Susan Rice, Top Secretary Of State Candidate, Owns $300,000–600,000 Of Transcanada Stock ($1.25 Million in Canadian Oil Companies) (via Clean Technica)

 This articles has been reposted from Climate Progress with permission. According to a report from OnEarth Magazine, Rice has millions of dollars tied up in top Canadian energy companies — including TransCanada, the company pushing for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The 1,700 mile Keystone…

Guest Voice
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The Moderate Voice
  • ShannonLeee

    Calling development of the tar sands “game over” for the climate, environmental groups are making the Keystone XL pipeline their number one fight after the election. Although Rice has had no connection to the decision making process around Keystone XL, her finances raise more concerns from environmental groups working to shut down the pipeline

    this is how crazy people think. They are worried that the guy that took a massive political hit for stopping the pipeline is all of the sudden going to swing the other way because of Rice.

  • zephyr

    the official said he had “alleviated” the Canadian government’s concerns about getting tar sands crude into the U.S., and instructed them on how to improve their “oil sands messaging” by “increasing visibility and accessibility of more positive news stories

    Yes, we live in a time when image construction trumps reality. This can only be a major concern when we have A.) so many players who manipulate image instead of being honest, and B.) so many naive and easily fooled citizens.

    If Rice eventually becomes Secretary of State, she could recuse herself from any decision on Keystone XL.

    And she damn well should!

  • hyperflow

    this is how crazy people think. They are worried that the guy that took a massive political hit for stopping the pipeline is all of the sudden going to swing the other way because of Rice.

    If that were true Obama could just do everything himself. But he has limited attention and political capital to spend. In this case, the conflict of interest is news worthy.

    I’m not a benghazi-birther-creationist or even RINO, my comments are rather academic. As a scientist, when I submit a paper for peer review I have to disclose conflicts of interest. Rice here has a definite potential conflict of interest. So is it news wothy? Yes.

    WIll this story get 10X the necessary coverage because of Benghazi-birthers? Probably.
    Does that mean we should bury the story? No.

  • sheknows

    This is nothing new. If we eliminated every govt. official who owned stock in corporations lobbying for one thing or another we would hear a pin drop in the chamber of congress.
    Rice is being called out because this is just the latest environmental issue up for vote, not the most singular. Oil company stock holders have squelched renewable energy source development for decades. And lets not get started on the healthcare industry..and all those pharmaceutical stockholders. The list is endless.
    Why pick on Rice? because she’s vulnerable right now…but certainly no different from the other fingerpointers.

  • dduck

    First of all we are seeing piling on. Secondly, she is probably not diversified enough. Thirdly, do cabinet members have to but their investment portfolios in a blind trust?

  • The_Ohioan

    This sounds just like the group Cheney gathered to determine the Energy policy. Why in the world would State let the pipeline company (Trans Canida) pick the company (Cardno Entrix – a company that relies on Trans Canada among others for business) to do the environmental study of the proposed pipeline?

    This smells to high heaven.

    Why pick on Rice? Benghazi banzai bombers. And why is Ms. Clinton’s husband’s former lover in the news again? Benghazi banzai bombers. If they can take down Rice and then Clinton, 2016 wll be a little clearer sailing.

  • This bothers me more than her Benghazi explanations(or the Gennifer Flowers rerun).

    Partisanship runs in both directions. Seems to me the R’s are over the edge on the Sunday talk show flap as somehow discrediting someone from a cabinet position. Seems to me equally that the D’s are out of line burying their heads in the sand about Rice’s investment in an international enterprise that has and will continue to involve the State Department.

    Nor does recusal on her part answer the question. What will be the approach of underlings if they know the boss has a financial investment in their dealings with a foreign energy interest? This is an issue I’ve been aware of for some time – like many TMVer’s in all likelihood – and wondered why this has taken a back seat to her repeating Intelligence Community talking points to fool the perpetrators in the Benghazi matter. Her personal/financial interests raise very real conflict of interest concerns.

    The solution: she should sell, not simply blind trust, any interests that she has.

  • The_Ohioan

    In a perfect world, every government employee with any authority in making policy decisions should either have blind trusts or divest themselves of any income that might indicate conflicting interests. Not going to happen; why do we think billion dollar elections are held?

    But this is, in addition to showing how deep and far corruption in government can reach, one more (premptive) volley in the 2016 campaign and we will learn many more unpleasant things about any possible candidates and their surrogates (and their families) over the next four years.

  • zusa1

    “Members of the House of Representatives considerably outperform the stock market in their personal investments, according to a new academic study.

    Four university researchers examined 16,000 common stock transactions made by approximately 300 House representatives from 1985 to 2001, and found what they call “significant positive abnormal returns,” with portfolios based on congressional trades beating the market by about 6 percent annually.

    What’s their secret? The report speculates, but does not conclude, it could have something to do with the ability members of Congress have to trade on non-public information or to vote their own pocketbooks — or both.

    A study of senators by the same team of researchers five years ago found members of the higher chamber even better at beating the market — outperforming it by about 10 percent, an amount the academics said was “both economically large and statistically significant.”

  • zephyr

    Thanks zusai. That is seriously messed up.

  • dduck

    If Obama approves the pipeline, will there be howls about Rice’s portfolio? You can bet on it. Best for everyone if she sells all and/or does a blind trust, although it may be too late as I can smell a little toast burning.

  • zusa1

    The really messed up part about it is we tend to think of the “market” as an anonymous entity, but the “market” our elected officials is beating is their constituents.

  • sheknows

    Good post Zusai. Yeah, whatever happened to that insider trading bill thingy?

  • zusa1

    Sheknows, It’s probably hanging out with the term limits bill.

  • ShannonLeee

    Again folks, the pipeline is a BiG deal. It isn’t some add on to a bill that no one will read. Dems are once again being counterproductive.