Elizabeth Warren for President

[Metsfanmax]

Speaking of which, Bernie Sanders for President!

[degaston]

A little too much caffeine last night, BBS?

If you check opensecrets.org, you'll see that both Republicans and Democrats receive funding from banks. Once again, another voter has fallen victim to the following reasoning: "The x-politicians suck because they side with rent-seeking group x. Instead, I support the y-politicians (who side with the rent-seeking group y)." (In this case, rent-seeking groups x and y are the same. When you talked about Imagined Republicans v. Imagined Democrats, did you bother to verify your claims? No, because the impact of your vote is essentially zero. The electoral process is nothing but rhetoric, pandering to emotions, and voters cheering).

Okay, I went to opensecrets.org, and found this:

Elizabeth Warren:
Top 5 Contributors, 2011 - 2014, Campaign Cmte
Contributor Total Indivs PACs
EMILY's List $507,095 $507,095 $0
Moveon.org $453,517 $129,540 $323,977
Harvard University $312,550 $312,550 $0
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $76,200 $76,200 $0
Boston University $73,700 $73,700 $0

Scott Brown:
Top 5 Contributors, 2009 - 2012, Campaign Cmte
Contributor Total Indivs PACs
FMR Corp $289,455 $279,455 $10,000
EMC Corp $169,800 $159,800 $10,000
Goldman Sachs $119,400 $109,400 $10,000
Votesane PAC $113,250 $113,250 $0
State Street Corp $106,650 $100,650 $6,000

So three of the top 5 for Brown were financial institutions, none of the top 5 for Warren. You're just another voter who's fallen victim to the following reasoning: The x-politicians and the y-politicians suck because they're the same, and both are in the pockets of the banks. Did you bother to verify your claims? Apparently not. Do you really think that if Scott Brown had been in Elizabeth Warren's position, he would have gotten an extra dime from the banks? I agree that there's plenty of suck to go around on both sides, but that doesn't mean that there's no difference between individuals.

I can't really tell where you stand on all of this. Are you saying that it's better to just sit out the elections because all politicians are the same, and your vote counts for zero anyway?

Finally, define: "fair" market value. I'll give you a hint. It's like defining "god."

Here, let me google that for you:

Fair market value (FMV) is an estimate of the market value of a property, based on what a knowledgeable, willing, and unpressured buyer would probably pay to a knowledgeable, willing, and unpressured seller in the market.

There, that wasn't so hard now, was it? I suppose you were talking about an exact dollar amount that is the one, true, "fair" value for a transaction, which, of course doesn't exist. (I guess it is like God) But I think reasonable people can agree that there exists a range of values that would be considered fair, and that assuming both parties are knowledgeable, willing, and unpressured, it falls somewhere between the most a buyer is willing to pay, and the least a seller is willing to receive.

It's doesn't exist until it's arbitrarily defined into 'existence.' You've fallen victim to a very old rhetorical tactic. "Fair" market value is a concept that only appeals to your emotions. Simply because someone says that they'll sell X at 'fair' market value, it does not follow that X is actually sold at fair market value. Fair market value does not exist. It depends on the institutional arrangement under which the exchange is made. In the case of government with its closed-door dealings with major market entities and its lonnngg history of colluding with those major market entities, it would be gullible to believe that government sells X at 'fair' market value.

You seem to have fallen into the rhetorical habit of labeling people as victims. Just because someone makes a choice, or takes a position on a topic doesn't necessarily mean that it's an emotional decision, or that they've fallen for someone else's propaganda. I've been using the term fair market value for the convenience of discussion. Feel free to substitute some other term that you feel is more accurate.

In this case, what I see is:
1. Banks were paying X to buy back their warrants.
2. Warren, "along with the Special Inspector General of TARP Neil Barofsky, put out a series of reports that forced Treasury to modify its process for selling the warrants."
3. Banks start paying 10% more than before.

I assume that the banks had essentially no change in their knowledge or pressure for the later transactions, so I conclude that that the previous price was probably not a fair value, because the banks were willing to pay more. (I'm also assuming that the banks have more knowledge of their own value than the government does - is that unreasonable?) I don't think that this is "magically stealing" from the banks, and I suspect that the higher price is still a good deal for them, given their political influence.

[Metsfanmax]

In this case, fair market value has a specific and rather objective meaning. The warrants were a financial asset that allowed the holder to buy a specified number of shares of the company, up until some specified date. Therefore when you purchase the warrant back at a specific price, it is a statement on where you think the share price will be at the end of the warrant eligibility period. Say Treasury has a warrant to buy 1000 shares of Goldman in the year 2020. Goldman's share price right now is at $500. If they pay $1 million for the warrant, it reflects the belief that in 2020 Goldman's share price will be at least $1,000. That estimate of where the share price will be at the end of the warrant period is the only factor that determines whether the deal is fair or not. In the case of Goldman, both Treasury and an independent third party agreed that $900 million was a fair price for the warrant, which really only means they agreed on what the future share prices of Goldman would be. So in that sense I do not believe it is an economic statement on the subjective value of some arbitrary asset.

[degaston]

In the case of Goldman, both Treasury and an independent third party agreed that $900 million was a fair price for the warrant, which really only means they agreed on what the future share prices of Goldman would be.

If Goldman thought that this price was too high, did they have to buy them back, or could they just let the government keep them, or sell them to someone else with a billion dollars lying around?

[Phatscotty]

Speaking of which, Bernie Sanders for President!

So Mets, when did you become an 'Independent'?

[degaston]

In short, sample size = 1; therefore, WARREN IS FOR THE PEOPLE!! HOORAYYY!! HOOORAYYYY!!! Forget all other colluding parties that fund her campaigns and make underground deals with her! HOORAYY!! Forget any instance of Warren logrolling votes in the mutual back-scratching game of legislation! HOOORAYYY!! Forget about how that government revenue was obtained in order to make those exchanges! Forget about WHO was actually sold those shares FROM WHOM! Whatever! Politician X is AWESOME!

Yes, okay, I get it, politics and politicians are evil. And your solution is...?

Sorry for sounding like an ass, but I'm so fuckin' tired of 90+% of all voters. They unwittingly contribute to the rent-seeking. They unwittingly support so many politicians who implement and reinforce policies conducive for further rent-seeking by the entrenched businesses. They are the cause of this country's path to democratic oligarchy (a.k.a. crony capitalism, political capitalism, etc.). These voters are responsible for the harmful outcomes, yet they don't ever bother criticizing themselves or being skeptical about their favorite politicians and the outcomes from those favored politicians.

Your options are:

1. Vote for politician A
2. Vote for politician B
3. Vote for politician C who has no chance, but you want to send a message to your party and maybe help to elect the person you really don't want.
4. Don't vote.

Are you saying it makes no difference?

There's no costless path to prosperity through politicians. There's no such thing as "more government oversight and regulation" fixing the problems caused initially by colluding politicians, chief bureaucrats, and particular market entities. Look at the systematic problems.

Did you mean systemic? I think the biggest problem in the country today is income disparity. Do you think that was caused by an increase or a decrease in government oversight and regulation? Or do you think there is a bigger problem?

Look at the policing incidents. Look at how the major politicians are dodging the CIA Torture Report. Look at that history of 50+ years of CIA torture programs and how politicians have continuously failed to address the issue. Consider the effects of the FDIC on promoting MORE moral hazard for banks. They're guaranteed a 'lender of last resort' no matter how risky the investment. In fact, they receive bailouts, and people like you cheer about $1bn of roughly trillions being magically saved. Look at how whistleblowers of government-business collusion are treated (Seggara, Snowden, Manning, and on and on). You're one of many cultists with a faith in benevolent government and (your) saintly politicians. Stop it. For the love of all that is good in this world, stop contributing to the problem.

Hyperbolic rhetoric aside, what is it, exactly, that we are supposed to "Stop", and do you have any positive statements for what a better course of action would be? (If you're going to go on about rent-seeking this and that, please include a few details.)

[Metsfanmax]

In the case of Goldman, both Treasury and an independent third party agreed that $900 million was a fair price for the warrant, which really only means they agreed on what the future share prices of Goldman would be.

If Goldman thought that this price was too high, did they have to buy them back, or could they just let the government keep them, or sell them to someone else with a billion dollars lying around?

In principle they could have let the government keep the warrants. This was an unlikely scenario, for two reasons. First, Treasury really wanted to offload these assets -- the point of TARP was to get the banks back on their feet, not to make the government money. So there was probably offline pressure for them to accept the deal. Second, Goldman probably wanted to control where the shares went. If they didn't buy, the government would probably have auctioned off the warrants to someone else -- see my first point (some of the other banks did opt for the auction option). So by accepting the subpar deal, Goldman retained control of a significant stake of their company. (This is just speculation though, I don't think Puente nor anyone outside Goldman really knows what Goldman was thinking.)

[Metsfanmax]

Speaking of which, Bernie Sanders for President!

So Mets, when did you become an 'Independent'?

I'm a registered Democrat, but this is mainly because I am more closely aligned with them than Republicans and so that I can vote in the Democratic primaries to help influence the best choice get on the ticket.

Sometimes I have considered switching registration -- in a blue state like New York, I'd have more influence on politics by making sure the Republican candidate is better than by trying to make sure the Democratic candidate is better. But my vote is inconsequential anyway so I'm not sure I should bother.

[Phatscotty]

Elizabeth Warren for President


But it also hints at the rising power of what has been called the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party: leftwing Democrats appalled at measures to weaken Wall Street reforms, with the president apparently willing to turn a blind eye.

Warren has hitherto insisted she is not running for president herself, but spoke out passionately against the “cromnibus” and presents a growing challenge to what her supporters dismissively call the Wall Street wing of the party and its figurehead: Hillary Clinton.

Sounds great. You may remember there were a lot of Gadsden/Tea Party Flags being flown at the Wall Street occupation as well. The Tea Party and OWS do have more than just a couple things in common, and these are real common sensers that should be at the heart of a more united America as well as a healthy dose of bipartisanship that is based on what's best overall for our people collectively as well as in line with our values, principles, and traditions of our people...ie what America is and what America believes in. I have been long calling for something along the line of Tea Party Democrats, or a tea party in the Democrat party, or something like it and they can call it whatever they want. Something that challenges their own long standing members of Congress and actually holds the Democrats accountable/ a moment of clarity in understanding that the Democrats there now are not practicing what they preach. So far not much if any of that has happened in the Democratic party. Warren is like the lonely Ron Paul who voted against Iraq war, vote against the patriot act... That doesn't mean whatever comes next is perfect or will work perfectly or be stocked with perfect people or that some/many unheard of Democrats will try to ride those coat-tails and cash in on such potential perceived popularity and then prove to be full of it/sell their soul in D.C.. But I do know one thing and so does everyone else. Step 1 is throwing the bums out. No faith in Step 1? Then I can guarantee you there will never be a step 2. Loud about having no faith in step 1? Then you can guarantee to crush all hopes of ever thinking about attempting any kind of step 2 whatsoever, and in a strange way you may even be susceptible to playing right into your opponent's hands. When that happens, what is the reason for elections? In fact, what is the reason to even have an opinion, much less opine with others on the topic?

Best of luck, many thing I do not like about Elizabeth Warren, but at least there are some things I do like, and they are the type of real and important things. And if she can walk the walk on those issues half as good as she can talk the talk, that will be more than I can say about a large chunk of establishment Republicans, and that is where you will find me talking about progress, and that will be where you will again start seeing people criticize me as a bleeding heart Socialist Liberal

However, I think it's highly likely that Senator Warren is grandstanding, and it's extremely easy to do after Congressional elections against a lame-duck president. Not as easy as say....Obama voting 'present' 97% of the time he was a Senator in Illinois so as not to take any positions on anything officially thus flawlessly paved the way to a wide open record leading to the inability of anyone being able to challenge him or know anything about the things he was saying or the promises he was making or the intentions he was hinting at.



Not taking anything away from Senator Warren in the matter that she may/may not be a phony or does/doesn't believe what she says or may sell out the way virtually all presidents seem to, but the reality remains who could possibly know her mind and her heart and her future for sure? Another reality that remains, this is the first page of the official playbook. Just saying, getting a lot of Obama 2004 vibes.

"I'm Barack Obama. I'm a Constitutional Scholar and a 'Chicago School of Economics ' professor. Wall Street needs to be reformed. Education needs to be fixed. Racism needs to be put behind us. 48 million Americans are uninsured, and that is unacceptable. There is no red America, there is no blue America, there is just a United States of America. My father was a goat herder in Africa. Marriage is between one man and one woman and God is definitely in the mix. We will put an end to this political darkness between the Republicans and Democrats"

etc etc etc Sounded good right?





I've been around the block more than a few times now, even been dragged around it a couple times. Seen this before. This was almost 4 years ago....

Obama, corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans were dealt a defeat when Liberaltarian Democrats and Tea Party members joined forces to block an extension of the PATRIOT Act on procedural grounds. The 'one party' leadership joined forces to try to push an extension through but were rebuffed after Democrat congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio rallied the two-dozen Tea Party Republicans by calling a move to defeat the act "the Tea Party's first test." A test they passed with flying colors.

The one party leadership then planned to reintroduce the measure to overcome procedural blocks and move it to the Senate. Republican Rand Paul and Socialist Bernie Sanders plan to rally senators to stop the extension in the Senate but will likely be defeated.

Obama has asked Congress to quickly extend the Bush-era emergency law that gives his Secret Police forces sweeping powers of oppression and evil.

Yeah, I was pretty pumped that day, and that level stuff was so much further along, if you can imagine the last election had yielded a giant crop of Warrenesqe Congressmen/women in numbers not seen in almost 100 years (Truman) A long way to go, and even then they began to habitually outright ignore one chamber of Congress, the House of Reps, and deal exclusively with the Senate.

Results? Historic elections, historic opportunities.... collectively we finally and fairly earned our right to have the key, they simply changed the lock so nonchalantly it were as if corporate Democrats and Establishment Republicans together removed their hats, combed their hair, and then put their hat right back on. That's how things played out for a long while. Establishment Republicans repeatedly joining with Corporate Democrats to fight the Tea Party with kitchen sink tactics. President Warren or a movement based around her political/governmental philosphy most likely can expect the same challenges and more.

See what I mean. So hey, best of luck, hopefully we can say good game; hopefully it's not another 'I loudly and repeatedly criticize Bill Clinton for nation building and it needs to be stopped immediately' G.W.Bush.

[degaston]

In principle they could have let the government keep the warrants. This was an unlikely scenario, for two reasons. First, Treasury really wanted to offload these assets -- the point of TARP was to get the banks back on their feet, not to make the government money. So there was probably offline pressure for them to accept the deal. Second, Goldman probably wanted to control where the shares went. If they didn't buy, the government would probably have auctioned off the warrants to someone else -- see my first point (some of the other banks did opt for the auction option). So by accepting the subpar deal, Goldman retained control of a significant stake of their company. (This is just speculation though, I don't think Puente nor anyone outside Goldman really knows what Goldman was thinking.)

This just seems like the government doing something right for a change. Market forces, supply and demand, yada-yada, the end result was that Goldman decided it was still worth it for them to purchase the warrants. (Assuming the government wasn't holding some kind of metaphorical gun to their head.) That doesn't necessarily make it a sub-par deal - just a not-as-good-as-they-used-to-get deal. If the government sells an asset for 1 billion less than they could have, that's just as bad as paying 1 billion more than they should have for their next aircraft carrier.

[_sabotage_]

Does anyone know what is being talked about in this thread?

Derivatives are side bets. It is like betting on the guy betting. It is backed by nothing. But now it is backed by taxpayers. Well done America, just got screwed and all that can be discussed is how pretty some of the people that helped screw you are.

[Metsfanmax]

Derivatives are side bets. It is like betting on the guy betting.

This is not a fully accurate description of derivatives. For example, in the case of stock options, the option is still a bet on the value of the share price, not a bet on some other quantity. The difference between an option and simply buying the stock outright and hoping that it improves is merely a difference in how much of a risk you are willing to expose yourself to. Similarly, derivatives on bonds are a bet on where interest rates will go in the future, and interest rates aren't the result of some other bet but a real fundamental quantity. There are some derivatives that are themselves valued on the basis of these types of assets, such as the infamous collateralized debt obligations. But that is not a reason to reject the entire basis of the field.

[patches70]

But that is not a reason to reject the entire basis of the field.

It didn't look like sabo was rejecting the "entire basis of the field" but was instead rejecting the idea that taxpayers should be on the hook for losses. You seem to have just ignored that. He's right, BTW, but are you being dicky to sabo because you think taxpayers should be on the hook for when derivatives go boom?

[Metsfanmax]

But that is not a reason to reject the entire basis of the field.

It didn't look like sabo was rejecting the "entire basis of the field" but was instead rejecting the idea that taxpayers should be on the hook for losses.

It is pretty clear that he was taking a shot at the derivatives, in the sense that he thinks that this betting is ultimately why there was any losses to begin with. (And that's fine, I wasn't taking exception to that.) My point was that just saying "derivatives are backed by nothing" is either a statement of sheer ignorance or a gross generalization of essentially the entirety of modern quantitative finance from the failure mode of a particular set of assets. Either way, needed to be corrected.

You seem to have just ignored that. He's right, BTW, but are you being dicky to sabo because you think taxpayers should be on the hook for when derivatives go boom?

I don't know if that question is framed the right way, because it implies that taxpayers will lose money as a result of these investment decisions. I have read that the bailout money paid out in the recession has basically all been paid back. (No idea how true this is, but would be happy to learn more. Point is, we weren't just intentionally giving hundreds of billions away.) That's why I'm not thinking about it in terms of direct losses of the banks, but instead the moral hazard situation we've created where banks might take even larger risks now that we've set a bailout precedent, risking future economic recessions.

As a libertarian, you might also ask the question of whether we should in principle be assisting private businesses with government loans, even if they are paid back. This is not so much of an interesting question to me; I'm a pragmatist and I believe in what gets the job done. However, the libertarian question does naturally lead to a discussion of the unintended future consequences I mentioned.

[degaston]

But that is not a reason to reject the entire basis of the field.

It didn't look like sabo was rejecting the "entire basis of the field" but was instead rejecting the idea that taxpayers should be on the hook for losses. You seem to have just ignored that. He's right, BTW, but are you being dicky to sabo because you think taxpayers should be on the hook for when derivatives go boom?

(The following is my understanding from a few minutes of research. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken about any of this.)

The problem was not that derivatives went "boom" - it was that the banks were investing in them. If it was just the money of the ultra-wealthy who could afford to take those risks, then few tears would have been shed. But it was everyone's money, and it was guaranteed by the government that it would be safe.

So, why were the banks investing in these? Because legislators changed the laws to remove regulations that had prevented banks from making risky investments, and kept us from having a major financial crisis for 50 years.

Who elected these legislators? We, the people. That's why we were on the hook when the whole house of cards collapsed.
Why re-regulating derivatives can prevent another disaster

[Metsfanmax]

So, why were the banks investing in these? Because legislators changed the laws to remove regulations that had prevented banks from making risky investments, and kept us from having a major financial crisis for 50 years.

Who elected these legislators? We, the people. That's why we were on the hook when the whole house of cards collapsed.
Why re-regulating derivatives can prevent another disaster

Indeed. As that piece points out, the problem with these assets is not that they existed, but how they were being used: that they were being bought for the purpose of speculation (increasing risk), instead of the purpose of hedging (reducing risk).

[_sabotage_]

Yes, thanks Mets for telling people what a side bet is.

Turning the housing markets into derivatives was 25 years in the making. You can read about the initial steps in Liar's Poker, where a Saloman's exec who made hundreds of millions first convinced nice politicians to ease regulation allowing mortgage-backed securities. He and his team proceeded to be the highest paid gang in Saloman brothers.

Well when you bet long enough at the casino, the casino alone wins. But the problem with derivatives, and hell people can gamble if they want, is that there is merely a derived value which can get lost in the fog of transactions. It's like a ready made money laundering system. If people have confidence in them, then let them take the risk that the bank hasn't been creating a reckless bubble, while just sweeping any real stakes away.

Pure and reckless gambling and not something that taxpayers should have any confidence in or part of. They have basically issued the banks a blank check and said, if you can make your transactions obscure enough, come cash it.

[thegreekdog]

As a libertarian, you might also ask the question of whether we should in principle be assisting private businesses with government loans, even if they are paid back.

Amen.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers ... ect-me.asp

I'm not sure about Elizabeth Warren yet. Still too soon for me to be learned enough to get involved. All I know right now is that the Cowboys are beating the Eagles 28-24 and Chris Christie is sitting with Jerry Jones in the Dallas Cowboys' box (Christie is a Dallas fan even though he's lived in New Jersey his whole life).

[thegreekdog]

But that is not a reason to reject the entire basis of the field.

It didn't look like sabo was rejecting the "entire basis of the field" but was instead rejecting the idea that taxpayers should be on the hook for losses. You seem to have just ignored that. He's right, BTW, but are you being dicky to sabo because you think taxpayers should be on the hook for when derivatives go boom?

(The following is my understanding from a few minutes of research. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken about any of this.)

The problem was not that derivatives went "boom" - it was that the banks were investing in them. If it was just the money of the ultra-wealthy who could afford to take those risks, then few tears would have been shed. But it was everyone's money, and it was guaranteed by the government that it would be safe.

So, why were the banks investing in these? Because legislators changed the laws to remove regulations that had prevented banks from making risky investments, and kept us from having a major financial crisis for 50 years.

Who elected these legislators? We, the people. That's why we were on the hook when the whole house of cards collapsed.
Why re-regulating derivatives can prevent another disaster

The Dodd-Frank Act, in my opinion, was passed to prevent having another bailout. I was not supportive of the original bailouts and therefore do not support having a law to prevent banks doing whatever they want. If you do not wish to have banks invest in derivatives (or real estate or small businesses or Coca Cola), do not put your money in such banks. If you're not knowledgeable enough or have the time to understand what your chosen bank invests in, well, that's your bad dude. If you're not knowledgeable enough to understand that you shouldn't purchase a home for more than you can afford, that's your bad dude.

[Phatscotty]

[tzor]

I have just one comment ...

It's fun to vote for the YMCA!

[Fewnix]

Does anyone know what is being talked about in this thread?

...

As the guy who started the thread, i think what is being talked about is called... democracy?

As in:

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

The question elected Senator Elizabeth Warren posted to her fellow elected legislators: people who may owe their election to the votes of the people, but who may believe owe their election finances to the big banks: "Who do you work for, the big banks or the people?" was, given the circumstances, a fair one.

I am a Canadian, not an American but I respectfully submit this is a question of the type that all citizens in a "democracy" should be asking of their legislators on a regular basis. and certainly Americans should be asking as they head for an election in which the Presidency of the United States, 1/3 of the Senate and the whole House of Representatives is - up for grabs? -open to the highest bidder?

[thegreekdog]

I think someone listed Warren's top donors above. The top two are:

EMILY's List - a "national political action committee that works to elect pro-choice female Democrats."
Moveon.org - a "left-leaning organization that almost exclusivley supports Democratic candidates for politial office."

Why is Elizabeth Warren different from a politician who "may believe owe their election finance to the big banks?" Seems to me she is the same; she just happens to have different rent seekers.

[_sabotage_]

Fenwick,

Then you don't seem to understand the concept very well.

From this groundbreaking vote, which validates derivatives, placing them under higher ratings because they are now backed by taxpayer funds, which are based on self-reporting from the banks and from which a large portion of the 5 major banks will find profit, the only thing you have is praise for politicians.

Seems to me, if this is the only thread that CC will have on this utterly stupid deal, then it is a shame.

I think there are several possibly useful threads that can be derived from this topic, including: why our elected officials just threw us under the bus; the threat of a government shutdown and whether it be taken seriously; how much does it cost to corrupt a vote; how the people can balance against close-knit lobbying groups that are directly opposed to their welfare; why the government always supports the elite.

But instead we have regurgitated what ever issues the media has told us is worthy of discussion and completely ignored the dangers posed by the situation.

Doesn't sound like democracy, sounds like being on the losing side of a con-game for the nth time with no hope of limiting the damages or preventing the con in the future, and creating false heroes out of very thin air.

[degaston]

I think someone listed Warren's top donors above. The top two are:

EMILY's List - a "national political action committee that works to elect pro-choice female Democrats."
Moveon.org - a "left-leaning organization that almost exclusivley supports Democratic candidates for politial office."

Why is Elizabeth Warren different from a politician who "may believe owe their election finance to the big banks?" Seems to me she is the same; she just happens to have different rent seekers.

I posted the donors list because BBS was implying that all politicians are essentially the same, and that Elizabeth Warren owed her senate seat to campaign contributions from financial institutions, but that list shows that this is not true. So could you specify exactly what kind of rent her supporters are seeking, or how working to elect pro-choice women qualifies as rent-seeking?