Surrender Monkey Friday: Pelosi Pork Could Benefit Husband

surrender monkey

 The Surrender Monkey is excited, because we haven’t talked about Nance Pelosi as of late, so, I wonder what she is up to?

On July 27, 2007, 28 executives of the Thousand Oaks, Calif., pharmaceutical firm Amgen contributed more than $20,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) campaign.

On Aug. 2, Pelosi (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Early Treatment for HIV Act, a bill that could boost Medicaid coverage of HIV-related drugs, including Procrit, which is manufactured by Amgen and marketed by a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, a firm in which Pelosi’s husband owns at least $250,000 in stock, according to Pelosi’s disclosure forms.

The legislation has more than 50 co-sponsors, including some Republicans. However, considering Pelosi’s potential interest in the legislation, her sponsorship of the bill is questionable, said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group.

“An ethical issue pops up as a result of her investment in Johnson & Johnson,” Fitton told Cybercast News Service. “Obviously she should explain whether or not her contributions from Amgen and its executives are influencing her position on the HIV bill in an inappropriate way.”

Culture of Corruption. Nuance.

But, it gets better!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dismissed any notion Thursday that her sponsorship of Medicaid legislation that would likely help her husband’s financial holdings in a pharmaceutical company presented a conflict of interest.

She also stressed there was no need to divest any stock that her husband holds in Johnson & Johnson, a company that makes and markets HIV-related drugs that could be helped by the Early Treatment of HIV Act, which Pelosi introduced last summer.

“Absolutely not,” Pelosi said Thursday when asked if she would consider divesting.

Imagine if a Republican was involved in a conflict of interest like this. Imagine if a political party spent all of 2006 railing against this type of activity by the majority party, as well as other apparent unethical activities. Now, imagine that that same party would win an election, become the majority party, and their leader would act in a way that appears unethical. That would be strange, eh?

Trackposted to Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Global American Discourse, CORSARI D’ITALIA, , Conservative Cat, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Surrender Monkey Friday: Pelosi Pork Could Benefit Husband”

  1. John Ryan says:

    Teach you are really stretching on this one.
    Pelosi and her husband are worth well over 26 million. The 250,000 dollar investment in Johnson and Johnson represents what percentage of their portfolio ? 1% J&J is a huge company with revenue over 53 Billion Can you see how little the passing of this bill would financially effect Pelosi ? I can’t see a conflict of interest here and neither can Main Street America, only the most bitter partisanship blinded can see it.

  2. Stacy says:

    John, Teach’s point is more about how Pelosi won’t be called on it because there’s a D after her name.

    I have more to say, I’ll stop by later after I get my thoughts together.

  3. John Ryan says:

    I can see no “appearance” of being unethical.
    How can this legislation be of significant advantage to her personally ?
    Using this as an example it would mean that no legislators could hold any stock in any Fortune 500 company.

    If Teach’s point is the same old Main Street America/ Main Stream Media isn’t fair to Republicans, sorry I missed it. That point is is overused that sometimes it just gets lost.
    About the only time i ever really “see” it is when the ultra right start saying that Soros controls the entire universe.
    After googling Pelosi ethics I see that Pelosi does get called on it, but only in Media that Americans choose NOT to buy.
    Your problem should be more with where Americans choose to get their news from, but of course that smacks of elitism something that is often used to slur Democrats.

  4. Scrapiron says:

    How much did Peeeloshi’s real estate holdings jump in value overnight after the last ‘little’ bill she sponsored to aid her husband? Millions of the $26 million she is now worth.

  5. John, Stacy is correct. The Dems, with Nancy at the helm, beat on any itty bitty tiny minor thing as part of the GOP Culture of Corruption. Yet, here she is herself doing something which at least hints at impropriety.

    Ask yourself honestly, John: if this was a republican involved, would you be decrying this? If you are honest, the answer will be yes.

    It may be legit, but, so were many of the things the GOP did. It screams of blatant hypocrisy.

    You are exactly right, Scrapiron. She, like so many in Congress, has used her position to enrich herself, and, since she is a Dem, the Credentialed Media will not call her to account.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10753 access attempts in the last 7 days.