Rogue’s Gallery: AIG’s Best Friends ($$$) in Washington
EmailRogue’s Gallery – AIG’s Best Friends in Washington ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports: AIG gave out more than $630,000 in political contributions during the 2008 political cycle. The list of the top recipients is who’s who of political power players in Washington, including many of key players behind the financial bailout that rescued AIG with billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Here’s the list, courtesy of opensecrets.org: 1. Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Senate $103,100 2. Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $101,332 3. McCain, John (R-AZ) Senate $59,499 4. Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $35,965 5. Baucus, Max (D-MT) Senate $24,750 6. Romney, Mitt (R) Pres $20,850 7. Biden, Joseph R Jr (D-DE) Senate $19,975 8. Larson, John B (D-CT) House $19,750 9. Sununu, John E (R-NH) Senate $18,500 10. Giuliani, Rudolph W (R) Pres $13,200 11. Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA) House $12,000 12. Durbin, Dick (D-IL) Senate $11,000
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back? 
Possible Contraception Compromise in D.C.
Sounds like they were hedging their bets on both sides of the aisles… Seems like their biggest supporter Dodd made sure though that they got treated very well with the bailout money…
Posted by: Fran | March 17, 2009, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
I suggest people follow the “top recipients of AIG contributions” link at AIG. It’s a useful little tool to see what’s going on. They’re clearly angling to buy influence and are pretty good at predicting the winner of an election. For example, in 2004 Bush got $160k while Kerry only got $56k. While in 2008, they bet on Obama with only $59k going to McCain.
Of course, this assumes that if a janitor gives $50 he is acting on behalf of AIG, but the way the donations have no partisan trend other than “the most likely winner” stinks.
Posted by: jhw539 | March 17, 2009, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
Oops, typo – I suggest people follow the “top recipients of AIG contributions” link at *opensecrets*.
Posted by: jhw539 | March 17, 2009, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
As political contributions go, and considering the size of that corporation, this is not much money.
Posted by: hang | March 17, 2009, 5:55 pm 5:55 pm
Wow, I wonder if that is why Senator Dodd was so eager to protect “retention-payment” plans during the stimulus bill conference negotiations – don’t want to bite the hand that feeds you.
http://moronmeter.com
Posted by: I'm With Stupid | March 17, 2009, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
Wow, must be a mere coincidence that both Dodd and Obama are top recipients of AIG money… Of course, there is no bias or influence at all. We need more of this “Change” like we need more corruption in DC.
Posted by: Gina | March 17, 2009, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm
This typical of Washington, and this has been going on for decades. Rick, this is not new….this is what Capitalism looks like in America. By the way Rick, please find out for us who ordered the torture of the captives. Then who got a kick-back from the first stimulus that went to AIG in September.
Posted by: sngeorgia | March 17, 2009, 6:24 pm 6:24 pm
AIG was obviously betting on a Democrat victory in 2008, as they were for a Republican victory in 2004. But they gambled a lot less safely with their insurance funds backing failed mortgages, which didn’t have to be on reserve.
Posted by: kat | March 17, 2009, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm
May I suggest Chris Dodd be the first to fall upon his sword? His resignation should be demanded… or the japanese way. By the way, are congressional raises still going through? Let’s have a 90% tax on those bas***ds.
Posted by: Tom Beebe | March 17, 2009, 6:53 pm 6:53 pm
FALLOUT GROWS: Those who voted for the stimulus supported the clause to protect the AIG’s bonuses. Obama’s Own Stimulus Bill Protects the AIG Bonuses He Now Condemns —
http://www.butasforme.com/2009/03/17/obamas-stimulus-bill-explicitly-grants-aig-the-legal-right-to-hand-out-bonuses/
Looks like Obama sides with AIG, as well as Chris Dodd.
Posted by: jaxon | March 17, 2009, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
The stimulus bill actually limited bonuses going forward..It did not take previous bonuses away- as much as I would like to see them lose those bonuses..it was not arbitrary..they were contracts..legal and binding..If they had just tried to take them away..we all would be screaming SOCIALISM…It would be unconstitutional..and would invove millions in legislation for the government to defend its actions..ANY journalists writing about this perspective???NO..why, because they no nothing about contract law, or what is legal and binding…and are too lazy to find out…
Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 9:13 am 9:13 am