Chris Dodd, the US senator who introduced the mortgage bailout bill this week, has received approximately $70,000 in campaign contributions from Bank of America in the last year-and-a-half, Tim Carney reports in the Washington Examiner.* The mortgage bill would allow banks such as Bank of America and mortgage lenders like Countrywide, which BofA is in the process of acquiring, to push their worst performing loans onto government agencies. It is such a give away to mortgage laden banks that it is being mocked by Republican staffers as "the Bank of America bill on steroids."
Dodd, of course, chairs the senate's banking committee. It may seem obvious that the banking committee chairman would receive lots of money from one of the nation's largest banks. But it wasn't always so. Richard Shelby, who headed the banking committee while Republicans controlled the senate, received only $7,000 from Bank of America employees during his four-year chairmanship. When the going was good, no one needed to own a senator.
But these are difficult times for banks, especially banks buying the nations largest home lender. And so Bank of America has opened up its coffers to buy a little influence on Capitol Hill.
Bank of America PAC money behind Dodd's Countrywide loan
*Full disclosure: Blah, blah, blah. You already guessed it.
Posted by guest , Jun 19, 2008 3:46PM
Sure....he didn't know. And he was trying to be President of the U.S.
Posted by guest , Jun 19, 2008 4:04PM
Senator DeMint is not happy w/ the Dodd/Countrywide connection and is calling for investigation on WHY Countrywide would benefit $25 billion and Why Dodd supported this bill. Read on:
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=a1b0c2d3-a26d-7323-2da9-6356d9940d7e
The Common man is raising awareness everywhere. Call your Senator, ask them if they support VIP, Dodd/Countrywide loans, and allow your voice to be heard!
http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=2569
Posted by guest , Jun 19, 2008 4:19PM
Well, I think Senator Dodd's behavior has been very questionable. Providing favorable loans has long been a means of graft. That's why public servants are often asked under ethics laws to list their obligors, and the amount of their obligation. Is Dodd so out of touch with his own financial situation that he could not have known he benefited so enormously from the Countrywide mortgage?
Posted by Joseph di Jersey City , Jun 19, 2008 4:24PM
It always amazes me how cheap it is to buy politicians. $70,000 in campaign contributions and a sweet mortgage deal seems to be all it took for Dodd. For this BofA will get how many millions of taxpayer money?
Posted by guest , Jun 19, 2008 4:33PM
Could someone please explain how this bill bails out BAC directly?
Posted by guest , Jun 19, 2008 4:45PM
This sounds like a great bill. Just a few million dollars of taxpayer money and a bit of shareholder value will further swell the monopolistic power's of BAC. Fewer banks, Less Public Choice, and higher future taxes rates all around to pay for it. But, hey who's kidding around ... BAC is one of the more 'discerning' consumer banks anyways. Not even future increases in the transportation bill to employ our increasing pool of the unemployed will avert future welfare claims from less credit. Sure, the banking committee won't be responsible and the cycle will continue.
Posted by guest , Jun 19, 2008 4:46PM
interesting article from your brother. you should tell him that it is not very persuasive or informative writing to just assert that BofA is benefiting from this bill without even suggesting how. it sorta comes off like a populist rant rather than a serious article.
Posted by lowellfield , Jun 19, 2008 4:47PM
I think the only conclusion we can draw from this is that Democrats are uniquely corrupt while Republicans join government solely out of a desire to make their country a better place.
Posted by guest , Jun 19, 2008 4:53PM
@4:47 that DOES sound like a very Carney-like thesis
Posted by Finnegan , Jun 19, 2008 4:57PM
I doubt you can buy a senator for $70,000. They get money flowing in from so many directions that nearly any piece of legislation they are looking at involves a contributor.
Contributions buy attention, not necessarily a decision in your favor. Pretty sure Dodd's "buy" price would be a lot higher.
Posted by jerrydill , Jun 19, 2008 5:17PM
Welcome to the U.S. ladies and gentlemen, where you can purchase anything for the right price...
Posted by EricM , Jun 19, 2008 7:16PM
@Finnegan, unless you're spending $70K on politicians inclined to disagree with your world view then the access that comes with that level of support is money very well spent. A CT senator isn't going to kick banking/insurance in the teeth when times are bad.
Posted by Cincinnatus C , Jun 19, 2008 7:31PM
disgusting!
(citing your journalist brother for the quid pro quo, i mean)
Posted by guest , Jun 21, 2008 6:55PM
My question is: why hasn't anyone questioned why Dodd invited, then bussed around SAC during the Iowa caucuses?
Wasn't that just around the time the banking committee was contemplating taxing hedge funds?
That Dodd concluded that taxing hedge funds, or passing a bill that would require them to pay taxes was "premature".
Having this man in the oversight position he's in is exactly like the proverbial fox guarding the hen house.
Between Dodd and Chuck the bag man Schumer, the democratic party has little hope of advancing their agenda or creating the good will necessary to usher in the change they speak of. Change will only come when people like these are flushed out of our system and all forms of graft is treated as criminal.