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.