Which Candidate has vowed to Clean up Investor Fraud? Close the Loopholes

which have allowed our Mutual Funds, Stock Market, and Retirement and College Funds to be siphoned off by Big Money Crooks? Clean up Wall Street and Close off all loopholes which allow Companies, Mutual Fund Owners/Traders, Hedge Funds and other swindlers to keep stealing our money? Every day there is a new scandal. Today it's Invesco, who marketed their funds to "Families and Children." What kind of people are they....where's the outrage?

I know Dean wan't to "Re-regulate business," but who has expressed the outrage of this rape of Pension Fund, Mutual Funds and Individual Investor? Who will RAGE against Wall Street? And, if they did, do they have a chance of getting any votes from us "complacent investors" and "corporate loyalists" who need jobs, and don't worry about "portfolios" because we've been brainwashed into believing that "Stocks always go UP!" (not talking about "savy DU'ers, here," talking about average folks)
---------------------------------------

"The filings allege that between June 2001 and June 2003, Canary made roughly $50 million — or a 110 percent return — market timing the Invesco Dynamics fund, while long-term shareholders lost 34 percent.

The Invesco Dynamics fund was marketed to children and families, according to the complaint.

Invesco is owned by London-based Amvescap PLC, which also operates the AIM and Atlantic Trust brands. Amvescap had $345.2 billion in funds under management as of Sept. 30."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031202/ap_on_bi_ge/mutual_funds_investigation

(The Division of Invesco in London)

AIM Investments | Mutual Funds, Retirement, College Savings Plan ...
... for the AIM Select Real Estate Income Fund (11/15/03) ... Mutual funds distributed by
AIM Distributors, Inc. ... became the distributor for the retail INVESCO Funds. ...
Description: Offers a large selection of funds in the major categories with three different share classes.

that's been the cornerstone of his campaign

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/budget-and-taxes.asp

Restore Fiscal Discipline

Eliminate Bush Tax Cuts for Wealthiest
Edwards will eliminate George Bush's irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Stop Excessive Spending
Edwards will:

Reinstate real budget caps and permanently restore pay- as-you-go budget enforcement rules.


Use attrition to reduce the number of government employees and contractors, excluding defense and homeland security, by 10 percent over 10 years.


Close government agencies that have outlived their usefulness, such as the Office of Thrift Supervision.


Open more government procurement to competitive bidding.
Cut Corporate Subsidies
Edwards will:

End the excessive profits that banks earn on student loans.


Stand up to insurance companies, drug companies, and HMOs to reduce health care costs while improving the quality of health care.


Cut federal subsidies for major oil companies, mining on public lands, and millionaires operating farms.


Create a commission to examine and eliminate unneeded corporate subsidies.
Close Pointless Tax Loopholes
Edwards will:

Eliminate tax loopholes that allow companies to avoid taxes by renouncing their U.S. citizenship.


End corporate tax deductions for companies that buy "janitor's insurance"—life-insurance policies on rank-and-file employees whose families never see a dime in benefits from those policies.


Require companies to explain the differences between the profits they report to investors and those they report to the IRS, and crack down on peddlers of abusive tax shelters.


Enforce our tax laws to collect from wealthy corporations and individuals who do not pay.
Edwards' proposals will save more than $2 trillion over the next 20 years. These proposals reduce the deficit, protect Social Security, and support the critical investments in education, health care, and economic growth that Edwards has proposed.

have been the best on this issue.

:evilgrin:

He does mention it briefly in a position paper:

"Encouraging investor confidence. I would undertake a sustained effort to undertake reforms that will restore the trust that makes our markets the best place in the world to trade and invest."

Mostly when I see Clark on the media they never give him time to talk about domestic issues. Either he is asked to comment on smears and "flip flop" accusations, or is asked about Iraq and the troops.

Clark has been issuing more detailed position papers every week and I would expect to hear more about this from him.

Clark and Edwards are like Yin and Yang in that way. Edwards probably being weaker on the intracasies of military matters

Clark can seem forced and defensive and rushed when he's trying to tout his domestic platform, or the fact that he has a domestic platform.

But he's unmatched with his comfort in armed services logistics

And I've noted that he is seldom asked about his positions either.

And if he is, 2 seconds after he starts talking the interviewer asks "can you be more specific".

Clark knows what he is talking about.

I said he was stronger and more comfortable talking foriegn policy, please don't put words into my mouth.

Clark is a great candidate

you would trust Clark to know domestic issues JUST BECAUSE HE HAS A MASTERS DEGREE IN ECONOMICS???? I'm shocked, shock I say!
<sarcasm off>

SOMEONE actually said that to me in a thread a while back. :eyes:

but grew up in an economists family, with a phd advisor who was an economist... and around many studying advanced economics. I can most definitively say that SIMPLY having an masters degree in economics is not a reason to trust someone on domestic policies.

Give Clark far more credit than simply having a degree. Many idiots have degrees in econ.

Heck some bright people like Sen Phil Gramms had a PhD and I wouldn't want him anywhere NEAR our domestic policy.

A hint - when defending him - talk about administrative experiences and concerns that high ranking officers have to deal with - that can translate into domestic issues (retaining enlistment; dealing with delapidating housing; maintaining an entire educational system - etc.)

My Economic Vision: Jobs and Growth for All Americans


Growing the economy through responsible fiscal policies and smart stimulus programs

Includes closing loopholes



» Read the policy | Download PDF

"Sen. John Kerry also responded to the mutual-fund scandal. He unveiled his proposal to protect average investors from late trading and the market timing of mutual fund shares this week. The Mutual Fund Investor Protection Act will increase penalties for those convicted of such schemes and update federal securities laws to curb these abuses.

"Illegal and unethical mutual fund trading has no place in our financial markets," said Kerry. "My proposal is a clear warning to anyone who even attempts to line their own pockets by exploiting everyday investors. This outrageous type of fraud lowers the value of mutual-fund shares, taking retirement funds away from hardworking American families. It will not be tolerated."

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/11042003/col_capi/58807.htm

Introduced, actually.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:27:./temp/~bdZtDa::

others follow through with defending what he said? Did they agree?

He tends to get ignored when he has a good idea.

Speaker: Senator John Forbes Kerry (MA)
Title: Disapproving Federal Communications Commission Broadcast Media Ownership Rule
Location: Washington, DC
Date: 09/16/2003
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
PAGE S11501
Sept. 16, 2003
Disapproving Federal Communications Commission Broadcast Media Ownership Rule

(At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on a joint resolution, of which I am a proud cosponsor, to disapprove the Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003, rules designed to loosen restrictions on broadcast media ownership. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that media ownership rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition and localism. Unfortunately, the Commission's June 2, 2003, ruling fails to meet this standard.

The resolution before us today would reverse the FCC's decision to change the national television ownership cap from 35 percent to 45 percent, a decision that threatens local and independent voices in television. The television industry is undergoing rapid consolidation as a handful of national networks have acquired local stations across the country. I am concerned that when local stations are purchased by a national network, independent voices are lost in the media

marketplace. Locally owned and operated stations are more likely to be responsive to local needs, interests and values than those stations owned and operated by national networks. Indeed many local stations are small businesses that drive innovative competition. A system of concentrated station ownership will trend toward nationalized programming aimed primarily at maximizing revenue with less concern for local interests and less room for competition.

The resolution before us today will also reverse the FCC's decision to significantly loosen restrictions on cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers within single markets. The cross-ownership rule is intended to increase or at least maintain the number of independent editorial voices in a community. This is especially important in smaller communities where citizens have fewer media operations covering local matters. While there is scant evidence that weakening this rule will result in significant economic benefit, leading academics and media experts have argued that doing so will dangerously reduce the venues for independent public discourse.

I am also concerned with the process by which the FCC conducted these proceedings. This media ownership rulemaking is among the most important the FCC has undertaken, and it has garnered unprecedented public interest. Despite this, the Commission moved forward with dramatic rule changes without first taking public comment on a specific proposal. The Commission's outreach was simply insufficient. All parties concerned would have been better served if the Commission published a specific proposal and then allowed for a period of public comment before promulgating any rule changes.

The Commission's first responsibility is to ensure diversity, competition and localism. The Commission has no responsibility to facilitate the business plans of the major networks or any other narrow economic interest. I strongly support the disapproval resolution before us today.·

:shrug:

I'm really trying to get "candidate advocates" to tell me about what each candidate has said about this.

Also, why are we here on DU not "outraged?" Many of us were forced into 401 k's and this is affecting what we have for our "futures."

Those young DU'ers who can't get 401k's and think the Stock Market and Mutual Fund Investing doesn't apply to them, don't seem to get that at some point this will be all they have (given the way Repugs are going) for their futures.

This truly affects all of us...all in one way or the other. Loss of jobs because of this, Mergers and Downsizing. All because of "Wall St. Crooks!"

how he would give shareholders more power over corproate policy.

But it should be small shareholders, not just a mutual fund with a seat at the table. That wouldn't help! I think representation from smaller shareholders is what he had in mind.

was that the Enron pension rip off,(and maybe he said the FL/CT/OH pension BS buying Enron shares) wouldn't have happened if shareholders had more say over management of the corporation through voting rights.

People also own shares in mutual funds, so they'd have more say over how the m.f. is managed.

The underlying principle is that if corporation go to the public markets for equity investment, they better be willing to turn over more say over how the corporation is managed to the people who buy shares in the corporation.

This is something I've thought about for a long time and I don't think I've ever heard a prominent politician mention it until Edwards did.

.

this picture proves it

Campaigning against corporate power abuses and the need for them to be held accountable is also a big part of his campaign-- one that is often overlooked because of his stance on the war and universal health care. His stance is much deeper than simply "re-regulating business"-- it's taking the power away from the corporations and giving it back to the citizens of this country.

From http://www.kucinich.us/issues/corporations.php:

We need a new relationship between corporations and our society. Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state.

This begins with government taking the responsibility to establish the conditions under which corporations may do business in the United States, including the establishment of a federal corporate charter which describes corporate rights and responsibilities.

Solution:

Corporations should be compelled to pay a fair share of taxes. If corporations shift profits offshore to avoid paying taxes, they should not be permitted to operate in the United States. The decrease in corporate tax responsibility is an indication of the rise of corporate power. According to the Institute for Policy Studies, after the 2002 tax cuts, corporations will pay in taxes an amount equivalent to 1.3% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. In the 1950s they paid taxes of 4.5% of the U.S. GDP. Corporations have fewer regulations, pay fewer taxes and yet have greater influence.

He has also been a staunch foe of Social Security privitization (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/socialsecurity.php), which anybody who's had any experience in the securities industry will tell you is a rotten idea.

He knows how to stand his ground for the regular people.

:kick:

:kick:

:kick:

and substantive issues.

Orders will Clark follow on the Economy? Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?
George Soros or Mellon-Scaife.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0828.html

He is the policy wonk of the entire team:
Restore Investor Confidence With Strong Enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission: John Kerry will fund strong budgets and assure strong enforcement by the SEC.

Stop Corporations From Keeping Bank Accounts in Countries like Bermuda to Avoid Paying Taxes. John Kerry believes that American companies should not be allowed to set up virtual headquarters in foreign countries that are hardly more than mailboxes just to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Assure Corporations Account for Disparities on the Books. A recent Joint Committee on Taxation report found that Enron claimed a $2.3 billion in profit between 1996 and 1999 in reports to its investors, while reporting a $3 billion tax loss to the IRS. John Kerry believes corporations should have to account these kinds of disparities.

Stop Giving Government Contracts to Corporations Breaking the Rules. The Federal government should not give lucrative contracts to companies that have a record of accounting fraud – like WorldCom – or are moving offshore.

End Unfair Protections for CEOs. Executives should not be walking away with millions of dollars in salaries and benefits while their workers are laid off their companies are defaulting on loans. Kerry would tighten the laws that allow corporations to take advantage of tax deductions for performance based executive pay – even when executives do nothing to improve productivity.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Corporations.htm
Democratize the process of corporate boards
Q: Should there be more legal oversight of the stock exchange or of the way corporate boards are put together?
KERRY: We need to democratize the process. Clearly, boards of directors need to be represented better with respect to shareholders. There are many things we can do. The reason to be concerned about it is not as a matter of targeting CEOs or being angry at business. It's because it's a matter of fundamental fairness of how we hold ourselves together as a country.

It goes to the core of how Americans ought to have a relationship between worker and those they work for. And that workplace has been abused. When you have misconduct in the boardroom, it's as bad as a mugging in the streets, except that in many ways it's broader because more people are hurt. And many Americans are feeling mugged by what is happening in this country today, the fundamental unfairness.

That's why.

The candidates -- Kerry, Edwards, and Kucinich -- who are actually talking about this stuff are the ones who get ignored or defamed by the media.

The ones that aren't being covered are the ones they are afraid of being heard...it isn't hard to go on TV and repeat or resort to state's rights ad nauseum.