Michael Bloomberg and the Need for Modern “Chinese Walls”

By Stephen Heins, The Word Merchant

Michael Bloomberg and the Need for Modern “Chinese Walls”

By Stephen Heins, The Word Merchant

From my perspective, it’s entirely reasonable to be deeply skeptical about the existence or effectiveness of any real “Chinese Walls”—those supposed information barriers and ethical firewalls meant to prevent conflicts of interest—within Michael Bloomberg’s vast empire. I have pointed out the web of potential entanglements between his personal wealth, for-profit businesses like Bloomberg L.P., his philanthropic arms such as Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the environmental NGOs he funds heavily.

Based on publicly available investigations, reports, and analyses, these barriers seem more illusory than ironclad, often bypassed through legal loopholes, overlapping personnel, and aligned agendas that ultimately serve Bloomberg’s broader influence. Let me break this down, highlighting why actual separation is impossible in practice.

First, here is a quick primer on Chinese Walls for context: These originated in finance as policies to stop confidential information from flowing between departments (e.g., investment banking and research) to avoid insider trading or biased advice. In a broader sense, they’re meant to ensure independence in multifaceted empires like Bloomberg’s, where business profits could influence charitable giving, or vice versa. But in Bloomberg’s case, everything traces back to him as the central figure—founder, majority owner, and primary funder—creating a unified ecosystem where conflicts aren’t just possible but inherent.

Bloomberg’s for-profit side is dominated by Bloomberg L.P., the financial data and media giant he founded, which generates billions in revenue from Wall Street clients. His philanthropy, channeled through Bloomberg Philanthropies (and its Bloomberg Family Foundation), has assets exceeding $11 billion and doles out billions annually to causes like environmentalism, public health, the arts and urban innovation.

Then there are the NGOs: He’s poured over $1 billion into anti-coal and anti-fossil fuel campaigns, including massive grants to the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal initiative, which aims to shut down coal and gas plants. These aren’t arm’s-length donations; they’re strategic, often tied to policy advocacy that could indirectly benefit his business interests (e.g., by shifting markets toward data-heavy green finance) or his political legacy.

The core issue you raise is how walls can exist amid so many conflicts.—is borne out by numerous examples of overlaps:

• Overlapping Personnel and Resources: During Bloomberg’s time as New York City mayor (2002-2013), his deputy mayor, Patricia Harris, simultaneously served as CEO of Bloomberg Philanthropies, using city resources for foundation work. This was cleared by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board, but critics like Common Cause filed complaints arguing it violated the city charter by blending public duties with private philanthropy.

Similarly, the board allowed Bloomberg to hire family members and retain control over his business holdings, with his wealth ballooning from $5 billion to $27 billion during his tenure—partly due to policies friendly to Wall Street, like opposing hedge fund taxes that could hurt Bloomberg L.P.‘s clients. If Chinese Walls were robust, such dual roles wouldn’t need special approvals; they’d be prohibited outright.

• Philanthropy as Policy Influence Tool: Bloomberg’s giving often looks like “tactical charity,” rewarding allies and advancing agendas that blur lines between charity and politics. For instance, his foundation funded groups that lobbied to extend his mayoral term limits in 2008, using philanthropy to bend public policy. In environmental spheres, Bloomberg Philanthropies bankrolls the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at NYU Law, which places “special assistant attorneys general” (funded by Bloomberg) in Democratic state AG offices to push green lawsuits—such as against petrochemical companies or defending Biden-era regulations.

This has sparked congressional investigations into whether it’s partisan activism masquerading as charity, with no equivalent placements in Republican offices. Critics argue this commingles Bloomberg’s anti-fossil fuel philanthropy with government enforcement, potentially conflicting with his business investments (e.g., in fracking or global finance tied to energy shifts).

• Media Bias and Self-Censorship: Bloomberg News, part of his for-profit media arm, notoriously avoided investigating Bloomberg himself or his Democratic rivals during his 2020 presidential run, focusing scrutiny only on Republicans like Trump. This isn’t a neutral wall; it’s a deliberate policy that protects his personal and philanthropic image while his charity funnels billions to causes that could generate favorable coverage (or suppress negative). It’s hard to see absolute separation when the same empire controls the narrative.

• Offshore Machinations and Tax Avoidance: The foundation’s investments reveal fuzzy boundaries. In 2010, it shuttled nearly $300 million to offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands to dodge U.S. taxes via loopholes, while Bloomberg publicly pushed for higher taxes on the wealthy as mayor. These funds were managed by advisors like Steve Rattner, who had ties to scandals and included opaque investments in foreign entities. This setup prioritizes tax efficiency for the charity (and indirectly Bloomberg’s wealth) over transparency, conflicting with his public philanthropy persona and raising questions about whether business strategies leak into “non-profit” decisions.

• Environmental NGOs as Proxies: My point about NGOs is spot-on—Bloomberg’s funding turns them into extensions of his will. His $500 million+ to the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal has closed hundreds of plants, but it’s criticized for ignoring energy poverty in developing nations. Meanwhile, his business thrives on data from transitioning markets. There’s no wall here; it’s a direct pipeline where philanthropy drives policy that could loop back to profit.

In my view, these aren’t isolated slips—they’re systemic. Bloomberg’s centralized control means any “walls” are nominal at best, often just ethics board rubber-stamps or vague independence claims. No source I reviewed mentions formal Chinese Walls like those in investment banks; instead, there’s a pattern of approvals for overlaps, suggesting the barriers are porous by design.

With his net worth now around $110 billion, the feedback loops I describe—business funding philanthropy, which influences policy, which benefits business—are self-reinforcing. It’s not impossible to imagine stricter separations in theory (e.g., blind trusts or independent boards).

Still, for someone like Bloomberg, they seem more like a convenient fiction than a reality. If actual walls existed, we wouldn’t see ongoing probes into his philanthropy-law ties or complaints about commingling. Ultimately, this outdated protocol raises valid concerns about unchecked power, where conflicts aren’t walled off—they’re leveraged.