It was pretty funny to read last week about how American International Group donated $50,000 in December 2003 through various subsidiaries to the gubernatorial campaign of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who certainly went on to bite the hand that fed him!
Of course, in an article appearing in the Sept. 19 edition of The New York Times, the reporter, Mike McIntire, made it clear that the "contributions were made before Mr. Spitzer's office began investigating insurance industry practices, including those of AIG, in mid-2004."
He also pointed out that "AIG has made no further contributions to the Spitzer campaign since then." I wonder why.
It must have seemed like a good idea at the time for AIG to curry favor with the person who could be choosing the next superintendent of insurance regulating the giant carrier, but in retrospect, it's incredibly ironic.
I give Mr. Spitzer credit for not allowing the financial contributions of any particular entity influence how he does his job.
On the other hand, it's unfortunate that the crusading AG decided to keep the cash despite all the questionable practices he cited at AIG. "Mr. Spitzer's campaign has said that its policy is not to accept contributions from anyone who is the subject of an investigation" by the AG's office, The Times reported. However, the article added that Mr. Spitzer "will not return contributions made by companies or individuals before they come under investigation."
As the Church Lady character used to sneer on Saturday Night Live: HOW CONVENIENT!
I think Mr. Clean should come clean himself and donate the money to a restitution fund for policyholders allegedly harmed in bid-rigging schemes, or shareholders who lost money because of alleged balance sheet manipulation on AIG's part involving finite reinsurance deals.
This would seem to be a no-brainer. It's not as if Sir Eliot needs the dough--not with the huge lead he enjoys over his Republican opponent, John Faso. And think of the upside, Mr. AG! You would look like a great statesman if you returned the tainted money. By taking it, however, you look like just another hypocritical political hack!
What's your take on this, folks? Do you think Eliot should give the money back?
Comments (3)
Sam:
This is the gutsiest article that I have seen on the subject.
Everyone else has been thinkng it, but nobody would say it...until now.
Congratulations!
Posted by george nordhaus | September 27, 2006 11:16 AM
Posted on September 27, 2006 11:16
Sam,
Nice article. I agree. Giving that money back or donating it to policyholders is the only responsible thing to do.
I said long ago (and many disagreed) that Mr. Spitzer's investigations were at worst a personal vendetta against the Greenbergs, or at best a thinly-veiled attempt to grab some political glory by boosting name recognition before the election.
I have always been proud to admit I am a Democrat (even in the insurance industry), but if dear old Eliot ever goes any higher than the governor's office, I may have to change my party affiliation. Ralph Nader anyone?
Posted by Jennifer Overhulse-King | September 27, 2006 1:37 PM
Posted on September 27, 2006 13:37
Mr. Spitzer has a valid technical claim that funds donated prior to any investigatory probe are not tainted.
At the same time, the practical result of his retention of AIG funds is that he is profiting from monies obtained from AIG from policyholders and others for whose protection Mr. Spitzer's office exists.
Bottom line: he should return any and all contributions obtained from AIG and from other donors under similar circumstances.
Posted by barbara burns | September 29, 2006 12:22 PM
Posted on September 29, 2006 12:22