In a previous posting under the title,
“Did Mike Castle Help Funnel Money To Foreign Banks?”
I asked the question whether, due to Mike Castle voting for TARP, had he helped funnel money to overseas banks? I asked the question because of a Congressional Oversight Panel Report, that showed, that tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars had been funneled from the TARP bailout funds to foreign banks such as the French bank, Societe Generale which received $11.9 billion, and the German bank, Deutsche Bank received $11.8 billion. With billions more going to other banks around the world.
The TARP funds ended up overseas after being handed out to AIG, the money then flowed overseas to banks that had invested in AIG. AIG received $182 billion dollars in TARP funds, with tens of billions of tax payer dollars going to bail out banks in foreign countries. And all the while, here in the United States, things worsened.
The Oversight Panel’s report also stated that there didn’t seem to be any data about where the money would be going. So Mike Castle voted for a bill without knowing where billions of dollars would end up.
A fact that many voters may not be aware of, is that over the years AIG has contributed thousands of dollars to Mike Castle’s political campaigns. Since 1992 to present, Mike castle has received $29,350 , from individuals and PAC money associated with AIG. In 1998 and 2002 alone he received $21,400.
Like so much in Mr. Castle’s history as an elected official this is not illegal, but it raises some questions about what constitutes a conflict of interest?
Are we as voters to ignore the fact that our Representative in Washington voted for a bill, that an oversight panel tells us, had no data about how the money would be spent, allowing U.S. taxpayer dollars to end up overseas to bailout foreign banks. Are we also to ignore the long history Mr. castle has of receiving campaign contributions from the banking industry and bankruptcy law sector, all while he is a ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee?
When you look at AIG’s history of donating, they do contribute to both parties, though they tend to lean a little to the left donating slightly more to the Democrats.
A couple of notables are V.P. Joe Biden who has received over the years $42,350, $20,975 of it in the 2008 election cycle alone. Also President Obama has received $149,003 in just two election cycles. First in 2004 he received $6,000 and in the 2008 election cycle Pres. Obama received $143,003.
This puts Mr. Castle in his usual company, with the Democrats.
Some will say that this is just another case of Frank Knotts going after Mike Castle. Well folks, there is an old saying, “usually ,where there is smoke there is fire”. So while I am spending a lot of time looking through FEC reports and voting data bases, I am only brining to light that which is already there. It is up to the voters to decide on sept 14th if they want more of this fuzzy,quasi legal maneuvering, that has allowed Mr. Castle to procure millions of dollars in donations from the very banks and law firms that he has oversight of on the House Financial Services Committee.
Do we want to continue to elect a man who it would seem, spends more time raising campaign funds, than he does reading the bills he votes for.
The bailouts (that started under Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke) don’t sit well with me. After all most of us could use a bailout, and you can bet your booty we won’t get one, nor should we.
Many businesses are incorporated in Delaware including banks and insurance companies like AIG and others. It doesn’t seem out of the ordinary that these companies would contribute to local politicians.
P.S.- I may have heard it wrong, but I think Dan Gaffney of WGMD radio just said that people would be “foolish” to vote for Christine O’Donnell due to her messed up finances.
C’mon Frank, give the Tarp stuff a rest. You don’t mean to suggest that Castle is the only Republican who voted for Tarp and who received contributions from companies that received Tarp funds do you? As I recall, a majority of R’s in Congress voted for Tarp. And my guess is that a majority of R’s (if not all) received money from some beneficiary of Tarp.
And, if Christine O’Possum was ever lucky enough to have some Tarp-recipient make a contribution to her, you’d be all over yourself justifying it.
Oh, and by the way, the House Financial Services Committee has no oversight over law firms. Moreover, I suppose this means that O’Possum shouldn’t accept money from lawyers now.
I’ve yet to hear why TARP is a bad thing Frank. Personally I don’t mind the bailouts as long as they are loans that are paid back. They saved this world from a 2nd great depression. They aren’t perfect, but they worked.
GeorgeC said, “They saved this world from a 2nd great depression. ”
Don’t believe the hype, and don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
SF asked, “You don’t mean to suggest that Castle is the only Republican who voted for Tarp and who received contributions from companies that received Tarp funds do you? ” Of course not SF. But here is the thing, Mike Castle is my Representative, and I have voted for him in the past, that makes me responsible for his actions. I told him right after the vote and right before the election of 2008, at the Foodlion in Bridgeville, that is was a mistake and it is still a mistake and now we are finding out that out tax dollars went to bail out foreign banks. And once again, it makes little difference to me who was in charge when it happened.
And as to your point about, “the House Financial Services Committee has no oversight over law firms.” This is true , but when Mr. Castle cast votes that a lot of economist have said have lead and would lead to a larger economic downturn, and when the law firms that contribute to his campaign are working in the corporate restructuring and bankruptcy sector, then I believe that is reason enough to ask what constitutes conflict of interest.
And GeorgeC, what is wrong with TARP in my point of views is that is an overreaching of government. Would we have seen hard times? Yes. But would we have avoided some of the other things that came after? I believe so. I feel that by propping up failing companies,TARP proloned the recession. Instead of allowing the market to cleanse itself, TARP caused the failing companies to remain as a drag on the economy. If the companies assets were sold on the open market at a reduced cost , they would stimulated the economy much more than TARP by removing the failing parts. When you have a cancer you either cut it out or treat it to reduce it. Neither is a guaranteed treatment. And ask two different economist and you will get two different takes on the issue.
But again let me redirect this topic. It is not a discussion of whether TARP was right or wrong. Though many would like to direct the conversation away from the real subject. That being, that Mike Castle voted for a bill without knowing exactly who and where the money would benefit. He has also received donations from the largest recipient of TARP. I think voters have a right to know and to decide for themselves. I also know that many people would prefer that voters not know anything and to just vote for the party endorsed candidate.
Yes Frank, he did. Because the alternative was another depression. The last time we let the market cleanse itself was a disaster. It indirectly lead to a global conflict and directly lead to 33% unemployment and a decade of despair. These “hard times” would make this recession we are in now look like losing some loose change. These companies are by and large in the black again, and many of them were in the red because of things completely out of their control.
The ‘disaster’ is the Federal Reserve and fake money.