Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Is Mike Castle's Stock Ownership of TSA Scanner Firm a Conflict of Interest?

While airline passengers cringe as they enter the new TSA body scanners, Mike Castle is getting rich off of it.  But he is not alone according to a Washington Examiner report.

Mike Castle and six other U.S. Representatives and two U.S. Senators each own multiple shares of stock in L-3 Communications.  L-3 is the manufacturer of the new high-density body scanner recently implemented at airports nationwide. 


Congress Members Invested in L-3 Communications

•Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) $500,001 to $1,000,000

•Rep. Michael Castle (R-DE) $16,002 to $65,000

•Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) $16,002 to $65,000

•Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) $15,001 to $50,000

•Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL) $1,001 to $15,000

•Rep. Robert Scott (D-VA) $1,001 to $15,000

•Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) $2,173

•Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) $2,086

Isn't it a conflict of interest for member of Congress (either chamber) to own stock in a firm that receives federal appropriations?  We report, you decide.

5 comments:

  1. This is much to do about NOTHING! L-3 Communications has a market cap of $8.4 billion. There are 115.7 million shares outstanding AND the stock has actually fallen in recent months.

    It is down -7.96% from last year. Mike Castle's holdings amount to less than one-half of one-half percent of ownership. Besides, one can look at thousands of stock ownership for members of congress and try to find some sort of nefarious relationship.

    The Washington Examiner tried to make a story out of nothing. All congress-members have to disclose stock ownership when they are voting on legislation before the congress that might be construed as a conflict of interest.

    And like most congress people, their holdings are held in a 'blind trust' until such time they leave congress.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nevertheless, Kerry & Castle are in a position to significantly benefit from L-3 scanner sales.

    Hence their support? Because there doesn't seem to be another logical explanation for the scanners. After all, the chance of getting cancer from the scan is higher than the chance of getting blown up by a terrorist. Scanners don't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hence their support? Because there doesn't seem to be another logical explanation for the scanners. After all, the chance of getting cancer from the scan is higher than the chance of getting blown up by a terrorist. Scanners don't make sense.the TSA mean security providing.great blog.cheap Gatwick Parking

    ReplyDelete
  4. No body scanners seriously too injurious to health, it give a rise to the chances of getting cancers and other vulnerable diseases. Though the radiations are very low but it affects speedly the health of that being.

    ReplyDelete
  5. scanners are no doubt, injurious to humans. but the question arise that what else should be installed in spite of them which provides lasting security? Heathrow Parking

    ReplyDelete