Fiduciary Shmiduciary

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


We all know that the Bush administration continues to waste millions in taxpayer dollars pimping a Social Security phase-out scheme that no one even wants. Worse, his Bamboozlepalooza tour is anti-efficient: the more people hear, the less they like. So what’s a poor president to do? Easy. Whine about all the money your opponents are spending:

The Bush administration has warned the nation’s biggest labor federation that union-run pension funds may be breaking the law in opposing President Bush’s Social Security proposals.

In a letter on Tuesday to the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the Department of Labor said it was “very concerned” that pension plans might be spending workers’ money to “advocate a particular result in the current Social Security debate.”

Blah, blah. This is all very silly. But there’s a more important point here that Nathan Newman touches on. Why shouldn’t pension money be used for this sort of thing? After all, the fate of labor density here in America rests, to some extent, on whether or not Bush’s anti-worker agenda can be stopped in its tracks. Under most current rules, pension managers are supposed to adhere to certain fiduciary standards in which they’re only supposed to maximize returns on their investments. Conservatives cry foul whenever they hear about some pension manager doing “activist” investing of some sort or other. (See William Greider’s article here for more on this growing practice, and the rationale behind it.) And yet taking action to oppose the Bush administration really is yet another way to maximize those returns—perhaps the best way.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest