Does Green Party two-time retread Jill Stein still have a hypocrisy problem? Survey says yes! So do the feds, Stein and GP cultists

Two weeks ago (as of the original November 2023 writing of this), I blogged about Stein, the Green Party's 2012 and 2016 candidate, jumping back in the race this year after Cornel West did his Lucy van Pelt and pulled away his football. I did note the angle that not only would this help the Green Party but it would also help her pay off 2016 campaign debt the Federal Elections Committee said she owed and that courts have agreed.

I forgot the biggie, although I did tweet about it after my initial post.

That is, that in 2016, Jill Stein had a hypocrisy problem like Ralph Nader in 2000, and that is, via mutual funds, having investments in oil, tobacco and defense contractor stocks. The last is the biggest this time, given her rightful but presumably hypocritical attacks on Genocide Joe over Israel and Gaza, and her stance on Russia-Ukraine before that. 

And, that appears to have changed not one whit. No, to make it active voice? Jill Stein appears to have done nothing, not one whit, to address this investments hypocrisy.

Eight years ago, Stein did, partially, address Yashar Ali. But, she kind of petard-hoists. (And, it's linked in his piece.)

• The biggie is, why didn't she divest earlier, before Ali's story, already divest?
• Second and related? You're a medical doctor, not a public-school teacher whose investments are made by a state pension fund, not themselves. These are YOUR investments.
  
• Third? If there are "green" mutual funds that invest in fracking, they're not so "green," right, but why is that an excuse to stop looking further?
• Fourth, and relevant to today? You don't mention the defense stocks.
• Fifth, and even more relevant since Oct. 7, 2023, how many stocks in your mutual funds still trade with Israel?
  

(The image, from the Daily Beast, doesn't have a missile. Will it update for 2024? Will Yashar update his info-bomb?)

For updates about Stein’s non-responsiveness and related issues, go here. (NOTE: If you want to skip directly to the ethical investments issues of 2024, which don’t appear to have changed tremendously from 2016, go here.) 

Update, July 16, 2024: For the name, rank and serial number of a lying millennial Redditor, StillSlaying who claims this is poorly written, doesn't want to look beyond the Green Party, but does want to proselytize for it, go here.  In addition, he's now apparently blocked me, assuming Reddit has a new way of showing when someone's blocked you, or else he's one of these comment-and-delete shitters, or some combination thereof. Well, bye back, after doing the post-and-delete and getting busted. This all after I pointed out that this post has an anchor linking directly to this year's federal disclosure filing by Stein. No, Slaying just didn't want to read.

TL/DR at that link? "Survey says 'yes,' at least indirectly" to the admittedly semi-rhetorical question in the header.

Oh, for Naderites? All of this applies to St. Ralph, too. He's had a hypocrisy issue since 2000, per the 2016 story.

Per the original 2016 story, it next notes that, contra the "gotcha," even if Clinton's campaign gave this a push, that duopoly candidates have also been questioned for their financial holdings, and links to one about GOP candidates.

And, yes, contra a GP cultist type (or Peter Daou, or other leftists who essentially say that just voting for Stein rather than the left hand of the duopoly is enough), no, for me, the back story needs to be explained.

There are a few Stein-specific things, though, in that 2016 original. She mentions she inherited half a million. Good. The story already mentions that itself.

Re the no "gotcha," it turns out that the bankster-investments include ones with Goddam Sachs, for which she criticized Clinton, and also for which, in the link immediately above, GOP candidates were criticized.

Yes, I know Hillary's oppo research dumped that in Ali's lap, or at least nudged him that way. Ditto with the Gore campaign and Nader in 2000. Doesn't make it any less true, especially with this:

Admittedly I have not spent a lot of time researching elusive ethical investments. I prefer using my time fighting for social, economic and ecological transformation, and recycling capitalist money into the fight to do so.

Gee, you'd run for president in 2012, and I guess were lucky enough not to fall under Dear Leader's re-election spotlight. You therefore were able to waste four more years not researching "elusive" ethical investments, which were advertised in The Nation at the time of Nader's run already.

Ergo, Stein, such investments are NOT "elusive."

Anyway, Ali addresses that, too.

While it’s true that Stein would not have control over the investments of the funds she invested in, she did have a choice of whether to invest in these funds to begin with. In the past, political candidates, in an effort to avoid a conflict of interest or have their judgment called into question, have invested their entire portfolios in U.S. Treasuries, cash/cash equivalents, in socially responsible index funds, or clean-energy funds.

Again, hard to argue.

Disclosure: All my money is in either one "National" bank which is, I'll admit, one of lesser ethics, especially post-Great Recession, or a "state" bank which doesn't have problems that I'm aware of.

Until I see an official statement from Stein, pre-empting FEC information, with an independently audited review of her personal investments, I'll assume she has not divested. And, I use the word "divested" deliberately, as I know Stein also supports Boycott, Divest, Sanctions.

And, until I see that, it's a guarantor she's not getting my vote. And, it's an indication that the question in my header is rhetorical and the answer is obvious.

And contra this:

Meh. I have no idea what my 401k is invested in. Don't see the issue.

And because, unless something weird happens, all of these are just protest votes, I'll wait and see which one speaks the loudest (gets the most support).

— ken(neth) (@lensofken) November 20, 2023

Yes, I think it's an issue. And for details on why? See above. The bits of 401k I have from previous jobs, I have no idea either. BUT? Again, I don't have any control over that, either, other than cashing it out. An individual with an individual mutual fund has the choice of how to invest in the first place.

ALSO? This isn't all 401k. See below. That's a fail there.

Also, again? If you don't see the issue, are you a leftist (Ken said a while back he was a Nader Raider of long ago) who doesn't support BDS? Because, those defense contractors are also arming Israel, let us not forget.

Finally, if these all are protest votes, I can also protest against the protest votes being offered me. No problem doing that.

And, as you see, I've listed as least three different hypocrisy problems, not just one. Well, two of them are tied together. But, if you want a fourth? Per that second link? Why does a medical doctor own tobacco stocks?

And, this all applies in spades to our lying Redditor.

Oh, again, and as I told Brains back then, so-called "ethical" mutual funds exist. They did back when St. Ralph of Nader ran in 2000. Yes, they may have a slightly to modestly lower rate of return, but when you're running a third-party presidential campaign, this is not at all an unreasonable purity test. Actually, they may NOT have a lower rate of return; per Nerd Wallet, they may do just fine. And, calling more bullshit on Stein's claim, that piece also notes that things like "robo-advisors" offer at least some degree of simplification on the task, if you're not seeing a financial advisor who touts and advertises responsible investing advice. As for the history? The modern history, per this piece, goes back somewhat to Vietnam, and even more to the first push for divestment, vis-a-vis South Africa. And, per this piece at Mondoweiss, a site called Resource Generation offers assistance in divestment in general.

Besides, both Stein and Nader are multimillionaires. It's not like they can't or couldn't afford to meet this purity test, if it even is an affordability issue.

And, specific to Stein is her owning Big Pharma stocks even while not only criticizing the pharmaceutical industry in general, but being an antivaxxer.

And, having done John Anthony Castrol's filing with the Office of Government Ethics, at some suitable date in the future, I'll do Stein's, then Google for more info on whatever mutual funds she has.

Update: I'm sure I'll wind up doing this myself. If Yashar Ali is interested, he won't do it until the general election, for Democrat-aiding oppo research reasons. 

Update 1A, July 16: Ali's got his hands full enough trying to figure out what the party line is, or Party line is, and follow it, on whether to run Biden up the flagpole and salute him or instead to join Congresscritters and celebs still trying to shiv Dementia Joe.

Update 2, Feb 23: She / her handlers refuse to respond to my webmail, or my responses to campaign mass blast emails. 

Well, I did get a non-response "response" from a Bill Carini:

Hi Steve, I have relayed your concern to the campaign team. Feel free to check back with me in the future for updates.

There we go. That was Feb. 21. I'll check back in another week. Perhaps. Meanwhile, per the old proverb? "Silence gives assent."

Update 2A, July 15: I did, in my most recent response to one of her fundraising emails, ask the scrubbeenies (and I called them that) who actually post and receive said emails to actually take a look.

Here you go, and the same applies to said millennial Redditor:

If genocide is political violence, why do you have bombed-up stocks in your mutual fund portfolio (along with the oily eXXXon)?

And, to the scrubbeenies who actually answer these emails, have you thought about voting PSL or something?

Boom.

So, I have emailed the public records email at the FEC with the appropriate 201 form. And, I noted that I couldn't find Stein. If that gets her in FEC trouble? GOOD.

Meanwhile, per the original posting, the likes of Pat the Berner on Twitter (you can delete your old account, but many of us still remember) was attacking Party of Socialism and Liberation presidential candidate Claudia de la Cruz on Twitter for her COVID comments. I thought Pat's interpretation of de la Cruz was overblown, first (but he's a COVID Doomer) and, speaking of hypocrisy, hypocritical second, given Stein was playing footsie with antivaxxers in 2016 — even while having pharma stocks in her mutual funds.

UPDATE, March 1, 2024: GOT her FEC filing. Since Google Photos doesn't support PDFs, I'll convert it to a JPG, or a set of JPGs.

1. The overview.

2 and 3: Some breakouts:

OK, the Part 2 filing? CREF Stock 2 401(k) QCSTPX is currently, per Financial Times, 6.25 percent "consumer defensive" and 4.72 percent "energy." Percentages are slightly different at MutualFunds.com but the basic picture is the same. Consumer defense / defensive, per this and many other sites, can include tobacco, government contractors (which would include defense contractors, of course, with Lockheed Martin mentioned by name in the examples) and more.

Now, that's a 401(k), so we could cut her some slack.

But, the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund (VBTLX) is an IRA. Now, it's all bonds, but half are non-governmental, per MutualFunds.com. That includes things like mortgage-backed securities. And, we all remember the housing bubble and the Great Recession, don't we, kiddos?

Then, there's individual stocks, non IRA mutual funds,  etc. (I won't get into her husband's holdings, but ...)

Merck. 3M. Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund, VXUS, which includes Shell. Vanguard Dividend Appreciation Fund, which includes 3 percent Exxon and 15 percent "consumer defense." Vanguard 500 Index Fund, which includes 6.9 percent consumer defense and 4.8 percent energy. eXXXon again mentioned by name. (This is the same Exxon that sues its own shareholders to stop shareholder activism, then continues the suit even after they pull in their horns.)

So, she clearly hasn't divested oil stocks, and presumably hasn't divested tobacco and defense stocks either. In addition, FXI is a Chinese large-cap index type fund. Given that she, Margaret Flowers, Howie Hawkins, et al, continue to spout hasbara about Beijing and the Uyghurs, stuff like this is at least also flirting with no bueno.

UPDATE, June 25, 2024: I did a new Office of Government Ethics ask, and nothing major has changed on her investments.

Per Ken above, and Brains years ago? I'll give her a pass on the 401(k). Little pass if any on the IRA; that's a personal investment, even if done by a financial advisor. She still could have asked. The non-IRA investments? Zero slack there.

And in fact, to punk all three of Ken, Brains and Jill Stein? Vanguard itself touts its "ethical" products. Well, at least in Australia, per that link. That said, here's an investor website piece about ESG funds and investments in general, then review of several Vanguard funds. THAT said, the Aussie equivalent of the SEC accused Vanguard of greenwashing 9 months ago. And, in 2021, Vox had a deep-dive piece on the whole issue in general.

Bottom line? Per the old cliche, Stein doesn't have to be purer than Caesar's wife. But, "as pure as" would be nice. That's because, post Oct. 7, 2023, she keeps calling for more pressure on Israel, but she's not walking the walk!

Second bottom line: Unlike Yashar Ali's possible angle in 2016, this is not oppo research for the left hand of the duopoly, which I think was at least part of his bottom line. So, it's out there early. People can make their judgments now. (Mine is to vote Claudia de la Cruz if she is available by write-in.)

Third bottom line? I hope Brains has gotten more skeptical about Stein — more cynical, like me, would be OK, too — compared to where he was in 2016, specifically, more skeptical or cynical than he was then about her investments. (Brains works for a financial advisor/planner, and knows that "ethical mutual funds" exist, and that they did way back in the time of 2000 hypocrite Ralph Nader.) Ditto for other Greens besides Brains.