Elizabeth Warren paid well by large corporations

[Mountainmanbob]

Elizabeth Warren reveals she made $1.9 million from private legal work over 3 decades

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., received $1.9 million from private legal work during her time as a law professor stretching back three decades, according to a release by her campaign.

The work, since 1986, included fees from large corporate clients, her campaign said in the release.

Some of her clients included the attorneys for Rabobank, a Dutch financial institution that became a creditor in the Enron bankruptcy; former directors of Getty Oil, who were involved in Texaco’s bankruptcy; and women whose allegations of harm from silicone breast implants produced by Dow Corning were imperiled when the company filed for bankruptcy.

 

[miamited]

Elizabeth Warren reveals she made $1.9 million from private legal work over 3 decades

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., received $1.9 million from private legal work during her time as a law professor stretching back three decades, according to a release by her campaign.

The work, since 1986, included fees from large corporate clients, her campaign said in the release.

Some of her clients included the attorneys for Rabobank, a Dutch financial institution that became a creditor in the Enron bankruptcy; former directors of Getty Oil, who were involved in Texaco’s bankruptcy; and women whose allegations of harm from silicone breast implants produced by Dow Corning were imperiled when the company filed for bankruptcy.

HI MM,

I wasn't ever aware that there was a law against working and being paid by large corporations. I'll have to let my son know, he works for Intel. I wouldn't want him to be arrested just for working.

Thanks for the heads up.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Mountainmanbob]

HI MM,
I wasn't ever aware that there was a law against working and being paid by large corporations. I'll have to let my son know, he works for Intel. I wouldn't want him to be arrested just for working.

Thanks for the heads up.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Seems she talks smack about big corps?
Yet they have buttered her bread.

Interesting.
Your son should be ok
unless he runs for President?

M-Bob

 

[Norbert L]

HI MM,

I wasn't ever aware that there was a law against working and being paid by large corporations. I'll have to let my son know, he works for Intel. I wouldn't want him to be arrested just for working.

Thanks for the heads up.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I believe what a fair number of people are not aware of, who are more to the left of center on politics is many of their party leaders can also be considered wealthy and on the higher end of the income scale.

It's like at my workplace in Canada when someone was talking against our Conservative Party and associating them in a negative fashion with being rich. That such a thing is evidence of oppressive policies. I decided to point out to him the wealth of PM Trudeau and that he too hob nobs with billionaires.

In my view it is a bad argument to make on either side of the political spectrum.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Question?
Why do most politicians that go to Washington to serve the people when leaving have become rich?

Drain The Swamp

M-Bob

 

[Norbert L]

Question?
Why do most politicians that go to Washington to serve the people when leaving have become rich?

Drain The Swamp

M-Bob

Maybe some movement in that direction is possible but whether a person is poor or extremely rich, there's the very human condition of 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch your's' going on.

Personally given Tucker Carlson's segment on Hedge funds and Paul Singer, I think a policy change is possible in that area.

Tucker Carlson: How Paul Singer, Hedge Funds Are Destroying Rural America

 

[miamited]

Seems she talks smack about big corps?
Yet they have buttered her bread.

Interesting.
Your son should be ok
unless he runs for President?

M-Bob

Hi MM,

Ok yes, I understand that she, and many politicians, decry the fact that large corporations often use their money to buy influence. I don't equate that claim to being that just working for a large corporation at some time in your life as being the same as 'buying influence'. Now, if you have some evidence that, after being paid some large sum of money, there wasn't really any valid work done for the company and therefore the payment was likely for some 'favor' used to 'buy' some position that she might take that would unfairly help the company in question, then I'd be glad to look into it and would hope that lawmakers would also. Otherwise, this thread just seems to be someone making a lot of noise about nothing to obfuscate the real issues by attempting to divert attention to nonsense.

However, to repeat my point, just making money from large corporations by doing some valid work for them, isn't, in my opinion, anything to be questioned. I knew a lawyer who represented many of the airlines in their legal wranglings after airline accidents. He made quite a good living at it, but I never considered him to be doing something illegal just because he made a lot of money representing some of the largest airline companies in the U.S.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

I believe what a fair number of people are not aware of, who are more to the left of center on politics is many of their party leaders can also be considered wealthy and on the higher end of the income scale.

It's like at my workplace in Canada when someone was talking against our Conservative Party and associating them in a negative fashion with being rich. That such a thing is evidence of oppressive policies. I decided to point out to him the wealth of PM Trudeau and that he too hob nobs with billionaires.

In my view it is a bad argument to make on either side of the political spectrum.

Hi norbert,

Oh, I'm not so jaded as to think that our national politicians are altruistic in their work. Most of them have made good money doing whatever it is that they did as a career before getting into politics and many of them just come from family money.

I don't particularly care about the wealth of a politician, so long as that wealth was made through some legitimate purpose. On the other hand, if that wealth comes from big pocket companies and people sliding a few million dollars in their bank account for the purpose of getting some favorable legislation that may not be good all around for the people, then that's criminal intent and should be looked into.

Even the Scriptures tell us that it isn't the money that it is the root of all evil, but the love of money that is the root of many kinds of evil. Similarly, if someone loves money so much as to take the bribe or sell their influence for it, that's evil.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Norbert L]

Hi norbert,

On the other hand, if that wealth comes from big pocket companies and people sliding a few million dollars in their bank account for the purpose of getting some favorable legislation that may not be good all around for the people, then that's criminal intent and should be looked into.

Even the Scriptures tell us that it isn't the money that it is the root of all evil, but the love of money that is the root of many kinds of evil. Similarly, if someone loves money so much as to take the bribe or sell their influence for it, that's evil.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

From a scriptural point of view with regards to legal intentions, it too has some flaws in regards to motives. Given the theocratic nature of government during the apostle Paul's time period, "because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Romans 3:20.

Hopefully through the legal system most guilty party's can be found guilty but because we can get motives and intentions wrong, the law can also punish people for the wrong reason.

However it's the best tool we have at the moment to keep the fabric of civilization going, we'll have to live with its' imperfections.

 

[Fantine]

There is no allegation that she is in the pockets of corporate lobbyists or accepting campaign donations in return for voting certain ways.

Her principles are out there for all to see.

If she had expertise that allowed her to accept well paying consulting assignments with corporations, that is perfectly fine.

 

[whatbogsends]

Elizabeth Warren reveals she made $1.9 million from private legal work over 3 decades

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., received $1.9 million from private legal work during her time as a law professor stretching back three decades, according to a release by her campaign.

The work, since 1986, included fees from large corporate clients, her campaign said in the release.

Some of her clients included the attorneys for Rabobank, a Dutch financial institution that became a creditor in the Enron bankruptcy; former directors of Getty Oil, who were involved in Texaco’s bankruptcy; and women whose allegations of harm from silicone breast implants produced by Dow Corning were imperiled when the company filed for bankruptcy.

$1.9 million over 3 decades is less than $60,000 per year for legal services. Seems pretty reasonable.

 

[DaisyDay]

Seems she talks smack about big corps?
Yet they have buttered her bread.

Interesting.

Then perhaps she knows what she is talking about.

If she had not got this experience, she would be accused simple envy. Damned either way.

 

[miamited]

Elizabeth Warren reveals she made $1.9 million from private legal work over 3 decades

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., received $1.9 million from private legal work during her time as a law professor stretching back three decades, according to a release by her campaign.

The work, since 1986, included fees from large corporate clients, her campaign said in the release.

Some of her clients included the attorneys for Rabobank, a Dutch financial institution that became a creditor in the Enron bankruptcy; former directors of Getty Oil, who were involved in Texaco’s bankruptcy; and women whose allegations of harm from silicone breast implants produced by Dow Corning were imperiled when the company filed for bankruptcy.

HI MM,

Just to be accurate in what is being said here, and pointing out the 'facts' that are being brought forth in this report...

It says that Mrs. Warren received $1.9M in legal fees...SOME OF WHICH IS FROM LARGE CORPORATIONS. It is also worth noting that this is her own campaign report that is making these 'facts' known to us. This isn't some investigative work into her campaign unearthing something that she may be trying to hide. All contenders for the presidency are required to file various reports as to where the money comes from and how much and where monies that a candidate have amassed over their lifetimes, came from. Here, it seems to me, the Warren campaign is trying to be honest and forthright about how she got her money.

Now, question: Do you know how much of that $1.9M actually came from what we might consider large corporate fees for legal services? Do you know that she likely didn't actually perform said legal services for those fees? Do you know that the amount of any particular legal fee was outside of the 'regular and customary' charges for such work?

I mean, you seem to want to make this report into some 'bad' thing that Mrs. Warren has done...do you have any evidence to support such an inference? $1.9M over 30 years for legal services paid to a legal representative, of which some part may have come from what are deemed 'large corporations' really doesn't seem like an awfully lot of money that might show one's intentions or motives to be questionable. What do you think?

How many corporate attorneys do you know of, or have record of, that earned some considerably less amount for similar work? Just what exactly is not wholly and completely above board in this 'revelation'? As a godly man, if you're going to make such accusations or inferences against someone, don't you believe that God would want you to be truthful and upright in your claims? What exactly do you see as being the 'wrong' that Mrs. Warren has done here? Do you believe that because she got paid for legal work in her past by 'some' large corporations, that automatically discredits her from being someone who should speak out against corporate largess in political lobbying?

I'm just curious as to what your point is on this thread besides possibly obfuscating the real issues with a handful of non-issues. Could you be just a bit more specific as to the 'smack' you are referring to? What exactly is she saying concerning this issue that you feel she should be disqualified from saying because of her previous paid legal work?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Ricky M]

Question?
Why do most politicians that go to Washington to serve the people when leaving have become rich?

Drain The Swamp

M-Bob

Especially when considering that the president's job doesn't really pay that much.

 

[miamited]

Question?
Why do most politicians that go to Washington to serve the people when leaving have become rich?

Drain The Swamp

M-Bob

Hi MM,

I'm curious, so I'll ask. Is your list of such politicians longer on the Democrat's side than on the Republican's side?

Any chance you'd give us a short list of legislators who went in poor and came out rich? I'd also be curious as to where you draw the line as to someone being 'rich'?

Personally, I find it to be a fairly well accepted 'fact', that most professional people, of which I would include legislators, work to become more and more wealthy throughout their lives. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, computer techs, et.al. I know that my own testimony is that I have amassed a fairly nice nest egg, although I'm not what I'd consider 'rich', over the course of 30 years of working. I honestly think that's true of most people, and certainly the testimonies I read on some of the Marketwatch articles concerning building a sound financial future, encourage us to amass some sizable amount of net worth as we work, so that we can afford a comfortable retirement.

Why is it, for example, that so many heart surgeons start out poor with many thousands of dollars in student debt, yet end up living fairly comfortable lives.

I also would like to see the swamp drained, but my measuring rod for draining the swamp isn't 'how much money someone has', but rather how they have handled their job. Have they been diligent to work for the people in an honest and forthright manner? Or, has their career been mostly about amassing a fortune through questionable legislative work? I also would like to get rid of every politician, whether Republican, Democratic or Independent, who once they have gained their office kowtow to some party line rather than to just doing what's best for the people, no matter what party a particular piece of legislation comes from. This Republicans only supporting Republican efforts and Democrats only supporting some Democrat agenda needs to stop, if we're ever going to return to having some semblance of leadership in our national government.

That's what I'd like to see.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[iluvatar5150]

Seems she talks smack about big corps?
Yet they have buttered her bread.

Interesting.

I guess she's not that much of a socialist after all, eh?

She's been an expert in bankruptcy law and IIRC, the cases she took on for big clients mostly had to deal with their bankruptcies. She has long advocated for bankruptcy protections, regardless of the depths of her clients' pockets. In The Two Income Trap, she devotes a fair amount of space to describing how families, especially those with single parents, were hurt by the tightening of bankruptcy laws.

Question?
Why do most politicians that go to Washington to serve the people when leaving have become rich?

Do you have any evidence that this happens with any sort of regularity or on any sort of scale? Most of the folks I can think of either arrive in Congress already rich or get rich after they leave. Mitch McConnell's net worth has increased significantly, but that's because his father-in-law was loaded and left McConnell's wife, Elaine Cho, a large inheritance.

$1.9 million over 3 decades is less than $60,000 per year for legal services. Seems pretty reasonable.

It's actually $63,333/yr, but your point still stands.

 

[miamited]

Hi again MM,

Just to continue my earlier thought in the above post. Our national government being able to work as one cohesive unit, isn't going to come about so long as we have politicians pushing division based solely on political party membership. I'm certainly hopeful that our next president will take the time to sit down in front of the legislature and seriously and earnestly encourage all the members to set aside distrust and division based solely on some party agenda. That they will make an appeal to our legislators to quit attacking each other's party and base their dissension strictly on the merits of the legislation being hammered out.

It's fine to say that one doesn't agree with someone else. However, that disagreement should be based on that particular individual's understanding of whatever issue is being discussed. Not on whether or not they're a member of one party or another. All Republicans aren't bad and neither are all Democrats bad. But all of those who hold to some ideal that just because someone or some legislation is a part of, or supported by, the other party, should be sent out of the swamp.

For example: This bill is a way for Republicans to push their particular agenda...becomes, this bill has some parts of it that I don't believe are in the best interests of the American people. A more reasoned and rational approach to lessen division by partisan politics.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Mountainmanbob]

List of richest American politicians - Wikipedia

This list of richest American politicians includes current and former office-holders and political appointees, and is not necessarily adjusted for inflation. Estimated wealth is at least $100 million in 2012 dollars, for all the people listed here. The amounts listed here do not necessarily pertain to the politicians' time in office (i.e. some of them may have gotten much richer later on, or lost their money before they ran for office).

 

[Rubiks]

Shouldn't we pay attention to politicians actual politics? Why does it matter if a politician takes donations from so-and-so?

 

[miamited]

List of richest American politicians - Wikipedia

This list of richest American politicians includes current and former office-holders and political appointees, and is not necessarily adjusted for inflation. Estimated wealth is at least $100 million in 2012 dollars, for all the people listed here. The amounts listed here do not necessarily pertain to the politicians' time in office (i.e. some of them may have gotten much richer later on, or lost their money before they ran for office).

HI MM,

That list doesn't really answer your charge. Your claim is that these politicians 'became' rich once they entered public office. "Why do most politicians that go to Washington to serve the people when leaving have become rich?" (bolding mine) Your list only delineates the wealth of many politicians, but offers no evidence as to 'when' or 'how' they became rich.

Top of the list is Donald Trump. I'd certainly be willing to throw a bit of support your way for your cause if you'd start from the top of the list and work your way down. How about we start with him getting out of the swamp.

God bless,
In Christ, ted