February 20, 2009

BAILOUT AS PAYOLA: Did Campaign Cash Influence Bailout? Banks Get 258,000 Percent Return from Investments in D.C. Pols. As I’ve said before, an economy in which political payoffs earn a much higher rate of return than real investments is not a healthy thing. But wait, look who figures prominently:

In my weeks of research into understanding how America went from economic lynchpin to a wayward ship drifting on a sea of economic trouble, I find myself baffled and appalled by statements from Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

His anger seems real enough. But the stench of hypocrisy reeks up the room every time he forgets to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars he received in 2008 as campaign donations from these same banks, their management and employees—currently now under receivership of the U.S. taxpayer. . . . While he was crafting legislation to rescue his friends, Dodd “received $854,200 from the T.A.R.P. companies in the 2008 election cycle, including money to his presidential campaign” according to a recent Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) report.

And just this week, Dodd’s name surfaced again as recipient of $27,500 in campaign cash from the latest fraudulent investment house, Stanford Financial Group of Houston, TX, and Antigua. Robert Allen Stanford was a top Democratic contributor, and is currently at large—wanted by the F.B.I. for defrauding investors by inflating outcomes—in what appears to be a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme.

Read the whole thing.

Comments are closed.
InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.