This Appears To Be Worthy of JAIL – RIGHT NOW


You have to be kidding me…

Shortly after Labor Day, as polls continued to sink, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) realized it needed a cash infusion for the upcoming midterm elections. Its chairman, former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, turned to the Bank of America to secure a $15 million revolving credit line. Then, in the middle of this month, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) got another loan from BofA for an additional $17 million.

Problem: Was the loan adequately collateralized – that is, truly “arms length”?

Worse: Two days before the loan was closed, the DNC apparently changed its privacy policy – it appears they may have effectively pledged their donor and contact lists without the consent of most of the people on them!

The DNC loan agreement as posted online by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and signed by former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D) on September 16, 2010, says the loan collateral included: “All electronic mail (‘E-mail’) addresses and other contact lists, records and other Information (electronic or otherwise) relating to contributors, supporters and subscribers owned by any of the Borrowers.” The borrowers in this case were the DNC and the DNC Services Corporation.

The loan agreement further stipulates that if the Democrats defaulted, Bank of America would be entitled to “proceeds from any fundraising activity, refunds, reimbursements, or proceeds from the rental or sale of mailing, contact or subscription lists or Information (electronic or otherwise).”


More to the point, are those lists worth anywhere near the amount of these loans?

Because if they’re not, then the loan could be ruled a DONATION to the DNC, and that, coming from the bank, would be black-letter illegal.

Gee, given that Bank of America is accused of serious due process violations related to foreclosures, and has admitted to 102,000 “robosigned” documents which can be argued is an admission of the commission of 102,000 counts of perjury, do we have an appearance of bribery to go with the appearance of an illegitimate “campaign donation”?

BAC, incidentally, denies this is an improper transaction.  Of course with The Democrats running the Administration, what do you think the odds are of an impartial look at this from the FEC?

Discussion (registration required to post)