Should politicians be required to divest...

Should politicians be required to divest and/or place business holdings in a blind trust while they are in office?

This question does not concern what the laws are right now, nor does it pertain to custom. This question is seeking your opinion of what should be, as if we're starting from scratch and you and you alone get to choose.

Note: Cabinet, Congress, Vice-President, and President.

radcen said:

Should politicians be required to divest and/or place business holdings in a blind trust while they are in office?

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely.

all of the below SHOULD BE MANDATORY for all politicians at any level; local/municipal, county, state, federal, etc.

TWO TERMS & your ass is gone, period; NO exceptions

NO FELONY RECORD or you cannot run for office

DRUG TESTED before you start the job, just like many in the nation; random drug tests twice per year after being sworn into office

cuban smokes said:

all of the below SHOULD BE MANDATORY for all politicians at any level; local/municipal, county, state, federal, etc.

TWO TERMS & your ass is gone, period; NO exceptions

NO FELONY RECORD or you cannot run for office

DRUG TESTED before you start the job, just like many in the nation; random drug tests twice per year after being sworn into office

Click to expand...

Your response is wholly irrelevant to the thread. Not a single point addresses the question.

I probably mis-voted in my own poll. I voted for requiring both, but now that I think about it I would only *require* a blind trust. A true blind trust, not a sham blind trust with family members, etc. Prior to taking oath of office. I'm not sure that a person should have to literally sell everything.

And yeah, I guess you could call it my "Trump Rule". An example of how the few ruin it for the many. It's because of the dishonest few that we have laws and rules restricting things like this to begin with.

radcen said:

Should politicians be required to divest and/or place business holdings in a blind trust while they are in office?

This question does not concern what the laws are right now, nor does it pertain to custom. This question is seeking your opinion of what should be, as if we're starting from scratch and you and you alone get to choose.

Note: Cabinet, Congress, Vice-President, and President.

Click to expand...

Really depends on how the blind trust is structured and even then I'm extremely leery of it, because if you retain a material interest in assets you're not actually required to divest from it's pretty obvious that certain actions will benefit them and be of immense self-interest, regardless of their administration/management. True, your asset composition will change over time to things that don't posit a CoI problem, but let's face it; there's not going to be the sort of sudden and massive seachange of said composition that would actually preclude problematic toxic incentives.

Therefore, divestment seems to be the only truly workable approach to preventing substantial conflicts of interest.

Surrealistik said:

Really depends on how the blind trust is structured and even then I'm extremely leery of it, because if you retain a material interest in assets you're not actually required to divest from it's pretty obvious that certain actions will benefit them and be of immense self-interest, regardless of their administration/management. True, your asset composition will change over time to things that don't posit a CoI problem, but let's face it; there's not going to be the sort of sudden and massive seachange of said composition that would actually preclude problematic toxic incentives.

Click to expand...

All true.

Therefore, divestment seems to be the only truly workable approach to preventing substantial conflicts of interest.

Click to expand...

Even with divestiture, one would still have cronies friends and family members involved in those businesses.
This might prevent certain bloviating idiots people from "making America great again".
The horror...the horror....

I 100% understand why people push for laws requiring a blind trust or divestment, so I am not against them off hand, but in my humble opinion it all based on the flaw idea politicians/public office should be humble public servants only interested in public good. It’s all just a complete sham in both my experience and observation. And the theory doesn’t even stand up to scrutiny.

Politicians are not representatives of the people, they are definitely not public servants and rather official lobbyists for their interest and the interest of their supporters accountable to the public or office they serve. The people are the people and they act as a check on these political actors. We could even have more to increases to that accountability, but why then should they be required to obfuscate their true identities, intentions and personal interests to appel to the sentiments of the public good by any means but their own political scheming?

There are lots of legit appearances of conflicts of interests, no doubt, trump as a billionaire triggered so many we’ll probably never know the full scope till years in the future, but in the end, what does it matter? He’s not a judge deciding between two visions of the country. He’s a man who put a vision to the people and says he can get the other actors in government to come along and get this vision done. His cabinet accountable to the whole of the political scene. Same goes for other government actors: Congress & Vice-President.

Now public servants who are choosing as their career to be a government worker not just take a public office; including career politicians, those are whom I see as requiring stricter rules and codes of ethics up to and including divestment. If you want to pursue your private interests, move to the private sector or take a public facing office directly accountable to we the people.

edit: the richer you are the more you give and are affected by government but with divesture the more you are prevented from holding public office? WTF a recipe for a government of untested lackeys beholden to hidden powers

Surrealistik said:

Really depends on how the blind trust is structured and even then I'm extremely leery of it, because if you retain a material interest in assets you're not actually required to divest from it's pretty obvious that certain actions will benefit them and be of immense self-interest, regardless of their administration/management. True, your asset composition will change over time to things that don't posit a CoI problem, but let's face it; there's not going to be the sort of sudden and massive seachange of said composition that would actually preclude problematic toxic incentives.

Therefore, divestment seems to be the only truly workable approach to preventing substantial conflicts of interest.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with anything you said regarding the real-world aspects of divestiture vs blind trusts, but I still have a visceral opposition to requiring divesting. I totally get that everyone knows who will benefit when someone patronizes a blind trust business, and I grant it's not ideal, but I also consider it the right option. I don't believe a person should be required to give up who they are to hold office.

radcen said:

Should politicians be required to divest and/or place business holdings in a blind trust while they are in office?

This question does not concern what the laws are right now, nor does it pertain to custom. This question is seeking your opinion of what should be, as if we're starting from scratch and you and you alone get to choose.

Note: Cabinet, Congress, Vice-President, and President.

Click to expand...

I have always thought it a good idea to put the assets of politicians into blind trust and I dislike Trump being President.
But I have thought it through again and am no longer so sure. Some wealthy people could do so or even divest their investments, if you own only bonds and large cap shares. But even for mid sized wealth it might be nearly impossible to divest or sensibly use a blind trust. In other words we would effectively exclude wealthy people from political office. I am neither sure we want to do that nor that it would be Constitutional.

radioman said:

Even with divestiture, one would still have cronies friends and family members involved in those businesses.
This might prevent certain bloviating idiots people from "making America great again".
The horror...the horror....

Click to expand...

True, but the incentive for CoI is substantially diminished, whereas it remains fundamentally unchanged with a blind trust.

radcen said:

I don't disagree with anything you said regarding the real-world aspects of divestiture vs blind trusts, but I still have a visceral opposition to requiring divesting. I totally get that everyone knows who will benefit when someone patronizes a blind trust business, and I grant it's not ideal, but I also consider it the right option. I don't believe a person should be required to give up who they are to hold office.

Click to expand...

I understand the cause for objection, but in my view, the risks presented by massive CoI for the entirety of the nation far outweigh the convenience of the individual politician. If someone is truly committed to civil service, they will both understand the necessity of divestment and will do it willingly (beyond that they're still going to have plenty of wealth from the proceeds of divestment).

Surrealistik said:

I understand the cause for objection, but in my view, the risks presented by massive CoI for the entirety of the nation far outweigh the convenience of the individual politician. If someone is truly committed to civil service, they will both understand the necessity of divestment and will do it willingly (beyond that they're still going to have plenty of wealth from the proceeds of divestment).

Click to expand...

I still don't agree, but I cannot argue against it, either.

cuban smokes said:

all of the below SHOULD BE MANDATORY for all politicians at any level; local/municipal, county, state, federal, etc.

TWO TERMS & your ass is gone, period; NO exceptions

NO FELONY RECORD or you cannot run for office

DRUG TESTED before you start the job, just like many in the nation; random drug tests twice per year after being sworn into office

Click to expand...

I thought you said you were a libertarian

Of course they should.
unless your a lying "P" grabbing cry baby. Then no you don't have to.

radcen said:

Should politicians be required to divest and/or place business holdings in a blind trust while they are in office?

This question does not concern what the laws are right now, nor does it pertain to custom. This question is seeking your opinion of what should be, as if we're starting from scratch and you and you alone get to choose.

Note: Cabinet, Congress, Vice-President, and President.

Click to expand...

I think that any politician who participates in the economy in a private fashion is vulnerable to a conflict of interest.

I'm not terribly comfortable with the idea of forcing them to detach from the economy.

However, we require feedback paths to be aware of and responsive to cases where those conflicts betray the public.

A blind trust can be meaningless when you can drive down the road and see your name on a building. Materials assets are a different category than stock holdings.

Masterhawk said:

I thought you said you were a libertarian

Click to expand...

I am but with Liberty comes responsibility; politicians in general have demonstrated they cannot be trusted

public service is NOT A CAREER

take the career out of public service; limit terms to two terms max

make it mandatory for all politicians to do as many others are forced to do in many other forms of employment = mandatory drug tests

if no one has anything to hide, then they shouldn't have an issue with it ........ I don't ........... Libertarian here ............. :mrgreen:

AliHajiSheik said:

A blind trust can be meaningless when you can drive down the road and see your name on a building. Materials assets are a different category than stock holdings.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't even know how a blind trust would work with a scenario like Trump's.

radcen said:

Should politicians be required to divest and/or place business holdings in a blind trust while they are in office?

This question does not concern what the laws are right now, nor does it pertain to custom. This question is seeking your opinion of what should be, as if we're starting from scratch and you and you alone get to choose.

Note: Cabinet, Congress, Vice-President, and President.

Click to expand...

Two choices: Either set up a qualified blind trust or totally liquidate corporate asset holdings (titles/property/stocks).

cuban smokes said:

I am but with Liberty comes responsibility; politicians in general have demonstrated they cannot be trusted

public service is NOT A CAREER

take the career out of public service; limit terms to two terms max

make it mandatory for all politicians to do as many others are forced to do in many other forms of employment = mandatory drug tests

if no one has anything to hide, then they shouldn't have an issue with it ........ I don't ........... Libertarian here ............. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Public service can certainly be a career, but that doesn't mean it has to be the same temp job.

Skeptic Bob said:

Yeah, I don't even know how a blind trust would work with a scenario like Trump's.

Click to expand...

Trump would no longer know what Trump Organization assets he still owns, what is being bought, and what is being sold.

Without such intimate dynamic understandings, Trump would no longer possess an unbridled qualitative business edge derived from Presidential insider knowledge.

Rogue Valley said:

Trump would no longer know what Trump Organization assets he still owns, what is being bought, and what is being sold.

Without such intimate dynamic understandings, Trump would no longer possess an unbridled qualitative business edge derived from Presidential insider knowledge.

Click to expand...

That works with stock portfolios, perhaps, but properties like hotels and golf resorts tend to be long hold investments. And a good portion of his income comes from the licensing of his name. Even if he doesn't have a say in who gets to license his name, it isn't the kind of information that can be kept secret.

Skeptic Bob said:

That works with stock portfolios, perhaps, but properties like hotels and golf resorts tend to be long hold investments.

Click to expand...

The trust manager has a specific mandate ... maintain or increase profits. Trump properties will be sold and other properties will be purchased.

Skeptic Bob said:

And a good portion of his income comes from the licensing of his name. Even if he doesn't have a say in who gets to license his name, it isn't the kind of information that can be kept secret.

Click to expand...

Blind trusts are not instruments for maintaining the status quo. The Trump Organization he returns to would not be the same Trump Organization he left.

Skeptic Bob said:

That works with stock portfolios, perhaps, but properties like hotels and golf resorts tend to be long hold investments. And a good portion of his income comes from the licensing of his name. Even if he doesn't have a say in who gets to license his name, it isn't the kind of information that can be kept secret.

Click to expand...

Beyond the fact that blind trusts aren't especially effective at preventing conflict of interest in the first place even assuming his assets were more paper heavy unless the vast preponderance of them were either short term investment vehicles or extraordinarily difficult to influence, unless of course part of the BT structuring is a massive reshuffling of assets by the person administering and managing the trust (which is generally atypical and certainly wouldn't happen in Trump's case).

That is of course to say nothing of the general difficulty in keeping things adequately partitioned and opaque to DT or other BT beneficiaries.

On the whole it's a lot better than and I'd prefer it to nothing, but it's not an effective remedy to or minimizer of significant CoI issues.

AliHajiSheik said:

A blind trust can be meaningless when you can drive down the road and see your name on a building. Materials assets are a different category than stock holdings.

Click to expand...

An argument that would only make sense if i owned everything with my name on it.

I could change my name to Amazon and make billions! LOL!!!