So today, we add to HuffPost’s family of sections dedicated to telling the stories of these opportunities, with a new section called “What Is Working: Small Businesses.” Sponsored by Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Small Businesses initiative, the section will tap into one of the most robust and promising sectors of our economy, offering small business owners tips and tools for success. By bringing together a multitude of voices — from HuffPost’s business reporters and editors to our vibrant community of bloggers and commenters — “What Is Working: Small Businesses” will open up the conversation on topics such as business education, support and financial capital, and reflect the state of American small business and its vital role in the economy at large.

The kind words towards Goldman Sachs’ 10,000 Small Businesses Initiative stand in stark contrast to the blog’s ruthless coverage of Lloyd Blankfein’s firm.

A Free Beacon investigation of the Goldman Sachs section on HuffPo reveals numerous unflattering stories about the bank, including a featured link to a story titled “The Worst Corporate Reputations in America.”

It is unclear whether Arianna Huffington agrees with the assessment, although it appears despite earlier speculation she has not ordered a purge of her website.

AOL recently purchased the Huffington Post for $315 million.

Update (11:54 a.m.): HuffPo has bumped the featured link ”The Worst Corporate Reputations in America” off the front page of the Goldman section.

A slideshow, titled “CEOs Who Look Like Villains,” accompanied the article. The first slide compared Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, to Dr. Evil.

Blankfein and Ariana Huffington co-authored the announcement of their new partnership.

The Huffington Post and Goldman Sachs come at this issue with different perspectives, but a common goal.

In 2008, Goldman Sachs made a $100 million investment through its 10,000 Women program. This initiative provides women-owned small-to-medium businesses in more than 20 countries with a business and management education, access to mentors, and links to capital. This year, the program will reach its initial goal by serving its 10,000th woman.

This past summer, the Huffington Post broke new ground in the way the media commonly report economic news. Frustrated by the relentless coverage of disaster, tragedy and scandal in traditional media sources, the Huffington Post launched “What is Working,” dedicated to covering stories of progress and success, particularly when it comes to creating jobs in the United States, and brought 100 startup entrepreneurs together at both political conventions to showcase all the different ways they’re creating jobs.

Today, our two organizations are joining forces. Together we will examine what entrepreneurs are doing to drive growth around the world and apply the lessons we have learned.

The new partnership signals a very fast about-face. The Huffington Post attacked Goldman Sachs two days ago for profiting from a global food crisis. A slideshow, titled “CEOs Who Look Like Villains,” accompanied the article. The first slide compared Arianna’s newest partner to Dr. Evil.

The Huffington Post attacked Blankfein earlier this month for receiving a 75 percent raise. The website also alleges that the CEO lied about the firm’s proprietary trading and called Blankfein a “Vampire Squid.”

It is unclear if Arianna will order a purge of her website.

Gore tried, but failed, to push through the $500 million sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera by Dec. 31 to avoid paying the higher tax rates that came with the fiscal cliff deal.

Unlike Gore, however, Goldman Sachs succeeded in evading the tax hike by awarding $64.8 million to its top executives one month ahead of time.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

As 2012 wound down, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. awarded 10 of its top executives a combined 508,104 shares one month earlier than normal and ahead of higher tax rates that kick in this year.

At Monday’s $127.56 closing price, the shares were valued at $64.8 million.

The grants are related to restricted shares awarded as part of prior years’ compensation, according to a series of filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission late Monday. They aren’t related to 2012 compensation, the filings said. About 48 percent, or 245,838 of the shares granted overall, were withheld by Goldman to pay taxes, the filings show.

Such awards typically are paid in January, when Goldman also pays out bonuses for the prior year. The early awards weren’t limited to the top of the company, either. “The December delivery of shares went to a wider group of employees than the named executive officers,” a spokesman said. He declined to elaborate.

Goldman Sachs CEO and Chairman Lloyd Blankfein was one of the executives awarded the stock that is regularly given to executives in January. Blankfein received 66,065 shares, 33,245 of which were withheld, netting him an award valued at more than $4 million.

Blankfein has been a longtime supporter of the Democratic Party and is a frequent guest of President Barack Obama at the White House. Blankfein appears on the White House Visitor Log 14 times. Additionally, Blankfein was the sole Wall Street banker invited to the White House for a meeting to offer Obama advice on how to approach the fiscal cliff.

Blankfein has also made it clear that he stands with Obama when it comes to raising tax rates.

Blankfein said in a CNN interview that he supports moving the top marginal tax rate for families making above $250,000 a year to 39.6 percent.

“I think if that’s what it took to make the math work, when you look at the entitlement side and when you look at the revenue side, I would not preclude that,” Blankfein said in regards to the tax hike.

Though Blankfein applauded the fiscal cliff deal on Twitter, it appears that he would prefer to avoid its financial results when it comes to his own money.

A Goldman Sachs employee provided secret cash contributions, as well as in-kind donations, to former Democratic Treasurer Tim Cahill in exchange for sweetheart deals on municipal bond offerings, according to the SEC complaint.

Goldman collected more than $7.5 million in fees off of the deals brokered by Neil Morrison, who has since been fired for misconduct.

The scheme will cost Goldman nearly $12 million in total civil penalties, according to the Associated Press.

Cahill, a lifelong Democrat, ran as an independent candidate against Gov. Deval Patrick (D., Mass.) in 2010 in a campaign doomed by controversy. In addition to Morrison’s dirty money, he used $1.65 million of state lottery money to purchase advertising in the race. Federal authorities indicted him in April for the improper use of the money. His trial is set to begin in October.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would support legislation to upgrade U.S. trade relations with Russia only if Congress also passes a measure to go after Russian human right violators, his campaign said on Thursday.

“Gov. Romney believes that permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) should only be granted to Russia on the condition that the Magnitsky human rights bill be passed,” Lanhee Chen, policy director for the Romney campaign, said in a statement.

Chen was referring to legislation being considered in Congress that would require the U.S. government to impose sanctions on people believed responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, an anti-corruption lawyer who died in a Russian prison, and other human rights violators.

Goldman Sachs, one of the Obama campaign’s biggest supporters in 2008, lobbied hard to torpedo the Magnitsky legislation. The move surprised and angered proponents of  human rights:

Other experts were surprised to learn that Goldman—the Obama campaign’s largest Wall Street donor in 2008, and the president’s second largest donor overall, giving more than $1 million to the campaign—was actively lobbying against a measure meant to protect innocent Russians and crack down on money laundering.

“There is something troubling about a business lobbying against Magnitsky,” Anna Borshchevskaya, assistant director of the Atlantic Council’s Patriciu Eurasia Center, told the Free Beacon. “It raises questions about whether this company cares about promoting good business practices, or whether [it wants] to ingratiate itself to the Kremlin at any cost.”

TOM STEYER

Tom Steyer / WC

Tom Steyer, a billionaire investor who has raised at least $50,000 for Obama’s reelection campaign, will speak about energy policy as it relates to the president’s vision of “an economy built to last,” which includes his plan to “double down” on taxpayer-backed green energy investments.

Such a doubling down would benefit Steyer, who is reportedly one of the backers of Greener Capital, which invests in alternative fuel companies that benefit from the anti-oil policies of the Obama administration.

Steyer is also the founder and senior managing partner of Farallon Capital Management, a $20 billion hedge fund that ranks as one of the largest of its kind in the world.

Farallon stands to profit from government policies that increase consumption of natural gas. Farallon owns nearly $14 million worth of shares of Westport Innovations, the self-described ”global leader in natural gas engines.” The Westport Carbon Project (WCP), according to its website, ”was established to monetize the carbon emission reductions associated with the Westport HD engine, the Cummins Westport ISL G and other natural gas engines developed with our OEM partners. The WCP enables customers to earn annual carbon rebate cheques for the natural gas vehicles in their fleet as of January 1, 2010.”

Farallon also owns more than $8 million worth of shares of Fuel Systems Solutions, which according to its website ”designs, manufactures and supplies proven, cost-effective alternative fuel components and systems for transportation and industrial applications. Its gaseous fuel technology for propane (LPG) and natural gas (CNG) generates savings, reduces emissions, and promotes energy independence.”

A successful investor, Steyer knows to hedge his bets. His fund owns millions of dollars worth of shares in Big Oil companies such as BP.

Farallon also has substantial investments in foreign-owned companies, and operates a number of funds based in the Cayman Islands—a British dependency whose lax tax laws have become a favorite target of Democrats.

Like most prominent Obama fundraisers, Steyer has enjoyed relatively easy access to the White House. He has met with senior White House officials in the West Wing on at least four occasions.

Steyer, whose net worth was an estimated $1.3 billion as of 2011, was a Goldman Sachs protégé of Robert Rubin, who served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton and helped orchestrate the controversial merger than created Citigroup in the late 1990s.

Steyer has donated at least $1.4 million to the Center for American Progress (CAP) since 2009 through his TomKat Charitable Trust. As of 2010, he was listed as a director of the left-wing think tank.

Steyer and CAP founder John Podesta were leading voices in the successful effort to block expansion of the Keystone oil pipeline, which Obama has repeatedly refused to authorize. They coauthored a Wall Street Journal op-ed in January 2012 arguing against the pipeline expansion and calling for increased federal investment in green energy.

STEVE WESTLY

Steve Westly / AP

The California venture capitalist has raised at least $750,000 for President Obama since 2007, and has personally given more than $250,000 to Democratic campaigns and committees over that same period.

A frequent guest at White House events and state dinners, Westly served as California co-chair and a National Finance Committee member of Obama’s 2008 campaign and currently sits on the Energy Advisory Board at the Department of Energy (DOE).

The same federal department that Westly advises has awarded more than $500 million in taxpayer guaranteed loans to green energy companies partially owned by his investment firm, the Westly Group, one of the largest green energy venture capital firms in the country.

The firm’s website has touted itself as being “uniquely positioned” to take advantage of the influx of federal funding for green technology, due to its ability to “navigate the halls of government.”

Westly has openly admitted that knowledge of federal policy is key to investing in green technology. In response to a reporter’s question about which green energy companies he prefers to invest in, Westly said: “Who cares what I think. Let’s talk about ‘What does Obama like? Here’s what he likes,’ because here’s where the federal government is putting money. And let me tell you, whatever he likes, that’s what I like.”

A spokesperson for Common Cause, a liberal watchdog organization, said Westly’s relationship with the Obama administration “looks like kind of the classic Washington hands washing each other.”

Westly’s situation is hardly unique. More than 70 percent of DOE grants and loans under Obama went to companies backed by Democratic donors and bundlers, Peter Schweizer reported in Throw Them All Out.

One company Westly invested in, Amonix Inc., recently laid off nearly two-thirds of its workforce despite receiving more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants.

Obama had publicly lauded the solar panel manufacturer and the “extraordinary impact” of federal support for green energy companies.

The DOE loans program was so wrought with cronyism, failures like Amonix, and massive failures like Solyndra that even the left-leaning Washington Post editorial board described it as a “real scandal.”

“You can call it crony capitalism or venture socialism—but by whatever name, the Energy Department’s loan guarantee program privatizes profits and socializes losses,” the paper wrote in November 2011.

It is certainly one of the most striking examples of Obama’s failure to unchain Washington from the influence of special interests groups, as he boldly pledged to do as a candidate in 2008.

In addition to raising money for the president Westly runs a multi-million dollar charity organization with his wife, Anita.

The Westly Foundation describes its mission as “to provide support in the areas of education, youth, health care, immigration and global security,” although records reveal considerable donations to left-wing organizations such as the Tides Foundation, Planned Parenthood, and the Clinton Foundation, as well as to questionable organizations and causes such as “Fantasy Service Agency” and “Celebrity Fight Night.”

The news is likely to raise the ire of the political left and right, both of which have highlighted one of the most inconvenient facts of Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department: despite the Obama administration’s promises to clean up Wall Street in the wake of America’s worst financial crisis, there has not been a single criminal charge filed by the federal government against any top executive of the elite financial institutions.

Why is that? In a word: cronyism.

Holder’s inaction to prosecute Goldman Sachs does not surprise Schweizer. He writes that Goldman employees donated a combined $1,013,091 to Obama’s campaign in 2008, and that some Goldman executives began “flooding Obama campaign coffers” when the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a scathing report on Goldman’s Abacus deal in April 2011.

Schweizer also notes that while the Justice Department’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force has a list of fraudulent individuals they have successfully prosecuted, these individuals are “shockingly small compared with the Wall Street titans the Obama administration promised to bring to justice.”

Schweizer’s indignation at Holder’s lack of action is echoed by the Huffington Post’s Richard Eskow:

More and more Washington insiders are asking a question that was considered off-limits in the nation’s capital just a few months ago: Who, exactly, is Attorney General Eric Holder representing? As scandal after scandal erupts on Wall Street, involving everything from global lending manipulation to cocaine and prostitution, more and more people are worrying about Holder’s seeming inaction—or worse—in the face of mounting evidence.

The Free Beacon reported Thursday that Goldman had retained the services of the D.C.-based lobbying firm Duberstein Group Inc. Lobbying disclosure forms showed the firm lobbied against the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, named after the Russian lawyer who was tortured and killed by Russia officials after discovering a $230 million embezzlement plot.

After failing to respond to multiple requests for comment, a senior Goldman Sachs official contacted the Free Beacon to dispute the initial report.

“We have not engaged any firm including the Duberstein group to lobby on that provision,” Jake Siewert, head of corporate communications for Goldman Sachs, told the Free Beacon late Thursday.

Siewert, a former Clinton administration official and adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, would not detail the nature of his employer’s relationship with Duberstein, or explain on record why the Magnitsky measure was listed on the firm’s disclosure forms.

Pressed about the relationship, Siewert directed a reporter back to the Duberstein group.

Duberstein President Michael Berman, who declined comment when first approached by the Free Beacon last week, said his firm was “monitoring” the legislation on Goldman’s behalf, but did not take a position for or against the legislation.

“We were monitoring that legislation and did not advocate on it any way,” Berman said. “We were monitoring it, checking on what was happening on [U.S. trade relations with Russia] generally.”

Federal guidelines governing lobbying activity do not require a firm to specifically list an issue that is only being monitored.

“If a communication is limited to routine information gathering questions and there is not an attempt to influence a covered official, the exception of Section 3(8)(B)(v) for ‘any other similar administrative request’ would normally apply,” according to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which governs such activity.

Veteran lobbyists questioned Berman’s explanation, explaining that if the firm did not lobby on the measure, there would be no reason to list it on disclosure forms.

“Duberstein registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Duberstein cited the House and Senate versions of the Magnitsky Act as legislation they were registered to lobby on,” one veteran D.C. lobbyist told the Free Beacon. “To now claim they were not lobbying is ludicrous. Duberstein should be ashamed and Goldman should demand a refund.”

Asked why he initially declined to elaborate on the firm’s involvement with Goldman and the Magnitsky Act, Berman said, “It’s what we do whenever someone calls” to inquire about the firm’s work.

Berman, who claimed that he did not personally work on the matter, further explained that Duberstein employees phoned sources on Capitol Hill to inquire about the measure, but did not lobby on it.

The firm listed its work pertaining to Magnitsky on the disclosure forms In order to be thorough, Berman said.

“There would have been calls on the Hill to find out [about it], but not calls to advocate on it one way or another,” Berman maintained.

Asked to name who was called about the legislation, Berman said the firm has “no record on it, quite frankly.”

Berman could not say why Goldman Sachs was interested in the Magnitsky act.

“You don’t know specifically what their interest might be because they didn’t ask us to take a position one way or another,” Berman said.

While it remains unclear why exactly Goldman would have taken an interest in the human rights bill, the financial giant may be out to protect its Russian clients, experts said.

Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein, for instance, met in June with officials of Russian energy giant Gazprom to discuss a possible joint venture.

“Clearly if Goldman hired Duberstein to lobby against U.S. sanctions on torturers and murders, they are trying to protect some of their Russian clients’ ill-gotten gains and preserve their right to travel and bank in the U.S.,” one long-term Russia-watcher based in D.C. told the Free Beacon last week. “It is shameful but not surprising they don’t want to publicly talk about what they are doing.”

The D.C.-based Duberstein Group Inc. was hired by the financial giant to lobby against the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, named after the Russian lawyer who was tortured and killed by Russia officials after discovering a $230 million embezzlement plot.

The human rights bill is favored by a bi-partisan coalition of lawmakers in both the House and Senate, but has quietly been opposed by the Obama administration as a threat to its policy of “resetting” U.S.-Russia relations. The Russian government has threatened to scuttle cooperation on a range of issues if the Magnitsky bill becomes law.

Congressional sources and Russian human rights activists expressed confusion over Goldman’s apparent opposition to the bill, and chastised the scandal-plagued megabank for kowtowing to the Kremlin.

“It’s immoral what they’re doing,” said Vladimir Kara-Murza, a member of Solidarity, Russia’s leading opposition party. “They’re playing into Putin’s blackmail and acting to please the dictator and his wants, which is no way for a responsible financial organization to behave.”

Goldman Sachs did not respond to a request for comment about its lobbying activity. Duberstein lobbyist Michael Berman, who is listed on the disclosure form, said that his company “never comments on our work.”

Goldman may be trying to protect clients who would be affected by the sanctions, experts said.

Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein met in June with officials of Russian energy giant Gazprom to discuss a possible joint venture.

“Clearly if Goldman hired Duberstein to lobby against U.S. sanctions on torturers and murders, they are trying to protect some of their Russian clients’ ill-gotten gains and preserve their right to travel and bank in the U.S.,” said one long-term Russia-watcher based in D.C. “It is shameful but not surprising they don’t want to publicly talk about what they are doing.”

Opponents of the Magnitsky bill are “doing it silently because it looks very bad for their reputation,” said Kara-Murza. “It’s unimaginable how anyone could be against this.”

Other experts were surprised to learn that Goldman—the Obama campaign’s largest Wall Street donor in 2008, and the president’s second largest donor overall, giving more than $1 million to the campaign—was actively lobbying against a measure meant to protect innocent Russians and crack down on money laundering.

“There is something troubling about a business lobbying against Magnitsky,” Anna Borshchevskaya, assistant director of the Atlantic Council’s Patriciu Eurasia Center, told the Free Beacon. “It raises questions about whether this company cares about promoting good business practices, or whether [it wants] to ingratiate itself to the Kremlin at any cost.”

Congressional sources observed that the Obama administration has long lobbied against the language, arguing that it would anger Russia and harm trade relations, though many remain skeptical of those arguments.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill overwhelmingly favor the Magnitsky language and have attached it to a recently passed trade bill that would repeal 1974’s Jackson-Vanik law, which also linked U.S. trade with Russia to human rights.

The House and Senate are set to negotiate that bill’s final language in the coming weeks, and human rights activists have promised to ensure that the bill is not watered down.

The administration hopes to weaken the final bill so that the language is less offensive to Russia, insiders said. The Senate version of the bill broadens the language to include all nations, while the House version singles out Russia.

The U.S. trade relationship with the Kremlin has experienced renewed tension in recent months, following news that Russia was on course to be accepted into the World Trade Organization. In order for American companies to take full advantage of Russia’s membership, the Kremlin must be granted “permanent normal trade relations” with America, a designation unachievable under Jackson-Vanik.

“Everyone knows Russia is one of the worst places in the world to do business because of rampant corruption,” said the Atlantic Council’s Borshchevskaya. “The Magnitsky Act isn’t about hurting business; it’s about encouraging transparency, which is at the core of good business and, frankly, good relations.”

The bill would prevent Russian officials involved in human rights violations from sending their children to U.S. schools, buying U.S. real estate, and otherwise benefiting from American commerce and markets, experts said.

“We’re talking about murderers and torturers here, and they use the U.S. as a getaway for their shopping” and as a safety deposit box, said a senior Senate aide. “Cowering in the face of Russian threats doesn’t make things better.”

While businesses such as Goldman Sachs appear to be most concerned with their short-term business interests, Russian activists such as Kara-Murza said they are on the wrong side of history.

“They’re working for the interests of the current authoritarian regime, and it’s puzzling why they would do that,” he said, noting that these anti-Magnitsky corporations are focused solely on “today and tomorrow’s profit.”