Exposed: Anti-Cryptocurrency Congressman Brad Sherman Gets Biggest Donations From Big Banks

Millions of Americans have bought into forms of digital, decentralized money known as cryptocurrency, valuing its privacy and independence from government meddling. Naturally, politicians in Washington want to rain on the parade and shut down the newfangled currencies— like Bitcoin and Ethereum—that are beyond their control. 

One of the biggest opponents of cryptocurrency in Washington is Congressman Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who has in the past called for cryptos to be banned. At a Wednesday hearing for the House Committee on Financial Services, Sherman harshly criticized cryptocurrency and renewed his calls for its prohibition.

“Cryptocurrency is something you can bet on, but if people want to have the animal spirits to take risks, I’d prefer them to invest in equity markets to support the building of American companies, or the California lottery, to support the schools in my state,” Sherman said. “Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile, so if one person makes a million dollars… and nine lose $100,000, Coinbase makes money, the millionaire goes on TV and says how wonderful it is, and nine others do not retire in dignity.” 

The congressman also claimed that “evading the know-your-customer-rule is the one thing cryptocurrencies have as an advantage to the US dollar.”

“Cryptocurrencies have the political support of the ‘patriotic’ anarchists who are rooting for tax evasion,” Sherman concluded. “I hope we shut it down.” (Emphasis added). 

The California congressman gets so much wrong here that it’s difficult to know where to begin.

For one, Sherman seems to think that his personal views on how to invest money should be superimposed on all Americans. Simply put, the congressman and his Washington pals think they know better, and little people like you or me are too foolish to make these decisions for ourselves. This is not only arrogant but incorrect. 

You and I have infinitely more knowledge and familiarity with our own financial situation—acceptable levels of risk, investment goals, etc.—than detached politicians and bureaucrats could ever have. It logically follows that we will make better decisions for ourselves than if a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach is crammed down on us from Washington. 

(I mean, the congressman is telling people they should put their money in the California lottery, and the odds for the “Grand Prize” are about 1 in 41.4 million. We’re supposed to trust his financial advice?) 

Moreover, Sherman’s rhetoric about a select few cryptocurrency winners getting rich off the backs of losers is a classic example of the “zero-sum fallacy.” It’s economically untrue that wealth gains must necessarily come from someone else’s losses. Indeed, when transactions are voluntary, they must inherently serve both parties' interests. (If they didn’t, the parties wouldn’t agree to it!) So, the picture the congressman paints of cryptocurrency as exploitation is by no stretch of the imagination the reality. People can gain value without others always having to lose. 

Sherman also misstates the differences between cryptocurrency and the US dollar. He overlooks the key difference: cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are beyond central control, and their price cannot be inflated by a central authority. However, the US dollar can be inflated by the Federal Reserve when it prints new money.  (In fact, that's exactly what's happening right now).

Why does someone with such dubious and ill-informed views on cryptocurrency want to superimpose his judgment on the entire country via government bans? Well, it’s no doubt due in part to the natural arrogance that plagues humans (especially those who become politicians).

But there’s also a more cynical, yet simple answer: Some of Congressman Sherman’s biggest donors are big banks and mainstream financial institutions, the same interests threatened by the rise of cryptocurrency.

According to OpenSecrets.org, the following financial companies rank among Congressman Sherman’s biggest donors to his 2020 Campaign Committee:

• Capital Group Companies: $18,400
• Blackstone Group: $16,800
• BlackRock Inc: $11,250
• American Bankers Association: $10,000
• Capital One Financial: $10,000
• Charles Schwab Corp: $10,000
• Credit Union National Association: $10,000
• Discover Financial Services: $10,000
• Deloitte LLP: $10,000

This offers some insight into why Sherman persists in seeking to ban cryptocurrency. Sure, such a restriction would deprive his constituents of the freedom to make their own investment decisions and shield their finances from stealth taxation via inflation. But it would serve the interests of Sherman’s biggest donors—and it seems like that’s what really matters to the congressman.

Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday. 

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Exposed: Anti-Cryptocurrency Congressman Brad Sherman Gets Biggest Donations From Big Banks

Panama Papers Are About Government Corruption, Not ‘Tax Evasion’

Panama Papers Are About Government Corruption, Not ‘Tax Evasion’


The “Panama Papers” are the largest leak in world history, revealing millions of documents related to the offshore accounts of politicians, former politicians, and billionaires around the world.

Despite much of the media’s focus on tax evasion as the primary theme of the Panama Papers story, which embarrassed governments are happy to adopt as the primary theme as well, the question is one of official corruption.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) itself, which first published the data, says it reveals the holdings of “drug dealers, Mafia members, corrupt politicians and tax evaders–and wrongdoing galore.”

Yet the numbers they offer tell a different story. According to ICIJ, 214,000 entities are described in the Panama Papers. They include the off-shore assets of 140 politicians and other public figures (including 12 current or former heads of state or government), as well as 33 people and companies that were “blacklisted by the U.S. government because of evidence that they’d been involved in wrongdoing, such as doing business with Mexican drug lords, terrorist organizations like Hezbollah or rogue nations like North Korea and Iran.” Yet The Economist counts 33 Forbes list billionaires to the 140 politicians in the Panama Papers.

The prime minister of Iceland, for example, resigned earlier today over revelations that he owned a shell company in the British Virgin Islands. Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson insists he’s paid his taxes and done nothing wrong. Yet his shell company, according to CBS News, “held interests in failed Icelandic banks that his government was responsible for overseeing.”

In general, this is why politicians have off-shore accounts, to hide wrong-doing, and not just to “evade taxes.” Iceland has instituted capital controls, under Prime Minister Gunnlaugsson, so the prime minister appears to have run afoul of that. But the insinuation that anyone who decided to move their money oversees is “evading” an obligation is tired and backwards. A person’s money belongs to them, not the government, just as their bodies and their freedoms do.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company


The headline in Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when the newspaper served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Gun Grabbing CA Senator Nabbed in Gun Running Sting

Gun Grabbing CA Senator Nabbed in Gun Running Sting

Democrat State Senator Leland Yee of California has been arrested for facilitating gun running from the Philippines in exchange for campaign contributions.

Leland, a longtime gun control proponent, is also being charged with selling legislative influence. Authorities allege that Yee is one part of a large investigation involving organized crime, gun trafficking, drugs, bribes and contracted murder.

While corruption and hypocrisy from lawmakers is a common occurrence, Yee has taken it to a new level. The activities in the criminal complaint detail organized crime being run out of a prominent CA legislator’s office.

Yee has been instrumental in limiting California residents 2nd Amendment rights. It appears that for the right price, however, Yee would personally hook you up with his Philippine gun running connection.

Federal Auditor: 2,527 DHS Employees and Co-Conspirators Convicted of Crimes

The thousands of criminal convictions have resulted from the arrest of individuals, both employees and non-employees, associated with components of DHS. These include individuals who either conspired with a DHS employee or were linked to the crime that was being investigated by the IG. The DHS IG’s investigative work has prompted a total of 2,527 convictions of corruption and other criminal misconduct since around the time when DHS began operating.

via megalextoria.com

Well this certainly makes me feel more secure.