3/22/2009

8 Responses to “TARP Funds Used for Campaign Donations”

1. One would think this sort of thing would be, you know, illegal or something.

   Steve B (5eacf6) — 3/23/2009 @ 2:43 am

   
   

2. Somehow I have my doubts that the Members of Congress will get as excited about this as they did over the AIG bonuses.

   The sarcastic Dana (3e4784) — 3/23/2009 @ 5:43 am

   
   

3. I wonder: Will the House pass a 90% tax on campaign contributions received from sources getting government bailouts?

   The inquisitive Dana (3e4784) — 3/23/2009 @ 5:44 am

   
   

4. Now, This is Change I can believe in!

   And by “Believe In”, I mean shake my head in disgust.

   Techie (9c008e) — 3/23/2009 @ 5:55 am

   
   

5. Moreover, from the article:

   House Democratic fundraisers have quietly passed the word that the party’s campaign committee will resume accepting them—but down the road, not right now.

   Karl (8966b4) — 3/23/2009 @ 5:59 am

   
   

6. Solve the long term problem – put a 90% tax on congressional salaries.

   Perfect Sense (60c338) — 3/23/2009 @ 8:15 am

   
   

7. Hate to be a dissenting voice here, and I’m emphatically no fan of the way the Obama Administration and the Reid-Pelosi Congress are trying to handle our economic woes.

   But the linked article doesn’t actually trace any specific dollars from TARP to any particular campaign contribution. And there’s no hint of a showing that but for the TARP payments, these contributions would not have been made. There’s not even a comparison to the pre-TARP campaign contributions made by these same entities — which could well have been substantially higher in the past, pre-TARP. If so, Newsweek could just as well have written a breathless piece entitled “TARP succeeds in curbing influence of big companies, lobbyists, on Capitol Hill.”

   I don’t think TARP was intended to extinguish the First Amendment rights even of corporate entities who accept funding under it.

   And the total amount of money involved — $85,300 — couldn’t even buy you lunch with Dollar Bill Jefferson; much less could just a piece of that get you significant leverage with someone like Steny Hoyer or Eric Cantor. On the other hand, is there anyone who’s surprised that major corporations make campaign contributions to Congressional leadership figures in both political parties?

   This “story” amounts to a juicy but unsupported conclusion by one Washington lawyer “who tracks donations” — I guess I could be considered a Texas lawyer “who tracks donations,” or you a California lawyer “who tracks donations,” so why isn’t Michael Isakoff hitting us up for quotes? — and one unidentified lobbyist. Isakoff sometimes comes up with some real news, but with due respect, this isn’t such an occasion.

   Beldar (9f042b) — 3/23/2009 @ 1:03 pm

   
   

8. Very deceptive headline.

   Corporations are prohibited by law from making campaign contributions. I may not have the 100% correct but I believe a corporation or its employees can set up a PAC and the employees can voluntarily contribute to it. From there, it can go to various candidates. I do not see how it is possible TARP money can go to campaign contributions. It is possible the employees of TARP recipients contributed to a PAC which contributed to a campaign or they contributed directly. This is another example of the dumbing down of our great nation. Sensationalism is more important than accuracy and informing the public of the truth.

   I wish we could have an honest debate over issues rather than twist facts to make them support one’s opinion.

   PC (9d3fcc) — 3/24/2009 @ 1:07 am