Highest Rated Comments

nowhathappenedwas564 karma

You've made private transactions totaling more than $1 billion over the past decade. Do you think there should be limitations on the private transactions Members can undertake given the inherent conflicts of interest in drafting legislation that affects your investments? Would you oppose having elected officials' assets placed in blind trusts while in office?

nowhathappenedwas165 karma

Why release the DNC emails the day before the Democratic convention?

Why offer a reward for information regarding murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich and repeatedly (falsely) insinuate that he leaked the DNC documents to Wikileaks?

nowhathappenedwas159 karma

One is dependent on multinational corporations and banks while the other is almost entirely funded by workers unions.

No, this is not what the chart says. Though it's certainly what the people who always post this chart want you to believe.

Clinton received that money from individual people who work for those companies. Note the column at the top telling you that these are contributions from individuals. Clinton ran two Senate campaigns in New York, where people who work for banks were her constituents. She also ran a year-long national presidential campaign.

Sanders, on the other hand, gets more of his money from political action committees and less from individual people. He's also only ever run in tiny, inexpensive Vermont.

To further break it down:

The contributions are broken down into two columns: individuals and PACs.

The money from individuals comes from individual people. When you make a contribution, you must disclose your employer. The individual contributions counted in these columns are from individuals who were employed by those companies. Clinton ran two Senate campaigns in New York, where individuals who work for banks were among her constituents. This is not money from corporations.

The money from PACs is from political action committees set up by corporations or unions that are funded directly by the corporation/union.

Clinton has received a lot of contributions from people who work for big companies, which is unsurprising given that she ran two expensive senate campaigns in the state where many of these companies are headquartered (and where most of their employees live) and a year-long presidential campaign. Clinton has actually received a higher percentage of her contributions from individual donors than Sanders has.

Open Secrets has amazing data. It's just a shame how often it gets misused to dishonestly promote an agenda.

nowhathappenedwas96 karma

When your ELI5 response is the same as your regular response, you may want to work on some substantive talking points rather tha just relying on vague populist fearmongering about elites and secrecy.

nowhathappenedwas86 karma

I appreciate your responding.

Having said that, it's a bit misleading to describe your investments as solely widely-traded mutual funds.

First, your investments in property--combined with your frequent requests for earmarks--create at least the appearance of impropriety. As the NYT reported last year:

Mr. Issa’s outside interests certainly appear to have kept him busy. Associates describe him as actively involved in business decisions, particularly in his auto electronics firm. His office did not discuss how he balances the time demands of Congress and his outside businesses. His management company, Greene Properties, which he runs with his wife from the office down the hall from his Congressional office in Vista, has acquired more than two dozen properties in the last five years, valued at up to a total of $80 million....

...The hard-hit San Diego area has also benefited from federal money Mr. Issa brought through earmarks, which allow lawmakers to award money for their own pet projects. Indeed, more than two dozen of Mr. Issa’s properties are within five miles of projects he has personally earmarked for road work, sanitation and other improvements, an analysis by The Times shows.

Further, while you did sell a controlling interest in your company after taking office, you still had a seat on the board and your family trust continued to own a substantial investment in your old company. Which leads to further appearances of impropriety:

At a House hearing in 2008 on a much-debated proposal to merge the satellite radio companies Sirius and XM, despite objections on competitive grounds, Mr. Issa praised the “viable combined market” the deal would create as he questioned Sirius’s chief executive and talked of opportunities for expansion.

What Mr. Issa did not mention was that his electronics firm was then in a lucrative partnership with Sirius to distribute its audio products.

While Mr. Issa sold off his controlling interest in DEI soon after he was elected, he remains a board member with a half-million shares in the firm held by his family trust. His management firm also receives $2 million a year for leasing DEI its Vista plant....When a watchdog group, the Center for Public Integrity, asked Mr. Issa about his role in the merger, his office said the congressman’s participation in the House hearing posed no conflict because his founding of DEI was “public knowledge.” But after advice from House ethics lawyers, Mr. Issa avoided any votes on the issue afterward.

Instead of voters having to guess at motivations and investigate potential conflicts of interest, wouldn't it be simpler and more transparent for you and other elected officials to divest your assets while in office?