AP Standards: Obama's Top Contributors Linked to Investments in Sudan

By Terry Trippany | May 15, 2008 - 08:52 ET

Applying the AP's McCain Standard to Barack Obama Shows Sudanese Connections to His Campaign

It's a strange one sided sort of game the Associated Press is playing in its latest attack against John McCain. AP writer Jim Kuhnhenn is applying a six degrees of separation style standard in trying to accuse John McCain of investing in the Sudan because his wife owned some mutual funds that had holdings in an Indian company that allegedly does business in the Sudan. The far left has picked up on this "AP newsbreak" as evidenced by its front page status at The Huffington Post.

So I decided to play the game myself by looking at the mainstream media's favorite target of obsessive adulation, Barack Obama. My my, would you look at that? When I applied the McCain standard to Barack Obama I quickly discovered that Obama's top contributors are being targeted by activists that are targeting financial companies to divest in the Sudan. Surprised?

According to OpenSecrets.org Barack Obama received $544,000 from people associated with or employed by Goldman Sachs. Not good. In 1998 China was set to make its first public offering on the New York Stock exchange via a company called the China National Petroleum Company (CNPC). The deal quickly came under fire because China was financing arms sales to the Sudan and allegedly used Chinese prison laborers to build oil pipelines in the region. (Src. Human Rights Watch)

In response to the outcry Goldman Sachs, Barack Obama's number one contributor, restructured the deal to create a spin off of CNPC called PetroChina Co. The new structure was created to ensure that the IPO would involve a company that was limited to only operating inside China. Unfortunately that was not the case. (all emphasis mine)

PetroChina would rank as China’s largest company, with 70 percent of the country’s petroleum reserves and accounting for two-thirds of its oil and gas production. It would immediately become the world’s fourth-largest publicly traded oil and gas company, although the Chinese government, through CNPC, would still own 80 to 90 percent of PetroChina’s stock after the public offering.

PetroChina maintained it was neither a U.S. nor a Sudanese company nor would it have direct business dealings with Sudan. Upon closer examination, this was not the divorce it first appeared to be for at least two reasons: income and debt. Critics charged that the CNPC, as the parent company, would receive 90 percent of PetroChina’s income, including funds raised in the IPO. PetroChina’s chairman denied the company would use proceeds from its stock offering to fund projects in Sudan.

The deal came under wide protest by activists and special interest groups, including the AFL-CIO.

On March 22, 2000 the AFL-CIO and the NGO Free Tibet co-sponsored a protest at the office of PetroChina’s investment banker Goldman Sachs in New York City. Bill Patterson, director of AFL-CIO’s office of investments, was convinced that political opposition and subsequent negative press reduced interest in PetroChina’s IPO: “We haven’t found a single fund yet that even wants to get near this deal."

Considering that the Associated Press is so obsessed with the minutiae of John McCain's wife's mutual funds you would think that they would be concerned about this dubious relationship between China, Sudan, Goldman Sachs and Barack Obama. Strangely however the AP doesn't go down that route.

Let's keep going here. Would you like to know who else has come under criticism for investing in the Sudan? That's easy.

Barack Obama's number 2 contributor the University of California held pensions and endowment funds that were partially held in the Sudan until the middle of 2006 when it announced its plans to divest. This announcement came a full 2 years after the U.S. labeled Darfur a genocide and nearly 6 years after President Clinton extended the 1997 U.S. sanctions on Sudan. Not exactly divestment at the speed of sound.

Yet we are just beginning. The human rights group savedarfur.org has an active campaign against JPMorgan Chase , Barack Obama's number 3 top contributor, for investing in the Sudan. The anti-corporate green group Co-Op America spells out the criticism against Chase.

JP Morgan, along with Vanguard and Fidelity, has been criticized by human rights groups, politicians and the public for continuing to invest in PetroChina. PetroChina is one the largest players in the Sudanese oil industry, and the proceeds from Sudan’s oil exports go overwhelmingly to fund the Sudanese army.

Should I stop there? Nah. The mainstream media wouldn't if it were applying this standard to a republican like John McCain. Let's look at Barack Obama's fourth largest contributor, Citigroup Inc.

Citigroup is getting flak by activists because they claim that Citigroup's shareholders rejected proposals by amnesty international and other human rights groups to use their investments as a way to manipulate the situation in Sudan.

I could go on but there are some practical limitations; I have limited space and I think you get the point. If I applied the AP's McCain standard to Barack Obama then I can assume that Obama is party to investing in the Sudan big time. But that would make me stupid.

As an example of such stupidity I would like all you investors and 401K holders out there to list for me the individual holdings in your funds. Tell me off the top of your head if any of those companies do business with or are related to companies that invest in Sudan. Go ahead, look them up if need be. Anyone? No? Thought so.

The standard is bogus and would apply to all politicians somewhere along the line if we dumb it down enough.

However, since it is the AP's game I will do them one better. I call on Barrack Obama to fully divest from any contributor even remotely tied to investments made in the Sudan. Do it tomorrow, don't wait any longer than John McCain's wife did. I also call on the AP to get back to me and report on it the minute that happens.

Don't worry if you continue to go all hypocritical on me AP people because I won't be holding my breath.

Terry Trippany is the editor and publisher of Webloggin.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Somehow this tid bit does

nor surprise me.

Obama said last night that if he is elected he will "change America and change the World"! Holy Crap.

Shades of things to come?

"Change the world"? He

"Change the world"?

He really thinks he is the Messiah, doesn't he?

Yeah, he'll change to world

Yeah, he'll change to world alright. For the worse. It is obvious to even a casual observer that the MSM is in the tank for BHO. We are witness to a coup.

Someone needs to dig just a tad deeper into the Chicago connections of BHO. There is probably a goldmine of sleaze and dirty money coming from Chicago, there usually is.

I was at one time 4 degrees

I was at one time 4 degrees from Saddam Hussein...  If I had run for office, the AP could have said "Mattm Ties To Iraqi Dictator"...

It should be crAP....

This is one of those

This is one of those stories where I have to call for a reality check.  By all accounts, Cindy McCain keeps a real tight leash on her money and always has.  The story in question deals with investments made a fund that is hers.  Does anyone think that someone who controls their money like McCain does has no clue what investments her mutual fund is making?  It's possible, but not very likely.

The counter argument has nothing to do with any fund or investments that Obama or his wife are associated with, but those of campaign contributors.  Is it really fair to equate funds that are directly owned and controlled by a candidate's wife with funds that are in no way connected to, or controlled by, the candidate?  I think that neither issue should be a story, but going further I don't see how you equate both issues with any sense of credibility.

Bruz, I keep a pretty tight

Bruz, I keep a pretty tight reign on my money. The funds I invest in are tended to by professionals. Those that make their living by watching the markets and investing and reinvesting my money, so that I do not lose money that I have invested. Thats what they get paid for. I have no idea what my funds hold right now, and dont care. As long as it is not Hamas or one of those, and my statement shows a "+", I am happy.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

stick to the subject

I don't give a rip about how any of you watch or don't watch your money - you should be pleased to have it to watch. It is disgusting that the AP would go after one candidates spouse while ignoring readily available data that similarly implicates their preferred candidate. Insights like this are why I love newsbusters - it's like Paul Harvey's "rest of the story" only on the web...

Investing IS the subject...

...as Bruz inconveniently missed, and seems you have too.

So you don't see any

So you don't see any difference between the investments that one candidate has indirect but close oversight over, and investments that another candidate has no control over or anything to do with?  That's insane!  That's like saying I should be held accountable for the investments my customers make... the folks who come in, give me money, and I provide goods and service to.  Why would their investments be any of my business?  Cindy McCain's investments are the McCain's business, the investments of Obama's fundraisers are the business of his fundraisers.

I'm going to go out on a

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you aren't watching over a couple hundred million in investments.  That's serious money.  If I were putting millions into any investment I would dang sure know everything there was to know about it.

You missed mypoint

The article is written sarcastically. It is ridiculous to think that John McCain shoud intimately be aware of every holding in the mutual funds that is held by him or his wife. Have you ever looked at all the investments made in your 401k by your fund manager? What about funds of funds? Where do we stop?
I use the example of Barack Obama to make a point about how silly the AP logic is. I certainly don't expect Obama to reject contributions from employees of Sachs. if however I was buying into the ridiculous AP article I would.

Bruz...

...between my wife and I we probably own hundreds of companies' stock, spanning many, many fund families. We keep a very tight rein on our money, and always have. However I couldn't tell you every single company and their charter/product/industry if I were naked and Sadam himself were coming at me with a pair of jumper cables.

As for campaign contributors; BHO is vying for the most powerful job on the planet. "Checking references" of those who contribute to him should be of the utmost importance. And furthermore, that information should be completely transparent to the general public. After all, He will be "managing" our money if he somehow gets the job.

Unfortunately, the MSM will NEVER call Barry on something as mundane and inconsequential as "ties" to a terrorist state...HIS supporter's money somehow, and by the grace of God sneaks past the war-lords and gets to the poor, and helpless civilians of the Sudan. Wow, with spin like that, I could work at AP.

Time for a reality check, alright!

"This is one of those stories where I have to call for a reality check."

It's time for a reality check, alright. That is, the reality of a mutual fund and how it works.

“A mutual fund is a professionally managed firm of collective investments that collects money from many investors and puts it in stocks, bonds, short-term money market instruments, and/or other securities. The fund manager, also known as portfolio manager, trades the fund's underlying securities, realizing capital gains or losses and passing any proceeds to the individual investors.”

Source

You see, unlike buying stocks directly where you have total control over what stock and bonds you will purchase or sell, investing in a mutual fund means that you leave you portfolio decisions to the fund manager. It is that manager who makes all the decisions as to which stocks and bond that fund will purchase or sell. You can no more blame Mrs. McCain for the stock that are purchased by any mutual fund she may invest in than you can blame the citizens as to how much tax revenue will be spent for, say, road repair by a state government. Just like the investors in a mutual fund, the individual citizens have no direct influence over government, no matter how much we like to believe we do.