Members of Congress own stock in scanner companies
 

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-...t-of-interests

Conflict of interest?

opinions?

Well, not entirely surprising. Goes along with the massive amount of lobbying that these companies have also put in. Honestly, I think the scanners themselves are one big piece of shameless profiteering...

Is it even possible for a politician to have a stock portfolio without opening themselves to such charges?

What, if anything does Kerry or any of the other pols on that list have to do with the type of scanners TSA uses? That is the pertinent question here. I'm not saying they're not guilty but I rather see some actual evidence of wrong doing before I believe there is really a conflict of interest.

Exactly, simply owning stock does not mean there is any conflict of interest.

Now if any of these people voted on any initiatives that specified specific types of machines, there would be a conflict of interest. But until that has been demonstrated, I see no conflict of interest.... only a potential for one.

I have a feeling that most of congress would buy stock in Al Qaeda if they had a public offering just to hedge their bets... :roll:

Kinda like WC Fields depositing a lot of money in German banks during WWII. :D

Well we do know for a fact that Senator Kerry tried to avoid paying Mass state sales tax on his new yacht.

You're missing the bigger fish here. Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff's consulting firm, Chertoff Group, represents body scanner manufacturers.

Let me spell that out - the man who was behind the government's implementation of body scanners as head of Homeland Security is being paid by the companies that make those scanners.

That's the real story here.

And your supporting evidence that he was personally involved in the decision to select this specific type of scanner?

Before we start throwing accusations of corruption and conflicts of interests around in the Internets Tubes, perhaps we should have some evidence or facts so support it?

Personally, knowing the government as I do (30+years), I think it is unlikely that the Director of Homeland Security personally selected a specific type of scanner. That's just not how a bloated bureaucracy works.

But I am eager to see evidence that will prove me wrong in this case. :yep:

Well, there are only 2 companies who make the scanners, and Chertoff was HS head when the first were bought in 2005. I don't know if he had business dealings with Rapiscan at the time.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ner_promotion/

"Terror" is certainly a fantastic industry for some, PMC's etc

You make a valid point in your post, Platapus, but I disagree. To be clear, you are correct in your assesment under current circumstances. Possesing stock does not necessarily indicate a conflict of interests. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that a politician who knowingly endorses a company or product with legislation when he/she has a vested interest is not necessarily a conflict of interests, either. It may well be that the individual in question truly believes that the endorsement is in the best interests of the electorate.

Even so, a system that allows such behaviour is undesireable. There is the obvious potential for abuse by the unscrupulous, and the very good chance that the well-intentioned might rationalize the interests of others to coincide with their own. We are all human, after all, and as such we are governed by biological imperatives and the pressure of the natural selection that made us what we are. Such factors are no basis for a system of government by law, no matter who is selected or by what means.

In light of those facts, I suggest that the most effective form of government is one that is strictly limited in its power and composition. Why even allow anyone the chance to further their own agenda in a public service position? Why give them anything, for that matter? A public service station should be governed by one who demonstrates through action that they are not motivated by self-interest. The only way to ensure that suitable individuals fill such posts is to give them virtually no power and subject them to rigorous screening before their candidacy is approved. Destroy any incentive that would attract anyone but the most civic-minded, and then limit even their power. The logical result will be a government that cannot be exploited (for the forseeable future), and as such, is not fodder for those who do not have the public's best interests at heart.

Your attitude invites political abuse by the saavy the the silver-tounged. It takes only a few words to destroy the irreducible concept of self-determination.