Tag: chief executive officer

Major Democratic and Republican donors were indicted Tuesday in a college admissions scandal which led to the arrests of CEOs and famous actresses in a wide-ranging federal investigation. There is no evidence that those who were indicted Tuesday used their access to elected officials to help their children gain admission to top universities. HuffPost has asked all of the candidates and committees who were beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the people indicted Tuesday whether they plan to donate or return the campaign contributions and whether the elected officials ever aided the donors with their children’s college admissions by writing a letter or contacting the secondary education institutions in any way to support or influence their admission decisions. Other politicians and organizations had not responded by Tuesday evening. The contributions were made to both Democratic and Republican candidates and committees. The contributions included: At least $131,800 to committees benefiting or controlled by then-presidential candidate and current U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) At least $30,000 to committees benefiting Gavin Newsom At least $25,000 to the Kamala Harris Senate Committee and the committee for her California attorney general candidacy At least $16,900 to committees benefiting or controlled by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) $8,350 to the National Republican Campaign Committee $8,350 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee The indicted contributors included: Agustin Huneeus, vintner $30,000 in contributions to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s campaign committees. Robert Flaxman, CEO of Crown Realty & Development Total federal contributions: $143,065.80 $50,000 to Romney Victory Fund in 2012 $2,300 to Romney presidential campaign in 2007 $8,100 to Chris Van Hollen’s Senate account (all contributions were disbursed through a joint committee on Sept. 30, 2016) $33,400 to the Democratic National Committee $8,350 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee $10,000 to the California Republican Party Federal Account $35,800 to the Republican National Committee $8,350 to the National Republican Congressional Committee Gordon Caplan, attorney Caplan has contributed $86,750 to federal candidates and committees. A total of $14,700 to Kirsten Gillibrand’s Senate campaign $1,250 to Gillibrand’s political action committee $5,700 to committees controlled by Sen. Kamala Harris $30,800 to the DNC through the Obama Victory Fund in 2012 $7,350 to Harris’ California attorney general campaign committees Robert Zangrillo, CEO, Dragon Global $50,000 to Romney Victory Fund in 2012 $30,800 to the Republican National Committee 2012 (distributed through the Romney Victory Fund) Abdelaziz Gamal, former casino executive $40,196 in total contributions to federal candidates and committees $33,096 in contributions to the MGM Resorts International PAC Douglas Hodge, former Pimco CEO $29,000 in total contributions to federal campaign funds $5,000 to the Investment Company Institute PAC $10,000 to Securities Association PAC Manuel Henriquez, chairman and CEO of Hercules Technology Growth Capital $19,530 in total federal contributions $16,450 to the Democratic National Committee Mossimo Giannulli, fashion designer, and Lori Loughlin, actress $12,800 in total contributions to federal candidates and committees $5,000 to Romney Victory in 2012 (via Mossimo Giannulli) Felicity Huffman, actress $10,719.17 in total federal contributions $1,537.50 of which was to the Kamala Harris Senate campaign committee Bruce Isackson, president of WP Investments, and Davina Isackson $2,500 to the Romney presidential campaign (via Bruce Isackson) $3,500 to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC, in 2017 (via Bruce Isackson) Michelle Janavs, former executive of a food manufacturer $5,000 to the Romney Victory Fund in 2012 Marci Palatella, owner of Preservation Distillery John B. Wilson, president and CEO of Hyannis Port Capital CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this article, donations were listed from Agustin Huneeus to the Democratic National Committee and Reps. Mike Thompson and Nancy Pelosi. Those donations have not been confirmed.

Major Democratic and Republican donors were indicted Tuesday in a college admissions scandal which led to the arrests of CEOs and famous actresses in a wide-ranging federal investigation. There is no evidence that those who were indicted Tuesday used their access to elected officials to help their children gain admission to top universities. HuffPost has asked all of the candidates and committees who were beneficiaries of campaign contributions from the people indicted Tuesday whether they plan to donate or return the campaign contributions and whether the elected officials ever aided the donors with their children’s college admissions by writing a letter or contacting the secondary education institutions in any way to support or influence their admission decisions. Other politicians and organizations had not responded by Tuesday evening. The contributions were made to both Democratic and Republican candidates and committees. The contributions included: At least $131,800 to committees benefiting or controlled by then-presidential candidate and current U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) At least $30,000 to committees benefiting Gavin Newsom At least $25,000 to the Kamala Harris Senate Committee and the committee for her California attorney general candidacy At least $16,900 to committees benefiting or controlled by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) $8,350 to the National Republican Campaign Committee $8,350 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee The indicted contributors included: Agustin Huneeus, vintner $30,000 in contributions to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s campaign committees. Robert Flaxman, CEO of Crown Realty & Development Total federal contributions: $143,065.80 $50,000 to Romney Victory Fund in 2012 $2,300 to Romney presidential campaign in 2007 $8,100 to Chris Van Hollen’s Senate account (all contributions were disbursed through a joint committee on Sept. 30, 2016) $33,400 to the Democratic National Committee $8,350 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee $10,000 to the California Republican Party Federal Account $35,800 to the Republican National Committee $8,350 to the National Republican Congressional Committee Gordon Caplan, attorney Caplan has contributed $86,750 to federal candidates and committees. A total of $14,700 to Kirsten Gillibrand’s Senate campaign $1,250 to Gillibrand’s political action committee $5,700 to committees controlled by Sen. Kamala Harris $30,800 to the DNC through the Obama Victory Fund in 2012 $7,350 to Harris’ California attorney general campaign committees Robert Zangrillo, CEO, Dragon Global $50,000 to Romney Victory Fund in 2012 $30,800 to the Republican National Committee 2012 (distributed through the Romney Victory Fund) Abdelaziz Gamal, former casino executive $40,196 in total contributions to federal candidates and committees $33,096 in contributions to the MGM Resorts International PAC Douglas Hodge, former Pimco CEO $29,000 in total contributions to federal campaign funds $5,000 to the Investment Company Institute PAC $10,000 to Securities Association PAC Manuel Henriquez, chairman and CEO of Hercules Technology Growth Capital $19,530 in total federal contributions $16,450 to the Democratic National Committee Mossimo Giannulli, fashion designer, and Lori Loughlin, actress $12,800 in total contributions to federal candidates and committees $5,000 to Romney Victory in 2012 (via Mossimo Giannulli) Felicity Huffman, actress $10,719.17 in total federal contributions $1,537.50 of which was to the Kamala Harris Senate campaign committee Bruce Isackson, president of WP Investments, and Davina Isackson $2,500 to the Romney presidential campaign (via Bruce Isackson) $3,500 to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC, in 2017 (via Bruce Isackson) Michelle Janavs, former executive of a food manufacturer $5,000 to the Romney Victory Fund in 2012 Marci Palatella, owner of Preservation Distillery John B. Wilson, president and CEO of Hyannis Port Capital CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this article, donations were listed from Agustin Huneeus to the Democratic National Committee and Reps. Mike Thompson and Nancy Pelosi. Those donations have not been confirmed.

Usually positioned on the margins of the Middle East’s complex energy politics, Israel now is a legitimate player in its own right. Pouyanné further explained that Total was unwilling to put its other relationships in the region at risk by inking fresh deals with Israel. This should be no surprise, as Total likely still wants to partner with Iran in a gas-exploration deal that has now been put on hold because of renewed US sanctions. Additionally, the company has been working closely with Lebanon to explore that country’s offshore gas potential in the eastern Mediterranean. Over the past decade, boycott activists have been successful in pressuring European companies to end business relationships in Israel. It has the power to make deals that much more “complex” and bothersome for companies that wish to do business in or with Israel. Then again, Israeli political complexities in Levantine energy deals might soon face competition. Any significant discovery likely will be exported to Turkey, given its proximity to the fields and its recently upgraded relationship with Russia. But once Israeli gas begins flowing into the European Union, the relationship could soon strain, as Russia’s economy depends significantly on revenue from Europe. The complexity of politics – local and international – in the Levant will therefore factor increasingly in calculations of companies such as Total.

Laurence “Larry” Fink, the founder and chief executive of BlackRock, recently told the firm’s 14,000 employees that he is instituting potentially the most aggressive diversity program in Corporate America ensuring that, “a bunch of white men”, will no longer be running the world’s largest money management firm. Larry Fink, BlackRock CEO, speech to employees The comments, obtained by FOX Business and confirmed by a BlackRock spokeswoman, come as Fink has ruffled feathers inside his company, as well as among some clients for embracing a number of progressive political causes and advocating what has been described as “corporate socialism” – a management concept that implores CEOs to run their companies in a way that doesn’t just benefit shareholders, but also “the communities in which they operate.” In his comments on diversity, Fink used surprisingly strident language and said executives could see their paychecks cut if they didn’t meet certain hiring goals, according to a text of his remarks. Fink, of course, isn’t the only CEO who supports progressive politics. To be sure, Corporate America and Wall Street in particular, have begun various programs and incentives for management to attract and retain more women and minorities to their executive ranks. From Bond Trader to Wall St.'s Soapbox Orator Fink, 66, has had a long and distinguished career on Wall Street, well before he became Wall Street’s most prominent soapbox orator. It is more recently that Fink's commentary – in public speeches, employee meetings and his annual “Letter to CEOs” – has taken a distinctly political turn. While Fink is said to be enjoying the spotlight, fashioning himself as the liberal conscience of Corporate America, competitors and many people inside BlackRock are less comfortable with his political commentary. “He’s just looking for publicity. He told employees that in 2019, BlackRock has achieved the highest percentage of women in the senior executive ranks, also known as managing directors. Women now comprise 56 percent of BlackRock’s new analyst class, and BlackRock has appointed five women to its board of directors.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers on Thursday asked for a meeting with Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson over the company’s plans to deny funding for its Southwest Chief route pending additional financial investments. The letter, penned by multiple House and Senate lawmakers in both parties, argues the route that runs through Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico is “vital to the economic well-being of our communities.” “The lack of transparency by Amtrak management about its changing position on the Southwest Chief is troubling, particularly for a Government-Sponsored Enterprise entrusted with an important public transportation mission,” the letter reads. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) signed the document, as did a group of House lawmakers from New Mexico, Colorado and Kansas. Amtrak has put conditions on its decision to contribute funds to a project on the route. The letter comes in response to a message the company sent to Congress responding to questions about plans for the route. “Amtrak will offer a $3 million match towards the project costs if the grant application for the requested amount is successful,” Amtrak CFO William Feidt wrote in the October letter that was submitted with the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant application. “Before Amtrak will fulfill this contribution, a comprehensive financial plan and accompanying commitments by relevant states and BNSF for the remainder of the infrastructure investments and associated additional maintenances costs for this route in New Mexico must be completed,” Feidt added, referring to the BNSF Railway. Democratic lawmakers from New Mexico announced in March that Colfax County had received a $16 million TIGER grant for the project, aimed at rehabilitating the Southwest Chief line, which operates from Chicago, Ill., to Los Angeles, Calif. But Amtrak is insisting the other parties pitch in financially and develop a strategy for “long-term financial commitments” to rebuild the route operating from Hutchinson, Kan., and Albuquerque, N.M. “A piecemeal approach to solving this problem that leads to higher operating costs and new capital obligations for Amtrak’s long distance routes isn’t sustainable, especially as we face vast needs for fleet, station and infrastructure improvements across the National Network,” Amtrak spokesperson Marc Magliari said in a statement to The Hill. “We stand prepared to consider any such plan as we consider alternatives for this portion of the route.” Reps. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M), Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) and Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.) also signed the Thursday letter, in which lawmakers say it’s “essential” that the funding be utilized to sustain “the Southwest Chief on its current route.”

It was a show designed to get Zuckerberg off the hook after only a few hours in Washington DC. Each senator was given less than five minutes for questions. We shouldn’t be begging for Facebook’s endorsement of laws, or for Mark Zuckerberg’s promises of self-regulation The worst moments of the hearing for us, as citizens, were when senators asked if Zuckerberg would support legislation that would regulate Facebook. Facebook is a known behemoth corporate monopoly. We shouldn’t be begging for Facebook’s endorsement of laws, or for Mark Zuckerberg’s promises of self-regulation. Some of the hearing seemed designed to figure out whether Zuckerberg is a good or bad man, or whether he has a good or bad – or bizarre – political philosophy. That doesn’t make him that interesting as the CEO of a corporate monopoly; it makes him a run-of-the-mill robber baron. There is so much we don’t know about Facebook. Now that the initial show trial is done, we need the real deal, one where no senator gets cut off after a few minutes. The real hearing would allow for unlimited questions from each of our senators, who represent millions of people.

"We believe that when you visit a Page or see an ad on Facebook it should be clear who it's coming from," Zuckerberg said in an online post announcing that the social media giant will now require disclosure on any issue ads that run on its platform. Zuckerberg said issue ads are "ads about political topics being debated across the country. We'll work with third parties to develop a list of key issues and will refine that list over time." A separate Facebook post said examples may include "pro-life/pro-choice," Second Amendment ads or ads that express "support for public infrastructure, like new roads." The additional measures come after Facebook announced similar disclosure requirements in October for election-related ads from political candidates. Instituting the new disclosure requirements, in particular, was something Facebook initially was not keen to do, especially keeping a database of ads, but it gets at the heart of the alleged complex Kremlin-backed campaign to interfere in the 2016 elections in which a Russian organization - the Internet Research Agency - is accused of spreading disinformation online in the U.S. to stoke political and racial tensions, activity for which special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 Russians and three Russian companies – charges the Russians deny. "Advertisers that don't clear the process will be banned from running political ads on our platforms until they properly authorized," a spokesman told ABC. Zuckerberg, saying his company "won't catch every ad that should be labeled," but Facebook will now encourage its users to report suspicious content. "People can do this by tapping the three dots at the top right corner of the ad and selecting “Report Ad," Zuckerberg said. The legislation garnered the support early on from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., long an advocate for more disclosure in elections.

While there is value in these discussions, there is danger in looking at forgiveness and faith through the lens of politics. As we head into Easter weekend, I want us to look higher than headlines -- to look through God's eyes, rather than our own. Worse yet, the Bible says, the judgment for our sin is death. This sounds like bad news, but to Christians, this message is the beginning of very good news. We are entering the weekend when Christians remember the death of Jesus, who took our place of punishment upon a cross. If you repent from your sin and turn to new life through faith in Christ, then God sees you through a new lens, judges you by a new standard, that of his spotless son. In other words, he holds everyone to the same perfect standard, whether peasant or president or pastor. To follow the God they believe in. This Easter, don't let politics hijack the good news. Rather, let us use the national conversation to share the truth of what Christ has done and is doing for us.

Alexander Nix, the CEO of Cambridge Analytica, the firm at the heart of the data-mining scandal, has been suspended. The company said in a statement: “The board of Cambridge Analytica has announced today that it has suspended CEO Alexander Nix with immediate effect, pending a full, independent investigation. “In the view of the board, Mr Nix’s recent comments secretly recorded by Channel 4 and other allegations do not represent the values or operations of the firm and his suspension reflects the seriousness with which we view this violation.” Cambridge Analytica execs boast of role in getting Trump elected Read more Nix was seen leaving Cambridge Analytica’s office in central London at 6.30pm through a fire exit door and did not answer questions as he got into a waiting black Mercedes. He told an undercover reporter: “We did all the research, all the data, all the analytics, all the targeting, we ran all the digital campaign, the television campaign and our data informed all the strategy.” Revealing the firm’s system of erasing any digital footprint he said that they used a self-destruct email server. He added: “No one knows we have it, and secondly we set our... emails with a self-destruct timer ... So you send them and after they’ve been read, two hours later, they disappear. And he mocked the investigation of the US’s House intelligence committee, to whom he gave evidence in 2017. In the footage, he claims Republican members asked just three questions. They don’t understand how it works,” and claimed that Democrats on the committee were motivated by “sour grapes”. He further boasted that the firm could avoid any US investigation into its foreign clients, saying: “I’m absolutely convinced that they have no jurisdiction ... We’ll say none of your business.” Nix added that the candidates were never told what is going on, agreeing that they were “puppets” in the hands of their campaign team.

When the Russia question came up during a hearing at the British Parliament last month, Alexander Nix did not hesitate. “We’ve never worked in Russia,” said Mr. Nix, head of a data consulting firm that advised the Trump campaign on targeting voters. “We’ve never worked with a Russian organization in Russia or any other country, and we don’t have any relationship with Russia or Russian individuals.” But Mr. Nix’s business did have some dealings with Russian interests, according to company documents and interviews. Mr. Nix is a director of SCL Group, a British political and defense contractor, and chief executive of its American offshoot, Cambridge Analytica, which advised the Trump campaign. Lukoil was interested in how data was used to target American voters, according to two former company insiders who said there were at least three meetings with Lukoil executives in London and Turkey. SCL and Lukoil denied that the talks were political in nature, and SCL also said there were no meetings in London. On two promotional documents obtained by The New York Times, SCL said it did business in Russia. While Mr. Nix’s firm turned over some records to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence during its investigation of Russian interference, Democrats on the committee want a fuller review. Arash Repac, chief executive of Lukoil Eurasia Petrol, offered a different explanation for the talks. He said that a meeting he attended with SCL in Turkey involved a promotional campaign with local soccer teams.