In article ,
(Mike Pearson see .sig) wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
(Mike Pearson see .sig) wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp

Depends on how you look at it. She has multimillions of dollars from
that corporation although she does not have a controlling interest in
the multinational company. So the distinction has now merit since she
and John benefit from it.


She is far from "owning" the company as the original poster stated in
the message that he forwarded. (She holds less than 4%, and is not on
the board or otherwise involved in the running of the company.) His
message makes it sound as if she is the actual owner, involved in
day-to-day operations. The Heinz company has been trying to debunk this
stuff, too. They make ketchup and pickles, and are not involved in
politics.

John Kerry benefits from the profits of a multinational corporation
through his wife. So your point is?

The point is that she is a common stockholder (and not even a very big
one), and the relationship that the forwarded (and thoroughly debunked)
message impliues does not, in fact, exist.

No you are missing the point. They sold their stock or own stock and
made money. Kerry benefited by the sale or the holding of the stock. You
don't have to control the company to benefit.

The premiss of my argument is that he benefits from a multinational
company that creates job overseas. Who controls the company is a fine
point without merit.

Kerry and his wife should take the capital out of Heinz and put it into
a company that creates jobs in the US. That is if he was true to his
word, which apparently he is not.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California