Who likes AIG?
 

Rangel Pushed for a Donation; Insurer Pushed for a Tax Cut

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
On April 21, 2008, Representative Charles B. Rangel met with officials of the American International Group, the now-troubled insurance giant, to ask for a donation to a school of public service that City College of New York was building in his honor.

Mr. Rangel had already helped secure a $5 million pledge for the project from a foundation controlled by Maurice R. Greenberg, one of the company’s largest shareholders and its former chief executive. And C.C.N.Y. officials, according to the school’s own records, had high hopes for A.I.G. — a donation of perhaps as much as $10 million.

The company has never made a contribution. But less than a month after Mr. Rangel met with its officials, the company turned to the congressman for help: A senior A.I.G. executive who had attended the fund-raising meeting wrote a letter directly to Mr. Rangel, chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to support a provision of a tax bill that would save A.I.G. millions of dollars a year, according to Joseph M. Norton, a company spokesman.

Mr. Rangel’s exchange with A.I.G. last spring appears to be at odds with the public statements he has made since his fund-raising for the school became an issue. When his approach to A.I.G. was first reported in The Washington Post in July, Mr. Rangel said that he could not recall any issues his committee might have considered in which A.I.G. had an interest.

“I can’t think of one piece of legislation that impacts them, and there has never been a time that they’ve raised any legislation to me,” the paper quoted Mr. Rangel as saying. Indeed, in Mr. Rangel’s formal submission to the House ethics committee, asking it to review his use of Congressional stationery in soliciting money for the school, he wrote, “So far as I am aware, none of those whom I wrote had any pending requests into my office, lobbied me regarding any legislation before my committee, or asked me for assistance on legislation in which they had a special interest.”

Mr. Rangel, who had opposed the tax change A.I.G. was seeking — part of a much bigger piece of legislation — ultimately allowed it to be added to a bill he sponsored. Mr. Rangel’s aides, and fellow Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, say that he agreed to the bill only after being persuaded by other members of Congress that it would help an array of American companies weather the economic uncertainty.
After Mr. Rangel’s office was asked in recent days about the letter from A.I.G., Janice Mays, counsel to the Ways and Means Committee, said a search of the committee’s records had not turned up a copy of it. But she said Mr. Rangel had already changed his mind about the tax provision before A.I.G. says it sent him the letter.

Federal statutes and House ethics rules forbid members of Congress from asking for anything of value from a person or company with business before them.

more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/nyregion/03rangel.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Dodd reaped campaign cash from AIG

Democratic Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd is the chief beneficiary of campaign cash from American Interational Group, AIG, the insurance firm at the center of public outrage for handing out lavish bonuses.

Dodd has received more campaign donations from AIG's political action committee and employees than any other lawmaker. Records made available by the Center for Responsive Politics show Dodd received $280,238 of the more than $4 million AIG has spent trying to influence Washington this decade.

In the aftermath of disclosures AIG spent hundreds of millions of taxdollars giving employees generous bonuses, a handful of Democrats have proposed imposing a heavy tax, between 90 to 100 percent, on AIG's bonus pay to recoup the money.

While many members of Congress consider this idea there has been confusion about Dodd's role in placing limits on executive pay in the president's stimulus bill.

Fox Business reported Dodd inserted language into the bill to place restrictions on any bonuses given by companies being assisted by the goverment that were handed out after February 11. Therefore, the "Dodd Amendment" would have effectively protected the bonuses AIG handed out to their executives since the bonuses were doled out before that date. ABC News similarly reported "Dodd's measure explicitly exempted bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill."

more at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/Mar/17/dodd-reaped-campaign-cash-from-aig/

No, not that Chris Dodd???

Chris Dodd's Irish "Cottage"

The Senate Ethics Committee has been looking into possible conflicts of interest in Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd's 2003 mortgages. Now questions about another Dodd real-estate adventure, this one in Ireland, should keep the Ethicists even busier. All the more because Mr. Dodd's "cottage" purchase involves a crooked stock trader for whom the Senator once did a very big political favor.

Mr. Dodd is already under a cloud for receiving what a former loan officer claims was preferential treatment from Countrywide Financial on two mortgage refinancings -- in Connecticut and Washington -- in 2003. Countrywide was an aggressive lender to shaky borrowers and relied heavily on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy those mortgages in bulk. As a senior Member of the Senate Banking Committee, Mr. Dodd was one of Fannie's greatest promoters. Mr. Dodd promised last year to disclose mortgage documents to prove he got no special treatment, but so far all he's done is let a few hand-picked journalists take a quick peek before he put the papers back in storage.


Now enterprising Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie has uncovered another suspicious real-estate investment. The story starts in 1994, when the Senator became one-third owner of a 10-acre estate, then valued at $160,000, on the island of Inishnee on Galway Bay. The property is near the fashionable village of Roundstone, a well-known celebrity haunt.

William Kessinger bought the other two-thirds share in the estate. Edward Downe, Jr., who has been a business partner of Mr. Kessinger, signed the deed as a witness. Senator Dodd and Mr. Downe are long-time friends, and in 1986 they had purchased a condominium together in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Downe is also quite the character. The year before the Galway deal, in 1993, he pleaded guilty to insider trading and securities fraud and in 1994 agreed to pay the SEC $11 million in a civil settlement. The crimes were felonies and in 2001, as President Clinton was getting ready to leave office, Mr. Dodd successfully lobbied the White House for a full pardon for Mr. Downe.

The next year -- according to a transfer document at the Irish land registry viewed by Mr. Rennie -- Mr. Kessinger sold his two-thirds share to Mr. Dodd for $122,351. The Senator says he actually paid Mr. Kessinger $127,000, which he claims was based on an appraisal at the time. That means, at best, poor Mr. Kessinger earned less than 19% over eight years on the sale of his two-thirds share to Mr. Dodd. But according to Ireland's Central Bank, prices of existing homes in Ireland quadrupled from 1994 to 2004.

Perhaps Mr. Kessinger is a lousy businessman. Or maybe he merely relied on Mr. Dodd to tell him how much the property was worth. In his Senate financial disclosure documents from 2002-2007, Mr. Dodd reported that the Galway home was worth between $100,001 and $250,000. However, Mr. Rennie reports that in 2006 and 2007 the Senator added a footnote that reads: "value based on appraisal at time of purchase."

Mr. Dodd had good reason to add the qualifier. Senate rules call for valuations to be current and anyone who looked into the estimate would immediately spot Mr. Dodd's lowballing. A June 17, 2007 feature in Britain's Sunday Times did just that. "Diary" observed that in Roundstone "a two-bed recently made E680,000 ($918,000) and a cottage is currently on offer for E800,000." Noting Mr. Dodd's estimate of his property -- between E75,000 and E185,000 -- the diarist quipped, "to hell with the stamp duty, and form an orderly queue."

Mr. Dodd is busy these days blaming everyone else for the real-estate bubble and financial meltdown. But he owes his constituents and the Senate an honest accounting of his Galway property over the past 15 years. If its value grew with the rest of the area, he needs to explain why Mr. Kessinger handed it over for a song, why that isn't an unreported gift under Senate rules, and what role Mr. Downe might have played as a middleman.

More broadly, Connecticut voters might want to know why their senior Senator has hung around for years with Mr. Downe, the kind of financial scoundrel Mr. Dodd spends so much time denouncing.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681364667801647.html

Pay for Play? Isn't this what got the Illinois ex-gov. in trouble? Looks like being one of the annointed 535 boots the cashflow game a bit...

I'll ask you the same question I asked Botnst - are you ready to call for public financing of campaigns?

Me?

If so, yes given the limit is low. There are ways of doing this economically.

I'm also in favor of term limits.

Will PAC's be concurrently outlawed? If not, a ban on private contributions directed to a specific candidate is pointless.

Like it? Hell, I wish I WORKED there! How many companies give you a big bonus when you screw up as badly as they screwed up?

Ahh Dodd, only morons in CT must vote because I can't figure out how that slimball keeps getting elected.

Simply ban all TV/Radio political advocacy ads during elections, and mandate that all politcal issue stances be directly communicated by the candidates over a public channel, CSPAN for national offices and Public Access Channels for local offices - the whole point of these PACs is to raise money to buy air time, once the airwaves are restricted from participation in our process, the need for this massive amount of money just to be competive in an election ceases to exist. Ban all contributions from all commercial enterprises and special interests, period. Primary elections could be exempted, so each party is free to have its own food fight, but actual elections should be free from any and all corporate,union or any other kind of special-interest influence.

You asked me that? Simple answer there: NO.

In fact, I would eliminate all campaign financing laws except three: Absolute public disclosure of all donations BEFORE any form of expenditure and second: The candidate is personally liable for all taxes and criminally liable for any violations and third: NO BUNDLING.

Want Chicom money? No problem and no need to launder it through Buddhist Nuns. Just be up-front.

B

Getting back on topic, I would like to see a complete list of people who have done political favors for AIG and have received favors from AIG. Same with any and all beneficiaries of Congressional & Executive largesse.

Wouldn't we like to know who has bought the various pols who give our money away? Isn't this a non-partisan corruption?

Liddy seems like an upright guy, but the way he describes the situation - a trillion dollars worth of financial inventory at risk of blowing up unless these bonuses get paid - makes it sound like some AIG employees are holding the country for ransom.

I guess people can always switch their insurance carrier from AIG to someone else.

Who else?

I dunno. Maybe Joe's House of Tamale's and Insurance. At least Joe still has money of his own.

You're doing a hell of a job, Chris Dodd!
 

It's like a REAL lie. It's more like a non-lie, lie.

Bot

--------------------------------------------------------------

Dodd admits to role in AIG loophole

(CNN) -- After denying having anything to do with crafting language in the stimulus bill that allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses, Sen. Christopher Dodd admitted that he and the Treasury Department were responsible for the loophole.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, says he was unaware of the AIG bonuses until last week.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, says he was unaware of the AIG bonuses until last week.

Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face lawsuits if bonus contracts were breached.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment.

Congress last month passed a bill that President Obama signed into law, allowing AIG to keep its bonuses. For days, no one would say who was responsible for the loophole that let that happen.

The $787 billion stimulus bill included a measure from Dodd to limit executive bonuses strictly. But slipped inside at the last minute was an exemption for bonuses agreed to "on or before February 11, 2009." That allowed AIG to go ahead with its controversial bonuses.

On Tuesday, Dodd denied that he had anything to do with adding the language.
Road to Rescue: CNN Survival Guide
Unprecedented reporting on the money meltdown that's changing your life
This week on CNN
see full schedule »

"When I left the Senate, it was not in there. So when I wrote the language, there was no such language like that," he said then.

But, saying his previous comments had been misconstrued, Dodd said Wednesday that he added the exemption after getting pressure from the Treasury Department.

"I agreed reluctantly," Dodd said. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent."

Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, told CNN's Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer that Obama officials pushed for the language to an amendment designed to limit bonuses and "golden parachutes" at those companies.

He said Wednesday that the "grandfather clause" language "seemed like innocent modifications" at the time. Video Watch Dodd's interview with CNN's Bash »

But that change ultimately allowed AIG to go ahead with doling out $165 million in bonuses. The federal government rescued the company from financial ruin with more than $170 billion in taxpayer assistance. Taxpayers now own nearly 80 percent of AIG.

Dodd said he did not speak to high-ranking administration officials, and the change came after his staff spoke with staffers from Treasury. iReport.com: Sound off on AIG

In a statement later Wednesday, Dodd said that his amendment allows the Treasury Department to review bonus contracts such as AIG's and seek ways to get the money back for taxpayers. Who's insured by AIG? »

Propelled by the outrage across the country, the House of Representatives planned to vote Thursday on a bill that would apply a 90 percent tax to bonuses paid out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was approved last year to stabilize the financial sector. See facts, attitudes and analysis on the recession »
Don't Miss

* CNN/Money: Congress to get tough with AIG
* Geithner: AIG must pay back bonus money
* Stimulus bill allows for bonuses

The bill affects companies getting $5 billion or more in TARP funds and bonuses paid out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It would apply to people making more than $250,000 a year.

Trying to quell the outrage and move the country forward, Obama said Wednesday to put the blame on him.

"Everybody's pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault. Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the president," he said at a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California.

The president did not directly address the language change.

AIG's derivatives branch is in Dodd's home state. Many of the bonuses in question were awarded to executives at that branch. But in his statement, Dodd said he had no idea the legislation would affect the company.

"Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week," he said.

Dodd also said in the statement that his comments on Tuesday and Wednesday to CNN did not conflict.

"I answered a question by CNN [Tuesday] night regarding whether or not [an exemption before] a specific date was aimed at protecting AIG," he said. "When I saw that my comments had been misconstrued, I felt it was important to set the record straight -- that this had nothing to do with AIG."

According to a transcript of the Tuesday interview, Dodd was asked about an executive-compensation provision "that exempts everything prior to February 11, 2009 -- any contracts prior to that date."
iReport.com: AIG stands for 'Actually, it's government'

He said that language was not in the version of the bill that left the Senate and that he was not one of the negotiators who hammered out a compromise between the House and Senate versions of the plan.

"I can't point a finger at someone who offered a change at all," he said.

Asked whether he later had been able to figure out who added the language, he said, "I really don't know."

In Wednesday's interview, Dodd never said his Tuesday comments had been misunderstood.

"Going back and looking, I apologize," he said when questioned about his words from the day before.
advertisement

On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, AIG chief executive Edward Liddy called the roughly $165 million in bonuses "distasteful" but necessary because of legal obligations and competition.

"I've asked those who received retention payments in excess of 100,000 or more to return at least half of those payments. Some have already stepped forward and offered to give up 100 percent of their payments," said Liddy, who joined AIG after the bailout.

The investigation of AIG can come later. If you want real scandle look into favors done by ENRON for pols that did favors for them.

At least the US did not have to pay to clean ENRON up. If you owned ENRON stock the money came out of your pocket. I know a lot of people that were wiped out by Ken Lay and his friends, but Lay and his friends were not among those being wiped out. In fact, they came out of it very well off even by the standards of an energy company.

But back to AIG... They had to pay the money. It was part of a contract. And after all, isn't living up to their contracts what insurance companies are famious for? When was the last time you heard of anyone having to sue an insurance company to make them live up to a contract?

I have paid bonus money out myself, but always to units that were successful. I think I would have had a hard time justifying a bonus to any group that lost 67.5 billion dollars a year much less a quarter.

My memory is kind of hazy here but didn't I see a bunch of ENRON execs perp-walking with the FBI and then get prosecuted? Didn't ENRON declare bankruptcy?

Didn't people who invested in ENRON pay a price for the illegal activity at ENRON?

Where are the AIG consequences? Where is the criminal investigation?