Well, that was predictable. AIG donations ....

[beachmom]

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000123&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=A

Top recipients from AIG:

Dodd, Chris (D-Conn) $281,038
Bush, George W (R-Texas) $200,560
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $111,875
Obama, Barack (D-Ill) $110,332
McCain, John (R-Ariz) $99,249
Baucus, Max (D-Mont) $90,000
Kerry, John (D-Mass) $85,000
Johnson, Nancy L (R-Conn) $75,400
Sununu, John E (R-NH) $69,049
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $61,515

The donations are a combination of individual employees and PACs, and it is not broken out. However, I think even if it only came from AIG employees, I'm not exactly a fan of them either:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031804104.html

WILTON, Conn., March 18 -- A solitary flat-screen television hangs on the back wall of the trading floor inside the headquarters of AIG Financial Products here. Wednesday afternoon, the most-talked-about employees in America huddled around it to find out just how despised they have become.

They almost pull off the sympathy card, and then blow it here:

The Financial Products staff met twice Wednesday inside one of the firm's large, glass-walled conference rooms to discuss the boss's letter. Numerous employees indicated that they would be willing to return the money, but most wanted nothing more to do with the firm. It was a preview of the possible exodus to come, one that concerns Liddy himself.

"My fear is that the damage is done," he told a congressional subcommittee. "That they will return , but that they will return it with their resignations."

There is little doubt within Financial Products that he's right about that.

"Nobody is going to give it back and then stay," said one of the firm's employees. "If they give back the money, then they will walk. And they will walk into the arms of AIG's counterparties."

God, I can't stand those people.

Here is the deal, guys: John Kerry had no choice but to take their money. The fundraising/campaign contribution system sucks. Still, acting like it's not there is not helpful. Dodd is much worse, of course, and clearly presidential nominees always collect more than most. Still, not good publicity for the Senator.

Originally reported here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/aig_pariah_now.html

[karynnj]

1. The part of this money from individuals should NOT be considered wrong

The majority of people in this country work for companies. If you look at the various cycles, Kerry got no money in 1990 or 1996. In 1998, he got $10,000. This was while he was on the banking committee. In 2000, he got $3,500 and in 2002 he got $15,600. In 2004, he got $55,900 compared to Bush's $160,160 - no surprise Hank Greenberg was one of Bush's "Rangers". In 2006 and 2008, he again got zero. These years he was on the Finance committee.

The fact is that in any of these opensecret stories, Kerry's name will be high - just because he did raise a huge amount of money in 2004 once he was the likely Democratic nominee. But, if you eliminate the 2004, Kerry would be at $29,100 - below about 25 names (HRC and Biden would be lower).

Kerry's opponents in 2008 tried to use the Freddie and Fannie numbers against him, but that charge did not resonate. Opensecrets had a breakdown on PAC vs individual on the FMs - there there was an interesting pattern. Though the Democrats dominated the top of the total and the individual donor list, Republicans headed the PAC list. That would likely be true as well here. (We know Kerry got some back money for 2004, but by far the bulk of it were individual contributions.

Kerry's clean election speech (and many times he spoke of raising money) really does show where he stands - the problem is that very few legislators were with him in making the drastic change needed. I also would not have liked it if (when I was working) AT&T's contributions were treated as AIG's are now. My contributions to any candidates were not from or for the good of AT&T.

[Mass]

4. Thanks, I was looking for these numbers.

Also, I would be interested to see numbers/ cycles (excluding presidential campaigns). Somebody like Sununu and Clinton have only be there for a short time (though I think Clinton would come out with a low number). Kerry and Biden have been there forever.

[karynnj]

5. If you go to Beachmom's first link

there is drop down book - for cycle. The top one is all cycles, then all election years going back to 1990.

[beachmom]

6. Yeah, but you can't read those employees' minds. Freddie/Fannie

made more sense, since there clearly was common thought on their right to exist between the Democratic party and those companies. But AIG???

What I am wondering is how it all works. I NEVER donated to a politician until 2004. But from everything I have read, some employees are STRONGLY URGED to donate to Candidate X by the top executives. This is especially true with law firms. What I saw in the Freddie/Fannie case was that a lot of higher up people donated. So to act like this is a big nothing is frankly naive.

But ... I agree that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between Kerry, a former presidential candidate, and Chris Dodd, who really deserves to be thrown out of office. It is not looking good at all for him in Conn.:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/nyregion/20dodd.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

However, as I will continue to maintain, it would have been better had Kerry not taken these donations from AIG employees. I also wish the media would distinguish PAC vs. employees and break it out easily. But when I see Vice Presidents and Lawyers of firms giving that means something differently than, say, an Administrative Assistant or IT employee.

[karynnj]

10. AIG is a huge company

I knew tangentially some people who worked/work for AIG because some lived in my town and I met them through being involved in my kids' schools or through neighborhood events. (One AIG person from my town with a kid in my youngest daughter's grade was a 911 victim. He was attending a meeting.) They were no different than the people I met at AT&T. They were different that the Bell Labs people, but not in any way that had anything to do with politics.

I have given money to people running for President, Senate or local offices at least back into the 1970s - though never all that much. I never was given a list of "good" people to support, though people were encouraged to contribute to AT&T's PAC - something I refused (with no consequences) to do because I told the person circulating the payroll slips to do it - they might fund people I want to defeat. (In the groups I was in AT&T had a junior new person do the solicitation job to avoid anyone feeling it could impact their careers.)

As to Kerry rejecting money from AIG employees, which other companies would you add to that list? In 2004, AIG was a prestigious insurance company. Should he have excluded Verizon and AT&T because of FISA (that was not then known)? That would have lost him contributions from many people I know who would be contributing either because he was the Democrat or because they really liked him.

The fact is that I would assume that most of the 2004 money was raised after Kerry was the nominee. It doesn't seem credible to me that Kerry likely even monitored by company the amount he was getting. There is a correlation between level and ability to give, but I seriously doubt that an executive would think that giving Kerry $2000 (the 2004 max) would buy more than maybe getting to go to a fund raiser and shaking his hand. There is no way that anyone could run for President and not be on these open secrets lists for nearly any major company that gets into some notoriety.

As to Dodd, I agree with you - he was in trouble before this week. I seriously don't think he can survive not telling the complete truth immediately on that language. It still would have looked bad, but nowhere near as bad as it does - and even the current quotes in the link seem disingenuous. Between that, the mortgage, and the fact that people are scared and unhappy - his popularity is in trouble. He is very unlucky that he is up for re-election in 2010 - though last year would likely have been bad too - given when the mortgage came out.

[TayTay]

2. The solution to this is the get publicly funded Congressional elections

Which Congress refuses to do. We have another shot at doing this in this 2009-2012 period, but there is tremendous resistance to this.

The truth is that very few people want this reform. The people with the money tend to get re-elected. They don't want to change a system that benefits them. (Same thing for reform how districts are drawn for US House races. The gerrymandering benefits the people who get elected, so it continues.)

The damage from the current system is wide and deep. Why is it that Congress tends to work from late Monday afternoon to late Thursday evening or, maybe, Friday mornings? That is not a full work week for most Americans. It's because the Members of Congress, House and Senate, are out on the trail raising money. The average contested Senate race now http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2009/01/14/2010_us_senate_race_a_question.html">costs about $10 million. (A few states, such as New York and California are many times that amount.) That means that someone running for re-election will need to raise around $32-35,000 a week every year, for six years to get to that amount. That is a lot of receptions and breakfasts and lunches to do with donors.

The system is failing. We don't have a full-time Congress right now because of these fund-raising demands. That means that Congress, an allegedly co-equal branch of government, delegates a lot of it's power to the Executive branch because of time constraints. This is all kinds of wrong for our democracy.

Sen. Kerry is one of the good guys on this front. He also participates in the current system and abides by it's rules. Sen. Kerry has submitted bills on election funding reform, co-sponsored other bills, including MCCain-Feingold in 1998 and so forth. But, there simply is not enough support.

Pres Obama, who is the all-time champion fund-raiser, needs to endorse reform. However, remember, the current system also made him the all-time champion fund-raiser. So, sigh, we shall see if he walks the walk on this one.

[Mass]

3. Slightly OT, but I was happy to find this post that reflects perfectly my thoughts (and my worries)

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/thought-for-day-by-tristero-unless-it.html

hought For The Day

by tristero

Unless it leads to immediate, serious, careful, and comprehensive regulation and oversight of our criminally corrupt financial institutions, the furor over the outrageous AIG bonuses - and the current legislation to tax those bonuses- will be just a tempest in a very tiny teapot, full of sound and fury, signifying exactly nada.

You say symbolism matters, even if the bonuses merely represent less than 1/10th of 1% of all the taxpayer simoleons dumped into AIG's mattresses? I say, symbols, schmimbols. It's time for action, real serious action. If I want a good show, I'll go see some Shakespeare or Buffy. Spare me the cheap cartoon of a Congress (and administration) pretending to confront serious problems when all they're really addressing is their image problem .

For the rest, we are talking of fundraising across 20 years and a presidential campaign. Not really surprising. But Dodd and Schumer (both of which did not run a long presidential campaign) should be asked serious questions.

Anyway, the only solution to this is publicly financed campaigns.

[karynnj]

7. Nice quote there

It would be fantastic if this did lead to very serious regulation of both the banking/financial industries and campaign financing.

This really does look bad for Dodd, Schumer, and Baucus. Baucus runs in a much lower cost state and is not likely to be their Senator. If this does really hurt Dodd, it might be the push needed to get support for the reforms people like Kerry have wanted. They could all see how it can compromise them.

[beachmom]

8. Thanks for that post. You know I am not sure what to do regarding

the financial institutions who have been bailed out and how they inexplicably continue to do stuff that anyone with half a political brain would know is going to invite fury by the public (like Shitibank's CEO spending $10 million to upgrade an executive suite). It may seem like the government should just take over, and forget about these idiots. I know at least the FDIC has very smart competent employees who could do good work. The problem is these companies are so big, the government simply may not have the resources to do it. And the government, going in cold, may not be equipped to deal with the complexities and vast size of these firms, and handle the situation in a timely manner without making big mistakes.

I wonder if the bonuses, executive suites, etc. are indicative of much larger problems (i.e. they are screwing the taxpayer on much bigger issues in these companies), or whether they are small blips. That these companies are being unwound properly. That there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Josh Marshall thinks the fat cats are in control, still telling the government what to do. I don't know if that is true or not, frankly.

[karynnj]

9. Here's a page with their PAC contributions

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00097725&cycle=2008

Absent for all cycles - John Kerry