Donīt Politicians Owe a Fiduciary Duty to Their Constituents?
Janice J Sackley
May 13, 2010
It is quite interesting to hear the politicos fretting about Goldman Sachs and the fact that under the securities laws on the books today, the dealer did not owe a fiduciary duty to the buyer of its products. This Senatorial hand-wringing and moral outrage over legal behaviors by a dealer-investment bank (notwithstanding the security disclosure issues
a different topic than the advice issue) belies their own actions in how they structure legislation and how they vote, and for some, their personal behaviors. Iīm not talking only financial reform legislation, but all types of legislation.
Just take a look at all the party-line voting over the last several Congressional sessions. How can each of these Senators and Representatives look a constituent in the eye and say that their votes are always in the best interests of the people they were elected to represent and not in the interests of their own political party? Yet were they not elected to represent the people of their state or district, and not to curry favor with party leadership or the administration currently in power?
Those investment professionals that hold themselves out to the public as advisors and counselors should be held to a fiduciary standard and I applaud efforts to move in that direction. But our elected officials that can move us there need to look in the mirror.
These politicians put on a facade of moral indignation over a lack of fiduciary duty by a dealer peddling products. Yet they themselves actually make public promises to represent the interests of the residents of their state or district and then turn around and vote in accordance with the directives of party leadership, time and again. Donīt their duties to their constituents rise to that of a fiduciary?
I maintain that they do have a fiduciary duty, and they need to keep that in mind for each and every vote. If they truly understood fiduciary standards and abided by them, we would not see the abuses of office and these party-line votes again and again. It is time for members of Congress to live by, and vote by, the highest standard one party can owe another, the fiduciary standard.
Just take a look at all the party-line voting over the last several Congressional sessions. How can each of these Senators and Representatives look a constituent in the eye and say that their votes are always in the best interests of the people they were elected to represent and not in the interests of their own political party? Yet were they not elected to represent the people of their state or district, and not to curry favor with party leadership or the administration currently in power?
Those investment professionals that hold themselves out to the public as advisors and counselors should be held to a fiduciary standard and I applaud efforts to move in that direction. But our elected officials that can move us there need to look in the mirror.
These politicians put on a facade of moral indignation over a lack of fiduciary duty by a dealer peddling products. Yet they themselves actually make public promises to represent the interests of the residents of their state or district and then turn around and vote in accordance with the directives of party leadership, time and again. Donīt their duties to their constituents rise to that of a fiduciary?
I maintain that they do have a fiduciary duty, and they need to keep that in mind for each and every vote. If they truly understood fiduciary standards and abided by them, we would not see the abuses of office and these party-line votes again and again. It is time for members of Congress to live by, and vote by, the highest standard one party can owe another, the fiduciary standard.
Print
Email
