The [AIG] employees were told, “If you agree,” to write checks for $2,100 from themselves and their spouses and to send them to Mr. Dodd’s campaign within four days. They also were to ask the senior members of their management teams to do the same and send copies of their checks to the company.
The Dodd campaign collected $162,100 from AIG-FP employees and their spouses within six weeks of the e-mail, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics and the Federal Election Commission.
In a way it is a fantastic thing that purely legal transactions of the type enshrined in the First Amendment should give cause for such attention after a legislator acts in a fashion that might (gasp) take account of her constituency that the Washington Post later uses them to skewer the likes of Dodd.
America! Fuck yeah!
AIG chiefs pressed to donate to Dodd [The Washington Post]
Update: I think I failed to express the appropriate level of cynical amusement in this post. I do truly enjoy the perpetual game of whack-a-campaign-mole that the system of political giving in the United States has created. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to require that campaign monies returned due to scandal be given to the opposing political party rather than some cushy charity? It always rubbed me the wrong way that, as a Senator, your shady contribution collection return/adjustment likely put your name in lights amongst the highest donors for [fill in the blank]. An immediate shift of the funds to the party of your closest contender in the last general election, would make for an interesting disincentive.
A “constituency” is not a group of people who are forced (perhaps a lower bonus this year? maybe that promotion might come a bit later than expected?) to donate to an official.
Must be a coincidence
hahahahaahahahahaha
what a fucking joke
Like this is rare?
It’s the Wash Times not Post
the link says Wash Post, but its actually to the Wash Times, which is a rag, controlled at one point by the Moonies. In any case, why is bundling of campaign contributions worthy of mention? Remember the Bush Rangers, of which Stan O’Neill was one? That’s a person that collects at least $100,000 in contributions by going up and down the aisles at work and collecting individual checks, thereby circumventing contribution limits. What do you folks see as the solution? A public system for financing campaigns? Doubt you would like that.
it’s the wash times
EP – totally think your idea vis-a-vis giving to the “other” guy any “tainted” contributions is fabulous.
This is one more brick in my wall of cynicism, right next to the Shamwow guy’s arrest
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0327092sham1.html
can we talk about john mack and his strong arm tactics to get you to donate the PAC? he basically sends around the head of each division to make you write a damn check. talk about duress, er I mean, persuasion…yeah, this is nothing new, this is the change we can all believe in (albeit, the letter was from 2006).
In this defining moment, I’m still hoping for change?
@2 I’m with you. If NBC, CNN, ABC and CBS have taught me anything…its that dirty facist Republicans are in bed with big business…not the Democrats. Say it ain’t so Dodd!
As Senator Dodd is a democrat (a point of fact that will be conspicuously absent from what little mainstream media coverage this story may get)everything must be on the up and up.
EP where’s the taint? Did Dodd write the memo to the AIG execs? The whole point of political contributions is to gain influence and politicians, Dodd included, know very well how to play the system. That is, to not appear beholden to those who they take funds from.
Chris Dodd is innocent
He was at the Brasserie restaurant in Wahington , DC
with Teddy Kennedy and their “nieces”
What??? Are you saying that, for the first time, corporate employees may have been pressed into giving money to certain campaigns at the request of their employer? Are you shitting me?!?!?
~The Forehead Slapper
Cluz: they’re doing you a favor by strong arming you for the PAC only. The contribution limit is $5k and for the typical DB reader, they’ll be happy with $20 per paycheck. Contrast that with having to write checks for a individual candidates, where the limit is $1500, so that your firm can be a good bundler.
6 again. Campaigns run on money. I’m still waiting for the recommended solution: outlaw campaign contributions? We don’t want to do that, our firms will have no influence. Go to a public contribution system? Ditto.
@15 – unfortunately, I’m a little more “senior” than the typical db reader and sadly, $20 a paycheck don’t cut it…
@17 – Christ, this website has fallen on hard times if the typical reader is concerned about ponying up $20 per pay period.
@ 18 – Hey, $20 is a lot of money if you’re unemployed in Manhattan and have a couple of dependents to feed. I often find myself ranting about The Man along with many of the young men on the janitorial staff here in my building each and every time they bring up my groceries, which that lazy sonofabitch from Fresh Direct will only leave in my lobby, and which is, although marble and quite tasteful if I do say so myself, many, many floors below.
Stop posturing. That’s not the point. Point is, no one should be coerced into making a PAC donation at their job, period.
As much as I hate the idea of paying for it, seeing as we’re already this socialistic, maybe public financing and a federal ID to prevent dead people from voting in alphabetical order might be something even those of us on the Right should consider.
Why not? We’re forced to pay for everything else for the winning candidate.
Equal funds, equal air time, no Jay Leno/SNL might even things out for those who cannot afford to purchase an election.
As it stands, it seems we really don’t have elections here but rather auctions that typically go to the highest bidder.
God Bless #19 for the first paragraph of that post. Well written!
@bandersnatch– you misread what cluzo was saying. he is more senior than most of the db audience ie he is expected to give wayyy more than $20.
It wouldn’t be a disincentive but just the cost of doing biz to the donors.
Just more unpatriotic negativity from liberals who hate America, Ronald Reagan, the honest hardworking business men of America, and the troops.
I have a solution to all this that the liberals will love.
Campaign tax and redistribution.
You tax all campaign contributions that a candidate receives and make the tax highly progressive.After all, voters are supposed to chose between the ideas that 2 candidates represent and propose – and not how much one candidate can spend to get that message out!
And then use that ‘tax’ money to set up common events / pay poor poll workers. Makes total sense all around.
Something tells me that the liberals will NOT agree to that right now. Guess why!!
Maybe liberalism is what the country needs
We’ve had 8+ years of ‘conservatism’ and look where we are. The funny thing is you hotshots will never be part of the moneyed elite. Missed your window to steal…I mean manage investments
@21 – bingo! that’s money that could have gone for good time a bagatelle for saturday brunch with the euros.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/nyregion/thecity/15part.html
@21- sad, that you have no idea whose eyes are on this site.
@27 – some of us do…
27 here, meant to direct my comment @25
carry on.
Ohmigod what a DOUCHE!
I don’t know if the funding system in Canada is more screwed up, or not. We used to allow corporate donations, so businesses would donate big to the Liberals and less to the Conservatives. The socialist NDP received money from union dues, even if the worker supported another party. Then, the incoherent Jean Chretien, in an attempt to screw over his successor, Paul Martin, changed the funding to a limit of $5,000 for individuals and $1,000 for corporations and unions, plus each party would get a stipend of about $1.80 per vote it received in the previous election. When the Conservatives formed a government in 2007, they restricted funding even further, banning donations from companies and unions, and restricting individuals to a total of $1,100 to either a candidate or the party combined. However, the Conservative fundraising machine is powerfully efficient, with about 80% of revenues flowing through to the party. The Liberals were woefully bad (whoda thunk?), with internal expenses eating up about 45% of funds raised. Strangely enough, the Tories raised about twice as much the Liberals, even though the average contribution was just over $100. Seems they are able to energize their base a bit more.
Also, in a country that doesn’t guarantee a right to free speech, we have no PACS, and indeed, no 3rd parties are allowed to advertise on TV, radio, newspapers, or billboard during an election period. It’s just the parties that advertise. Happily, we don’t vote for everything from President to dogcatcher on one day, so the number of ads is miniscule compared to the run up to a US presidential election; it seems like every other ad in October is a political one.
Anyway, that’s how we do it up here; not sure if it’s an improvement over your current system.