candidate with all that information in hand.

It is my impression that candidates at some point in their career get to keep the leftover contributions. That makes contributions to a campaign rather personal. Can every contributor be vetted as rigorously as you screen an employee? Probably not.
Can every investment made by your advisor be cleared through you, blind trust, mutual fund, short term, etc? What if the account is joint and your “other” has a different take on issues?

I doubt if either mentioned candidate lays awake at night scheming ways to gather money through contributions or investments in a way not consistent with good behavior, but then, I live in OZ.

What is unfair is not returning excess contributions and insider trading.

The money that is behind a candidate is ultimately likely to be the beneficiary of the candidate's policies, so if that money differs from what the candidate is selling, voters need to know.

Yes and no.

Yes, it's fair to inquire where a candidate invests his or her money. And the report about Romney is telling. If he were truly concerned with the sanctity of life, this is an issue he would have vetted out himself.

But no, I don't think it's fair to impute the wrongdoings of a donor to the donee. Here, I guess the implication is that she's benefiting from these scams. I give Clinton more credit than that. I don't think her campaign would knowingly accept scam money. Perhaps the donor is maintaining his innocence, and perhaps he is, in fact, innocent. Don't forget she's been accused of all sorts of things (relating to whitewater) that turned out to be politically motivated and without merit (with respect to her personal involvement).

I'd say yes to your first question and no to your second. Following the money is often the only clear trail left by wily politicians. For a candidate to profess a particular position, as did Gov. Romney against stem-cell research, while he is making money from companies engaging in such research is cynical behavior at best, sheer hypocrisy at worst. And for a candidate to decry financial schemes against the elderly while one of her steadfast contributors is in trouble with the law is equally duplicitous.