« Previous | Main | Next »

For Obama and Hillary, Billionaire's Sudan Ties Prove Knotty

August 08, 2007 12:32 PM

Forobamaandh_mn_2 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.

Blotter 16 Companies May Violate U.S. Ban on Trade With Terror States

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.

While PetroChina does not have direct involvement in Sudan, many believe that pressure from investors on its government-owned parent company could spur change. For this reason, other institutional investors, including the managers of Harvard and Stanford universities' hefty endowments, have divested their organizations' holdings in PetroChina.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

Buffett has said he believes that subsidiaries like PetroChina "have no ability to control the policies of their parent."

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has shed personal holdings linked to Sudan, liquidating $180,000 he and his wife, Michelle, had invested in a mutual fund with Sudan-linked holdings, after using an online tool to discover the connection. 

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., along with her husband Bill, liquidated all of their stock holdings in April, characterizing the move as a general effort to avoid conflicts of interest.

In a recent Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton endorsed "moving more quickly on divestment" to bring an end to the crisis.

Obama and Clinton are also co-sponsors of a bill that would encourage states to divest their holdings in Sudan-linked investments.

Meanwhile, Buffett has helped Clinton raise more than $1 million and plans to host a $500-a-person fundraiser later this month for Obama -- with a special early reception for donors who help raise at least $4,500 more from other people.

"There's a definite contradiction" between the candidates' positions and Buffett's holdings, said Adam Sterling of the Sudan Divestment Task Force (SDTF).

Sterling's group has led the movement to encourage investors to sell off holdings connected to the Sudanese government, considered by some to be the biggest such drive since the anti-apartheid South Africa divestment effort of the 1980s. SDTF also created the online tool Obama used to identify his Sudanese investments.

Sterling stopped short of calling for Obama to pull out of the upcoming event. But he called on both Obama and Clinton to confront Buffett on his holdings.

"Both Clinton and Obama have a unique opportunity to engage him on the issue," Sterling said.

Neither the Obama nor Clinton campaigns immediately responded to requests for comment for this story. A spokeswoman for Berkshire Hathaway said Buffett was not available to discuss the matter.

Other presidential contenders have taken steps to divest themselves of Sudan-linked holdings. After reporters discovered ties to Sudan in investments held by Democratic candidate John Edwards and GOP hopeful Rudy Giuliani, both men reportedly sold those holdings. GOP candidate Sen. Sam Brownback, Kan. sold his holdings after using the SDTF's online tool.

Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?

August 8, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (29)

User Comments

ALL THE SAME

DO WE THE PEOPLE REALLY WANT ANOTHER WAR MONGERING SPONSOR OF THE MILITARY MACHINE IN OFFICE THIS '08?

LETS SAVE LIVES, LETS GET OUR TROOPS HOME ALIVE ASAP!

Posted by: Sally | Aug 8, 2007 2:26:46 PM

What kind of nonsense is this? This is the kind of news article I would expect to see on FOX news. There is nothing here - not even smoke. Trying to link Obama and Clinto to Sudan via Buffett is like the 7 steps to Kevin Bacon game. Just rediculous. Come on, ABC, stay out of the trenches and get back to reporting real news - with integrity. The fish smell is over powering.

Posted by: Matthew Raleigh | Aug 8, 2007 3:10:53 PM

Brian Ross could investigate voter caging, and find how many were denied being able to vote, Nov. 2004, by Republican conniving, especially in Florida and Ohio. (How about the 2000 election?)

Posted by: patma | Aug 8, 2007 3:21:57 PM

Disgusting. I think Buffett is very sleazy.

Posted by: Terry | Aug 8, 2007 3:22:54 PM

What does this have to do with genocide? The oil business there doesn't make laws, politicians there do. So you'd rather everyone sell their shares of the business, let the business fall to ruins due to poor management and have less jobs in an already devestated country?

Posted by: Jonathan | Aug 8, 2007 3:25:20 PM

Good, relevant points made by all, except for Sally and Terry...

One, i'm not too sure that Buffett is "sleazy"; he's made more personal humanitarian donations than just about anyone on the planet...in all interviews that I've seen, he comes across as a genuinely nice guy. (rich does not always = sleazy).

Sally, what does story this have to do with the US military? Ya' lost me in your little protest there...exactly which of the three people in the story are "war-mongering sponsors of the military machine"?

btw, would you not want US/allied troops in the Sudan to "save lives", as you put it?

Posted by: Jazz | Aug 8, 2007 4:08:22 PM

Yawn.

Posted by: Mike | Aug 8, 2007 4:41:53 PM

Buffett isn't a sleeze.

Knowing Buffett like I do, I don't believe that he would be doing anything if he felt people lives were compromised for him to make a profit. If he realized for sure that there was a definite connection between his investment and the genocide, he'd sell his shares fast without having it published in a story like this one to motive him.

Posted by: Roy | Aug 8, 2007 4:52:32 PM

Yeah, we wouldn't want ABC to get into the trenches, after all, they might get dirty. It's amazing how the concept of hypocracy only applies to conservatives to so many of you. When are people going to wake up and realize that chosing Democrat or Republican is like Choosing Ford or Chevy. Just a different version of the same crap product. You want things to change than you are going to have to make different choices than in the past. Neither one of these parties has anything left to offer this country, both are rotten to the core.

Posted by: what a crock | Aug 8, 2007 5:06:13 PM

Since Buffett's only tie with Sudan is THROUGH China, and that is what is causing the problem, perhaps ALL Americans should give up dealing with China. Unfortunately, that will never happen since too many American goods are made in China. The average consumer doesn't like to alter their lifestyle even for a good cause.

In any case, the linkage is very weak. Looks like the republicans are trying to find a Haliburton in the Democratic party.

Posted by: Troy Street | Aug 8, 2007 5:39:07 PM

Don't take Buffett's money Obama and Clinton, or you are hypocrites.

Divest from Sudan. End worldwide terrorism.

Posted by: ARBlog | Aug 8, 2007 5:51:06 PM

Warren Buffet donated the largest sum of money (for Africa!) in the history of mankind. Somehow, I don't think he's doing anything illicit.

Posted by: LH | Aug 8, 2007 6:00:04 PM

"In any case, the linkage is very weak. Looks like the republicans are trying to find a Haliburton in the Democratic party."

I think this is spot on. Well put.

Posted by: Layla | Aug 8, 2007 6:01:48 PM

All politics is dirty. I say, start a grass roots movement to oust all in government and start over. We have let this happen and we need to end it. We've let politicans get to comfortable in their positions, they vote their own raises, voted to use health care better than the average American, and pensions that can be double dipped, triple dipped, etc. Are we mad to continue to let this happen, no vote for the one running for office that has now political ties and lets shake up these ignorant baffoons in Washington. They have fed at the buffet much to long.
ktms

Posted by: kay | Aug 8, 2007 6:53:15 PM

No Problem. Since Mr. Buffet's
business dealings both Obama &
Clinton, just do not take his
money and help. I doubt Mr. Buffet
would shed a tear. Seriously,
Buffet has done more good charity
work than any of the candidates
can ever hope to do. He does
not need or deserve ingratitude.

Posted by: Bob Ramos | Aug 8, 2007 7:20:46 PM

Buffet is the ONLY rich man who has a heart instead of a big hole where it should be. Why pick on him when there's soooo many truly evil rich men out there?

Posted by: Cat | Aug 8, 2007 7:51:31 PM

It is obvious that in order to compete one has to get money from whatever sources possible. One can accuse ABC being prorepublican, so they (reluctantly maybe) are reporting something very close to the truth.

Posted by: lucky looser | Aug 8, 2007 9:51:36 PM

If it were republicans taking money from someone who has helped support a genocidle government this would be top story, and most asked question in the debates. Anyone remember how congress forced american companies to withdraw from doing any business that aided the south african apartheid government? Is this any less immoral? C'mon Democrats, be honest. Wake up and demand Clinton and Obama divest from this sleeze bag who will not divest in genocide.

Posted by: Scott Royer | Aug 9, 2007 1:48:49 AM

The two party system is completely corporate owned and therefor corrupt and to its very core. Neither party nor its candidates represent anyone but themselves and corporate America. The only solution is to vote Third Party and at all costs! A vote for the Democrats or the Republicans (two-headed corporate monster) is a vote for the status quo and we can no longer afford the status quo!

Posted by: geddesman | Aug 9, 2007 8:47:57 AM

your democrats are nuts there is plenty of smoke here! you just dismiss all wrong doing by your Liberal heros. Funny.

Posted by: batesba74 | Aug 9, 2007 10:45:26 AM

Finally....ABC shows some integrity in reporting news with truth and not liberal spin.

Keep it up ABC and you will win back FNC group.

Posted by: karen | Aug 9, 2007 11:24:54 AM

Buffett gave away his credibility when he publically divested his own money and stated 2 reasons...his kids which he lectured about amounts and his friends, Bill and Melinda Gates, which he entrusted massive amounts of dough into their foundations. Then within 2 weeks, Buffett does what???? He gets married, which of course, had nothing to do with his public display of doling, which the MAINSCREAM media doled out for him, then did not notice the marital reasons for his money moves. What a laugher...

Posted by: daddy | Aug 9, 2007 1:05:12 PM

It is interesting to read the comments of so many people who are totally in the dark when it comes to money and influence and the extent to which people will go to for these.
This is an excellent news article.

Posted by: RichDaddy | Aug 9, 2007 3:08:31 PM

It's an insult to suggest that both Clinton and Obama weren't acutely aware of PetroChina's connection to the Sudanese government long before this story broke. The fact that that they are taking money from Buffet who is still heavily invested in PetroChina while claiming to be outraged by PetroChina is what it is hypocritical. There is no change in any candidate running for either the Republicans or Democrats! The only way to send a message is to vote Third Party! If that isn't abundantly clear now when will it be?

Posted by: geddesman | Aug 9, 2007 9:55:01 PM

More utter BS, why would Oboma Husein a Black Muslim even be invested in Sudan? Hillary is the same they just change the names on the account and keep making money because they a able to know more that the public! I believe nothing from either Candidate they both are congentital liars and pure 100% BS. Hillary and Obama 24/7 on TV for 8 months and after 40 of the most STUPID Boring debates Rudy still does better, and none of the GOP are even realy starting to run! Sad that the worst most corrupt, Hillary, and Obama a Muslim the Manchurian Candidate are the best the Demoncrats have to offer! I love 67% of people think that Media is full of Crap, 08 will never go the way that the Bush derangement Syndrome media thinks no matter how much you try people will not like Hillary she lies, talks down to audiences, she is arogant condisending horrible leftist marxist woman that will lie at every turn and focus group any audience before she speaks just to placate them with more BS!
You go after Ruby's wife but don't go into the recent problems with women that Billy Bob is involved in he will be swift boated because he is a draft dodging women chasing 60 year old communist kid, I know why he cheats I for one would never touch that feminist anti American
I want ABC to tell what either of these Demoncrats have ever done that they could become president, have they ever had a job? Hillary has been given everything on a platter because Billy Bob was so screwed up in the 80's that she got benifits of Billy Bobs people who created someting out a souless godless non human being! Oboma just looks like Dumbo on TV and is so stupid in foriegn afairs he will get us killed, he is just plain DUMB! (Hillary and Dumbo 08) perfect bumper sticker!

Posted by: James 22 | Aug 9, 2007 11:20:17 PM

I have read and re-read this article and have no understanding of why Mr. Ross considers this:

1. newsworthy
2. controversial
3. worth the time it takes to read

Really weak......

Posted by: jimbo | Aug 10, 2007 7:13:20 PM

I had no idea Clinton and Obama were so easily corrupted.

Posted by: Chris Baker | Aug 12, 2007 9:33:00 PM

BOTH PARTIES HAS NOTHING TO OFFER, THESE CANDIDATES MAKE A LOT OF PROMISES BUT THEIR LOYALTY LAYS ON THE HANDS OF POWERFUL INTERESTS GROUPS.ONCE THEY ARE IN WASHINGTON IS ALL ABOUT WHO GIVES THEM MORE MONEY FOR THE BANG IN THE MEANTIME OUR COUNTRY IS ERRODES.... :-(

Posted by: BORN2HUNT7 | Aug 23, 2007 1:33:43 PM

The problem is $MONEY$ and politics. I do not know Warren Buffet's moral character and will not judge it here. But as long as $MONEY$ is equated with speach in the U$A and not BANNED from politics totally, there will bill corruption and CONflicts of interest. Yes, I said ban all political $money$ -- make the politicians rely on shoe leather and honest debate. Require media outlets to carry equal coverage of ALL qualified candidates. Unless and until we remove $MONEY$ from the polical system, the system as a whhole will remain corrupt and politicans will either have to continue to take $MONEY$ from questionable sources (I'm not saying Mr. Buffet is or is not questionable) or remain marginal (like Dennis and Ron).

Posted by: Tree | Aug 29, 2007 12:45:39 PM

Post a comment