Jill Stein’s money isn’t where her mouth is


Looking at Jill Stein’s federal filing reveals a lot of capitalist investment in industries she decries.

She rails against toxic chemicals while holding over fifty thousand dollars of 3M stock, and against “Big Pharma” while holding as much in Merck. She spray paints bulldozers sitting on six figures of Home Depot. These companies alone pay her yearly dividends between $4500 and $11,500.

But the big money is in her myriad of mutual funds. I pulled up the prospectus for a random fund, the Vanguard 500 she has at least $500,000 in, up to a million.

Their fourth largest holding is Exxon shares.

It’s a robust portfolio. She’s got bonds, she’s got annuities, she’s got precious metals, IBM and Intel, Treasury notes and Johnson & Johnson. Over four million dollars in all, between her and her husband.

Very little seems geared toward socially responsible investing.

Her attacks on “corporate” opponents ring hollow.

This post was read 2109 times.

About author View all posts


Jay is Editor In Chief of The Agonist, veteran and technologist.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  • In all honesty, I’m not so sure how many good socially responsible investment options there are out there. I work supporting a fair number of things that folks wanting to develop socially responsible investment vehicles might very plausibly package into investment vehicles, and I am not seeing a significant movement in that direction. This, in the context of an extended period where massive amounts of liquidity have been desperately seeking return. That, in conjunction with long, deep, and direct experience, tells me that the required return largely isn’t there.

    I take your larger point, but would point out that we need to view candidates holistically, rather than through one or a number of purity lenses. The purity approach is a significant part of what has gotten your electorate where it is, which I have to say is not a good place – for you, or for citizens of allied nations like myself.

  • The objection is particularly specious considering the naked shilling that goes on here for Clinton, who’s like a poster child for saying generally popular things and then acting directly against the interests of those she’s trying to appease.

    Making a big deal of any moral inconsistency in the Greens’ candidate is illustrating the parable of the mote and the beam.

  • Without totally exonerating Jill Stein or any politician for that matter, I have to concur with both comments to this post. In 1989 anyone with a $100,000 certificate of deposit could expect an annual return of over $9,000. Today it would be around $250. With interest rates practically negative, today’s retirees have little option in supplementing Social Security other than going with the more dependable and higher yield investments based on the stock market (whose bull market could be short lived in any case) that are inevitably going to include less than pristine corporate entities. At least if people like Jill Stein use as much of their wealth as possible for good causes, the detrimental effects of implicitly supporting big corporations can be partially offset.

Leave a Reply