Cindy McCain Sells Sudan-Related Investments

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

JIM KUHNHENN | May 14, 2008 09:13 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
In this April 3, 2008 file photo, Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is shown in Jacksonville, Fla. Cindy McCain, whose husband has been a critic of the violence in Sudan, is selling off more than $2 million in mutual funds whose holdings include companies that do business in the African nation. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, file)

WASHINGTON — Cindy McCain, whose husband has been a critic of the violence in Sudan, sold off more than $2 million in mutual funds whose holdings include companies that do business in the African nation.

The sale on Wednesday came after The Associated Press questioned the investments in light of calls by John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, for international financial sanctions against the Sudanese leadership.

McCain, who was campaigning in Ohio, said neither he nor his wife were aware of the Sudan-related holdings.

Last year, at least four presidential candidates divested themselves of similar holdings involving companies doing business in Sudan.

According to McCain's personal financial disclosure, Cindy McCain's investments include two mutual funds _ American Funds Europacific Growth fund and American Funds Capital World Growth and Income fund _ that are listed by the Sudan Divestment Task Force as targets for divestment.

"Those have been sold as of today," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. Both funds have holdings in Oil & Natural Gas Corp., an India-based company that does business in Sudan. The American Funds Capital World Growth & Income Fund also has holdings in Petrochina, a Chinese government-owned oil company with vast investments in Sudan.

Last year, in a speech on energy policy to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, McCain cited China's investments in Sudan as an example of regimes that survive off free-flowing petro dollars.

"The politics of oil impede the global progress of our values, and restrains governments from acting on the most basic impulses of human decency," he said. "There is only one reason China has opposed sanctions to pressure Sudan to stop the killing in Darfur: China needs Sudan's oil."

On Wednesday, Rogers said: "Senator and Mrs. McCain remain committed to doing everything possible to end the genocide in Darfur."

After touring a waste-reprocessing plant near Columbus, Ohio, described the American Funds as "one of the country's largest mutual funds."

"Obviously, we didn't know about it and I didn't know anything about it until I saw the story, because I don't have anything to do with her finances," he said. "But they divested as soon as it was brought to us."

For the McCains, the Sudan-related investments are among scores of different investments listed in his financial disclosure documents. Cindy McCain is heiress to a Phoenix-based beer distributing company whose fortune is in the $100 million range.

Sen. McCain is regularly ranked among the richest lawmakers in Congress, but under the terms of a prenuptial agreement, much of the family's assets are in Cindy McCain's name. While the disclosure reports provide the identity of income and assets held by candidates and their spouses, they only offer a range of the amount of the holding. Indeed, the report lists Cindy McCain's investments in the two mutual funds as simply "over $1,000,0000."

In tax returns he released last month, the Arizona senator reported a total income of $405,409 in 2007.

But Cindy McCain files separate tax returns which she has not made public. Last week, she said she would never make her returns public even if her husband becomes president.

Later Wednesday, the Democratic National Committee reiterated its call for Cindy McCain to release her tax returns. "The fact the McCain family was holding Sudan-related investments even as John McCain was out on the campaign trail calling for sanctions is a reminder of why the American people expect and deserve full disclosure from their elected officials," said DNC spokesman Damien LaVera.

McCain aides pointed out that the Sudan investments were contained in publicly disclosed data. John McCain on Wednesday also defended his wife's decision not to release her tax returns.

"When we file our (financial disclosure) report in the Senate, there's quite a bit of information in there," he said.

The Sudan-related investments illustrate the hazards for wealthy candidates whose vast holdings undergo thorough scrutiny during a presidential campaign.

A year ago, several presidential candidates divested themselves of Sudan-related holdings. Among them were Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards and Republicans Sam Brownback and Rudy Giuliani.

In 2006, Brownback was among members of Congress who wrote 44 governors to urge them to divest their employee pension funds from businesses linked to Sudan. He is now serving as a top adviser to McCain's campaign.

At the time, Obama placed the total value of his divestitures at $180,000. The sales of the investments were recorded in their financial disclosures.

According to Giuliani's financial disclosure, he invested between $500,000 and $1 million in a Vanguard Wellington Fund. Data compiled by the Sudan Divestment Task Force shows that Vanguard Wellington has a small percentage of stock in Schlumberger Ltd., a French oil field services company that does business in Sudan.

Edwards sold stock he and his wife owned in Schlumberger for between $40,000 and $100,000. He also invested $50,000 to $100,000 in Evergreen Equity Income Fund, another fund identified by the divestment task force as having stock in Sudan-related companies.

"Considering Democrat candidates, including Barack Obama, had the very same type of holdings, it is the height of hypocrisy to attack Senator McCain and his family," said Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz said.

 
 

Comments
378
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)

I'm not a fan of John or Cindy McCain, but to quote a credit card--"What's in YOUR wallet?

I mean, if you are trying to indict her (and I'd LOVE to find more dirt on the McCains, don't get me wrong), an investment by a company that is partially owned in a mutual fund is pretty weak, especially since a rich person probably relies on an investment counselor, possibly several, to take care of the details. And unless the fund is a major investor in some company called ALL SUDAN INVESTMENTS CO., you may have to look pretty deep to discover who owns what.

PLENTY of other things to get her on guys, keep looking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:27 PM on 05/15/2008

What these two did to one woman, Carol Schepp, is enuf for me to not want them in the White House... and then take into account all the people that have died by his hand , his policies, or their "ignorance" .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 PM on 05/15/2008

It is saddeeem and Menorah..as the say in the bibless..The republican party has made the house..THE HOUSE OF ILL REPUTES OR HOUSE OF WHORES..DAMNN REPUBLICUNTS..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 05/15/2008

I wonder just how many of the holier than thou people posting comments here have even the slightest clue what investors are doing with their 401K dollars. Do you know all of the investments made by your financial institute of choice? Is your money being invested in other countries?

Cindy sold off investments in mutual funds. Mutual funds are a collection of many investor dollars managed by a financial institute. It is not as if Cindy went out and invested directly in Sudan. She put her money into a mutual fund. The financial institute invested her money, as well as other investment dollars into stocks and bonds which they thought would turn the best profit. When it was brought to Cindy's attention she got out of the mutual fund.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 05/15/2008

Yes, just like the other candidates' divestitures so long ago. it's a good thing the Corporate Media's not paying attention to anything McCain is doing at this time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:04 PM on 05/15/2008

Selling off "Blood Investments" the day before a major speech.......ummm, good idea! Go Girl!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:00 PM on 05/15/2008

I wonder how many of Cindy McCain's investments are tied to shell corporations in the Cayman Islands et al? Some, I'm sure - unless she's an atypical wealthy Republican and actually PAYS the taxes she is supposed to.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 AM on 05/15/2008

Fake. Old. Barbie Doll.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 05/15/2008

So typical for a Repug. They do not care what they invest in as long as it makes $$. They are the true believers of the Church of the Almighty Dollar (which thanks to them is not so much anymore).

NOW we all know why she will not release her tax returns. They are full of other wonderful nuggets like this one.

Obama '08

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 AM on 05/15/2008

One can almost guess the age of the contributor by the sheer silliness of the comment.

The richest men and women in government are Democrats dear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 PM on 05/15/2008

Hmm.. now WHICH party are the real 'elitists"??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:34 AM on 05/15/2008

Cindy, did you donate the profits to Sudan, or donate everything to John's campaign?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 AM on 05/15/2008

Obama and Edwards had the same type of investments. Read the article

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 AM on 05/15/2008

I am no fan of McCain, but I have to admit: I view this as a "non-story."

So she had investments in Sudan. We're supposed to attribute guilt by association? I have investments ... I'll confess I have no idea what geopolitical impacts they may or may not have. If someone pointed out to me that I had investments in Sudan or a similar area, I'd divest. Should I be reviled because AI had them to begin with?

The McCain's have plenty to answer for. Divesting Sudanese investments when made aware of them isn't one of the,

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 05/15/2008

Claiming ignorance does not excuse us of supporting the atrocities in Sudan. Any of us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 05/15/2008

this is just so shameful. and the money she made selling these off should absolutely go toward a darfur humanitarian initiative. for more on this, go to: www.eatmypress.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:57 AM on 05/15/2008

Tell Obama, too. He had the same type of investments.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 PM on 05/15/2008

Cindy McCain was probably advised to divest these holdings befor the fall election, lest they be used in an attack against McSame.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 AM on 05/15/2008

Is Cindy Doll cleaning up her portfolio before releasing her tax returns?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:29 AM on 05/15/2008

So what ? There is nothing they ( Cindy and John ) can do or say that will make them any purer or better or more honest or patriotic than they were prior to this latest attempt at another political gain.
For a veteran who was a prisoner of war to completely fail us as a member of the Armed Forces Services Committee, knowing of the needs of the fighting forces to have the proper arms and vehicles before going in to battle and the Walter Reed fiasco deserve our trust. When he shilled for Bush in Bagdad in a show of safety in the marketplace for a false PR release, he lost my trust. His statements on torture are also flipped. We have watched the McCains over the years live the good life, which is okay. But to deny others any form of equality is pure selfish and unexplainable. And now he is against the bill to aid our returning vets from a chance at an educational financial aid.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 AM on 05/15/2008

Well said!

McCain. Bad for our troops. Bad for America.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 05/15/2008

Five pages of outrage and not one of you guys actually read the whole article that you savior and his new best buddy are guilty of the same thing. You guys are priceless.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 AM on 05/15/2008

Your hypocrisy is truly mind boggling!! Even a brainwashed toad like you should be able to see the difference. What would your ridicules lying ass be squeeling if Michelle Obama wouldn't release her taxes, hmmm?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:14 AM on 05/15/2008

This is article isn't about releasing taxes, I so I have no idea what you're talking about. It's about Cindy McCain divesting assets in Sudan just like Obama and Edwards did. What seems like hypocrisy is criticizing Cindy McCain for doing something Obama and Edwards also did.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:22 AM on 05/15/2008

I finished and it was easy to see that "you savior" actually did the SMART thing and divested long ago. See - part of what I'm looking for is someone who shows good judgment by LOOKING AHEAD and saying something like... "maybe some of my money is in places it shouldn't be - let's look into that BEFORE someone asks, shall we? That way, I won't look like an IDIOT when I'm forced to divest later on."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 05/15/2008

Maybe if it's such a horrible thing to do he shouldn't have done it in the first place. IDIOT

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 AM on 05/15/2008

talamone: That was very well said.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:07 PM on 05/15/2008

Perhaps you're being purposefully obtuse so you can call me an idiot, or perhaps you missed the point. -fngy

Perhaps your being purposefully hypocritical. What you're saying, which is no surprising from an Obama supporter, is that the substance doesn't count. It's not whether or not you have investments in Sudan, it's that you dump them at the right time (which is, of course, whenever Obama dumped them). It's not whether you actually try to unite people, it's if you say the word "unity" in a speech. It's not whether you attend church with radical agenda for 20 years, it's that you dump the pastor when he becomes politically inconvenient. It's not whether or not you used dirty Chicago politics in the past to get elected, it's that you talk about "new politics" now. Good luck with that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 05/15/2008

Perhaps you're being purposefully obtuse so you can call me an idiot, or perhaps you missed the point. In case it's the latter, I'll spell it out: It's always understandable when one doesn't know exactly what's in one's mutual funds. (I know I don't know what are in mine at any given time.) However, once one is going to put themselves in the hotbed of a presidential race, it also is expected that one vets one's finances - it's simply common sense. Because McCain didn't do that well enough, here he is. Obama, Edwards, Giulliani & Brownback all did the sensible thing in this instance. McCain did not. That's what's idiotic, not the initial investment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 AM on 05/15/2008

Yes, and if you'd take a few moments to actually read the 5 pages of comments, you'd see the outrage seems to be inexplicably directed at Obama, rather that trying to defend McCain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 AM on 05/15/2008

In the Obama universe, comparing her to people who invested in South African aparthied and talking about how much it will damage McCain is outrage at Obama? That's a pretty weak attempt a changing the subject. Try something else.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 05/15/2008

The headline just happens to not be deceptive (once in a while there are a few). Why are you so dead-set against defending McCain?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:35 PM on 05/15/2008

he thread is about Cindy McCain. There's already been talk about the others who have been deflected to on these pages--I've you've been paying the least amount of attention. - shockmagog

I thought the thread was about the article, or are we only aloud to comment the deceptive headlines?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:23 AM on 05/15/2008

The thread is about Cindy McCain. There's already been talk about the others who have been deflected to on these pages--I've you've been paying the least amount of attention.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 AM on 05/15/2008

I'm beginning to think we should be paying our first ladies, given all the abuse they take. I don't feel that she should be required to make her tax returns public - she isn't running for office. First ladies don't get recognition for whatever they do in the public interest - only abuse for things that are spun negatively.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:51 AM on 05/15/2008

Completely disagree. I want to know where and how my public servants make their money so that I can see whatever potential conflict of interest there might be. As a voter, I believe I'm ENTITLED to this information. The fact that she refuses to release them, simply makes me suspicious. I predict, eventually, they'll come out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 AM on 05/15/2008

So does that include every single person that works for the federal government? Or just those at the top of the food chain? Where would you draw the line?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:15 PM on 05/15/2008

If you read the whole article, it says that Obama and Edwards also possessed and sold the same assets in Sudan as Cindy McCain. Nice job of being propagandists, again, Huffingtonpost.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:33 AM on 05/15/2008

No - they divested these holdings (big word - means they got rid of them) as did Brownback and Guilliani at the beginning of the campaign. No propoganda here - simply facts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 AM on 05/15/2008

And if they terrible to have, why did they have them in the first place?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:16 AM on 05/15/2008