Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
This Fund Invests Only In Companies That Contribute To Trump And Republicans (MAGA)
Yeah - Our local plumber is big-time Trump too. Tough call ... but given a choice between a clogged toilet and Trump, I'll endure the second. (But retain my right to change my mind.)
This is letting the tail wag the dog. If you want to invest in companies based on Trump policies, you invest in companies whose businesses might profit from his policies, as opposed to what party the company employees support. Though perhaps figuring out which companies might profit would be too difficult.
Such a fund would have to figure out whether to buy health care stocks (because we're going to have a health care policy that is so much more universal, efficient and inexpensive than ACA) or dump them (because we're going to repeal ACA and worry about replace later).
Should it sell short term Treasuries (because a government shutdown is imminent without a wall), or buy long term Treasuries (as the economy will grow so fast that deficits will be a thing of the past even as taxes are cut)? Or both?
Should it buy American infrastructure companies, because there's going to be $1T in infrastructure investment over the next decade? Or should it sell, because the budget proposals suggest a net decrease in federal infrastructure spending?
For 0.72% in fees, I want some real research, not a fund that just reads campaign disclosure forms.
"The filing didn’t say what securities would be held in the fund, instead directing individuals to the website 'www.investpolitically.com', where it said daily portfolio holdings would be available. That link, as of Thursday, simply features a place for users to log in, as well as a tagline, 'Shhhh... We must be very very quiet.'"
Interesting thought. The fund screens out those who don't pay to play, then takes the top 150. That's based on total dollar amount and percentage that goes to GOP candidates. So big companies can win even if they're just hedging their bets.
Even going by the pay to play philosophy, wouldn't it still make more sense to focus on specific policies?
If, say Pfizer bought its way into affecting regulations (e.g. maintaining the ban against drug importation despite campaign promises seemingly to the contrary), wouldn't one expect the whole brand name pharmaceutical sector to benefit? Even if, say, Merck had supported Democrats.
That's not to say that an individual company couldn't wrangle sweetheart government deals. Just wondering whether such company specific (as opposed to industry-specific) "help" would be the exception or the rule.
Though perhaps figuring out which companies might profit would be too difficult.
No kidding. Initially, I would have said cement and construction - maybe the heavy equipment makers like Deere. Now, looks like a toss-up between criminal law firms and whoever builds bomb shelters.
@MSF I think that would depend a great deal on the type of industry, type of politician being paid and the specific laws being considered. On the local or state level such payments I bet might significantly influence whether a company gets, say, a government contract despite the rules against such behavior. The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling basically legalized graft and influence peddling:
I'm sure that George Soros and Hillary Clinton were as happy as one over the USSC ruling referenced above.
I agree with Lewis that individual company influence at the state/local level is likely more potent; I had been thinking more in terms of national influence (see thread subject). I also agree with Maurice that this fund is a gimmick.
The case in the article cited and George Soros (as contributor) do not depend on Citizens United. The underlying problem is that the Supreme Court said decades ago that money was equivalent to speech. Citizens United merely extended that idea to companies and such. Regarding corporations as people (or at least sharing certain rights with people - see Hobby Lobby), it follows that corporations, like "other" people, can spend whatever they wanted on a candidate in their exercise of "free" (there's an irony for you) speech.
Individuals have been able to throw money at candidates, well, freely, for many years.
@MSF I think members of the House and Senate would have more of an impact on the local and state level and how federal contract dollars might be directed towards campaign contributors because of their sway. Regarding the McDonnell case, the defense made specific reference to Citizens United as a rationalization for McDonnell's behavior:
Insisting that the product would have generated jobs in Virginia, Mr. McDonnell testified that he was merely extending himself as he would have on behalf of any other constituent and that he never agreed to “put a thumb on the scales of any government decision.” His lawyers invoked the Supreme Court’s holding in the Citizens United campaign finance case that “ingratiation and access” do not constitute corruption.
But I agree with you that the corporate influence problem precedes Citizens United, although the ruling greatly exacerbated that influence. Good link/article by the way.
@Maurice More George Soros as the world's boogeyman? It's a tiresome trope. Yes, Soros gives to elections, but nowhere near what the conservative Koch brothers do: fortune.com/2017/01/29/koch-political-network-spending/ But besides that, what makes you think I believe any major financial gifts to any politicians are acceptable? I don't. But here is a fund expressly designed to reward those companies seeking to buy influence with Republican politicians with investor dollars. There is no equivalent on the Democratic side.
>> sure that George Soros and Hillary Clinton were as happy as one over the USSC ruling
Maurice is a master of bogus equivalence, but whatever could this silly assertion mean? Evidently you don't know what the Citizens United case was about. As for Trump derangement syndrome, that really made me smile this Labor Day, as we head into a catastrophic-looking month. What a leader he has turned out to be, huh.
@Maurice I already posted the facts via OpenSecrets. You just don't care about them. It's pretty funny that you would post old data from 2014 instead of 2016. Nice try.
@Maurice That's nice. The problem is Clinton wasn't even a candidate in 2014, so why are you posting that data? And why do you carefully ignore the simple fact that in the 2016 election cycle $605.8 million was spent by conservative Super Pacs and $444 million spent by liberal ones, which is also on the same 2016 Open Secrets page? You said: "You know that the Democrats have taken more advantage of PAC money than Republicans." It's not true.
@Maurice Please, your obsession with Clinton is embarrassing. You said and I repeat: "You know that the Democrats have taken more advantage of PAC money than Republicans." That is not true and you don't have the decency and honesty to admit it. Hillary Clinton is not the entire Democratic party. She lost and is now largely out of the picture. So who will be your bogeyman or woman in the future?
Oh and bringing the Clinton Foundation in as some major source of campaign funding is close to being obscene. It's saved millions of lives.
Comments
It's loaded up with companies that make hats? /sarcasm
Politics and investing 'themes' don't mix. Josh Brown did a good writeup on this the other day:
MAGA Muppet Bait
http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/09/01/maga-muppet-bait/
Such a fund would have to figure out whether to buy health care stocks (because we're going to have a health care policy that is so much more universal, efficient and inexpensive than ACA) or dump them (because we're going to repeal ACA and worry about replace later).
Should it sell short term Treasuries (because a government shutdown is imminent without a wall), or buy long term Treasuries (as the economy will grow so fast that deficits will be a thing of the past even as taxes are cut)? Or both?
Should it buy American infrastructure companies, because there's going to be $1T in infrastructure investment over the next decade? Or should it sell, because the budget proposals suggest a net decrease in federal infrastructure spending?
For 0.72% in fees, I want some real research, not a fund that just reads campaign disclosure forms.
A comic book of a fund if ever there was one.
I assume the philosophy behind the fund is the concept of pay to play, not beneficiaries of specific policies.
Even going by the pay to play philosophy, wouldn't it still make more sense to focus on specific policies?
If, say Pfizer bought its way into affecting regulations (e.g. maintaining the ban against drug importation despite campaign promises seemingly to the contrary), wouldn't one expect the whole brand name pharmaceutical sector to benefit? Even if, say, Merck had supported Democrats.
That's not to say that an individual company couldn't wrangle sweetheart government deals. Just wondering whether such company specific (as opposed to industry-specific) "help" would be the exception or the rule.
https://nytimes.com/2016/06/19/sunday-review/bribery-and-corruption-or-honest-graft.html
latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-mcdonnell-corruption-20160627-snap-story.html
The case in the article cited and George Soros (as contributor) do not depend on Citizens United. The underlying problem is that the Supreme Court said decades ago that money was equivalent to speech. Citizens United merely extended that idea to companies and such. Regarding corporations as people (or at least sharing certain rights with people - see Hobby Lobby), it follows that corporations, like "other" people, can spend whatever they wanted on a candidate in their exercise of "free" (there's an irony for you) speech.
Individuals have been able to throw money at candidates, well, freely, for many years.
The Hill (2016), Happy birthday to the case that was even worse than Citizens United
@Maurice More George Soros as the world's boogeyman? It's a tiresome trope. Yes, Soros gives to elections, but nowhere near what the conservative Koch brothers do:
fortune.com/2017/01/29/koch-political-network-spending/
But besides that, what makes you think I believe any major financial gifts to any politicians are acceptable? I don't. But here is a fund expressly designed to reward those companies seeking to buy influence with Republican politicians with investor dollars. There is no equivalent on the Democratic side.
https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&chrt=V&disp=O&type=S
https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S
Maurice is a master of bogus equivalence, but whatever could this silly assertion mean? Evidently you don't know what the Citizens United case was about.
As for Trump derangement syndrome, that really made me smile this Labor Day, as we head into a catastrophic-looking month. What a leader he has turned out to be, huh.
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/09/01/maga-muppet-bait/
Regards,
Ted:(
And by the way Super Pacs don't even include "dark money" political spending from 501c non-profit groups where the donors' names aren't disclosed. That money is overwhelmingly conservative Republican: https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U
In 2016 $140.5 million came from conservative 501c's versus 41.3 million from liberal ones. Oh and in 2014, that number was $126.4 million conservative versus $37.8million liberal.
https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U
"You know that the Democrats have taken more advantage of PAC money than Republicans." That is not true and you don't have the decency and honesty to admit it. Hillary Clinton is not the entire Democratic party. She lost and is now largely out of the picture. So who will be your bogeyman or woman in the future?
Oh and bringing the Clinton Foundation in as some major source of campaign funding is close to being obscene. It's saved millions of lives.