Taxpayers Contribute Millions of Dollars To Democrat's Convention

[3rdnlng]

The Democratic National Committee has no plans to repay Duke Energy for an unprecedented $10 million line of credit it guaranteed to help the Democratic convention’s local host committee put on President Obama’s three-day nominating convention in Charlotte, N.C., last September.

A Duke company official said the company was claiming the money as a business expense for tax purposes, meaning shareholders will foot $6 million of the cost, according to a report in the Charlotte Observer.

 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/1/dnc-wont-repay-duke-energy-charlotte-convention-co/#ixzz2MR7h3Axj

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Nanker]

That's only fair. What do you expect them to do - borrow the money from China to pay the evil, wealthy, corporation Duke Energy? No. Just stiff 'em for the $10,000,000.00. That's chump change anyway. The fact that the Democratic National Committee came up short in its revenue projection and have short shrift to a creditor in no way impugns the coolness of our President. Isn't he dreamy? Such style. Hey, did you hear he went golfing with Tiger? Wow! I can't believe how cool that must have been - for Tiger.

[3rdnlng]

That's only fair. What do you expect them to do - borrow the money from China to pay the evil, wealthy, corporation Duke Energy? No. Just stiff 'em for the $10,000,000.00. That's chump change anyway. The fact that the Democratic National Committee came up short in its revenue projection and have short shrift to a creditor in no way impugns the coolness of our President. Isn't he dreamy? Such style. Hey, did you hear he went golfing with Tiger? Wow! I can't believe how cool that must have been - for Tiger.

 

I'm glad you are ok with helping the dems in some small way with your tax money. I'm just disappointed that this time around they didn't have Greek columns in the background for the Messiah's speech, cheap bastards that they are.

[Nanker]

Now Greek columns. Yes, that was unfortunate, but you know how things are these days. Discretionary spending being decimated and all. Maybe if Romney didn't get so much in campaign contributions, BO would have gotten enough to have put on a real SuperBowl-halftime-show level of a party at the convention. So, you see it's really the Republicans fault for opposing the dear leader. We have them to blame.

[3rdnlng]

Now Greek columns. Yes, that was unfortunate, but you know how things are these days. Discretionary spending being decimated and all. Maybe if Romney didn't get so much in campaign contributions, BO would have gotten enough to have put on a real SuperBowl-halftime-show level of a party at the convention. So, you see it's really the Republicans fault for opposing the dear leader. We have them to blame.

 

Being more specific, I guess its Bush's fault.

[DC Tom]

Can't legally donate ten million dollars, so instead extend a line of credit that doesn't get paid back.

 

Nice way to dodge campaign finance laws.

[Alaska Darin]

Can't legally donate ten million dollars, so instead extend a line of credit that doesn't get paid back.

 

Nice way to dodge campaign finance laws.

No kidding.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Can't legally donate ten million dollars, so instead extend a line of credit that doesn't get paid back.

 

Nice way to dodge campaign finance laws.

I especially love the "write it off as a business expense" portion.

 

People should go to jail for this.

[Koko78]

I'm just disappointed that this time around they didn't have Greek columns in the background for the Messiah's speech, cheap bastards that they we are.

 

Fixed that for you.

[BringBackFergy]

Can't legally donate ten million dollars, so instead extend a line of credit that doesn't get paid back.

 

Nice way to dodge campaign finance laws.

And to think I couldn't be more pi$$ed off after the OP

 

 

I especially love the "write it off as a business expense" portion.

 

People should go to jail for this.

And to think I couldn't be more pi$$ed after DC Tom's comment.......anyone else want to put me over the edge??

[DC Tom]

And to think I couldn't be more pi$$ed after DC Tom's comment.......anyone else want to put me over the edge??

 

Sure.

 

Imagine the shitstorm that would happen if this were the RNC. Now watch it get ignored.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Sure.

 

Imagine the shitstorm that would happen if this were the RNC. Now watch it get ignored.

Not familiar with the source, and I don't have a dog in the fight, but FWIW:

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/18/dem-convention-found-to-have-used-corporate-donations-despite-pledges-not-to/

 

Top Democrats, including Democratic Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had pledged prior to the 2012 convention not to raise money from special interests and to cap individual donations at $100,000.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said Wednesday it is not illegal for convention host committees to raise unlimited corporate money and that the party had placed the fundraising restrictions on itself. However, nobody said it was illegal. People are just pointing out a broken pledge. Republicans, for example, made no secret of raising unlimited corporate money for their convention in Tampa, Fla., which took in a reported $55.8 million.

[3rdnlng]

Not familiar with the source, and I don't have a dog in the fight, but FWIW:

 

http://www.theblaze....pledges-not-to/

 

Then why didn't Duke Energy just give them the money instead of being involved in the farce of guaranteeing a loan that would never get paid back? If you are a citizen, you've got a dog in this fight.

[Joe Miner]

Then why didn't Duke Energy just give them the money instead of being involved in the farce of guaranteeing a loan that would never get paid back? If you are a citizen, you've got a dog in this fight.

 

Can't legally donate ten million dollars, so instead extend a line of credit that doesn't get paid back.

 

Nice way to dodge campaign finance laws.

 

I think Tom summed it up.

[DC Tom]

I think Tom summed it up.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think this deal was made with the forethought that it would be an end-around of campaign finance laws. Maybe in hindsight, the people involved realized...but I don't credit those involved with a whole hell of a lot of foresight (particularly since we're talking about Democrats and money).

 

It does deserve some looking into, though (if only because someone needs to get their ass kicked for defaulting on a $10M debt). And the regulations need to be amended to treat a guarantee of a line of credit as equal to a donation...because now that it's been done, it will be a strategy used with forethought (probably by the Republicans, who would institutionalize fiscal fraud that the Democrats can only discover by accident).

[Joe Miner]

 

For what it's worth, I don't think this deal was made with the forethought that it would be an end-around of campaign finance laws. Maybe in hindsight, the people involved realized...but I don't credit those involved with a whole hell of a lot of foresight (particularly since we're talking about Democrats and money).

 

It does deserve some looking into, though (if only because someone needs to get their ass kicked for defaulting on a $10M debt). And the regulations need to be amended to treat a guarantee of a line of credit as equal to a donation...because now that it's been done, it will be a strategy used with forethought (probably by the Republicans, who would institutionalize fiscal fraud that the Democrats can only discover by accident).

 

And people say Dems and Repubs can't work together.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I think Tom summed it up.

Incorrectly, as it turns out. I have heard of "Common Cause" - - here's what they say about the legality of large corporate contributions to "host committees" for national political conventions:

 

http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/CC%20CONVENTIONS%20LINGERING%20LOOPHOLES.PDF

 

"No event rivals the national party conventions, however, for enabling those with deep pockets to purchase access to prominent political leaders. This is largely due to two glaring remaining campaign financing loopholes at the party conventions: the "Host Committees" that can accept unlimited corporate and union contributions and the lavish receptions for groups of lawmakers permitted by a narrow reading of a new congressional ethics law."

 

As the Common Cause link points out, you can make a strong argument that such contributions should be illegal, but under current law, they ARE legal, and "host committees" for both parties' national conventions accept them.

 

As for Duke Energy, I'm not a shareholder, nor am I a customer whose rates are determined in part by what the company spends. As far as I'm concerned, they can spend their money any way they want. Did the Democratic party deceitfully try to hide the fact that the host committee used large corporate $ after publishing propaganda that they wouldn't do that? Sure. Was it deceptive optics? Sure. But was it illegal to accept the corporate $, no.

 

The only thing Duke Energy did that I consider potentially illegal was treating the amount of the unrepaid loan as a tax deductible business expense. I don't know much about corporate tax accounting. If a corporation pays a lobbyist to try to persuade Congress to pass laws that will make the company more profitable, I would expect that to be a legitimate business expense deduction. But this expense (even if it had been made as an outright contribution to a host committee rather than disguised as a loan) - - I just don't know. Smells different, though. But that's a separate issue from whether the accepting of a large corporate contribution was illegal in the first place, and responsibility for the tax treatment lies with Duke Energy, not the political party.

Edited March 4, 2013 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[DC Tom]

Incorrectly, as it turns out.

 

And again, I wasn't actually summing it up, as I don't think that was the intent. I was just pointing out that it could be used that way.

[Joe Miner]

Incorrectly, as it turns out. I have heard of "Common Cause" - - here's what they say about the legality of large corporate contributions to "host committees" for national political conventions:

 

http://www.commoncau...G LOOPHOLES.PDF

 

 

 

As the Common Cause link points out, you can make a strong argument that such contributions should be illegal, but under current law, they ARE legal, and "host committees" for both parties' national conventions accept them.

 

As for Duke Energy, I'm not a shareholder, nor am I a customer whose rates are determined in part by what the company spends. As far as I'm concerned, they can spend their money any way they want. Did the Democratic party deceitfully try to hide the fact that the host committee used large corporate $ after publishing propaganda that they wouldn't do that? Sure. Was it deceptive optics? Sure. But was it illegal to accept the corporate $, no.

 

The only thing Duke Energy did that I consider potentially illegal was treating the amount of the unrepaid loan as a tax deductible business expense. I don't know much about corporate tax accounting. If a corporation pays a lobbyist to try to persuade Congress to pass laws that will make the company more profitable, I would expect that to be a legitimate business expense deduction. But this expense (even if it had been made as an outright contribution to a host committee rather than disguised as a loan) - - I just don't know. Smells different, though. But that's a separate issue from whether the accepting of a large corporate contribution was illegal in the first place, and responsibility for the tax treatment lies with Duke Energy, not the political party.

 

II don't think the DNC had any intention of paying this money back when they took it.

 

Whether Duke knew that going in, I have no idea.

 

But if you're Duke, you could sue them in an expensive case to try to get the money back, but why do that when you do have a financial obligation to shareholders, and can easily write it off at no additional expense to yourself?

 

The DNC gamed the system in a way that they had a good chance of getting away with. Is it illegal to take the money? No. Is it illegal to not pay it back? I guess only if Duke sues them for it.

 

It completely flies in the face of campaign finance "fairness" that the Dems regularly bash the Republicans for, but hey, let's not talk about that.

[GG]

Incorrectly, as it turns out. I have heard of "Common Cause" - - here's what they say about the legality of large corporate contributions to "host committees" for national political conventions:

 

http://www.commoncau...G LOOPHOLES.PDF

 

 

 

As the Common Cause link points out, you can make a strong argument that such contributions should be illegal, but under current law, they ARE legal, and "host committees" for both parties' national conventions accept them.

 

As for Duke Energy, I'm not a shareholder, nor am I a customer whose rates are determined in part by what the company spends. As far as I'm concerned, they can spend their money any way they want. Did the Democratic party deceitfully try to hide the fact that the host committee used large corporate $ after publishing propaganda that they wouldn't do that? Sure. Was it deceptive optics? Sure. But was it illegal to accept the corporate $, no.

 

The only thing Duke Energy did that I consider potentially illegal was treating the amount of the unrepaid loan as a tax deductible business expense. I don't know much about corporate tax accounting. If a corporation pays a lobbyist to try to persuade Congress to pass laws that will make the company more profitable, I would expect that to be a legitimate business expense deduction. But this expense (even if it had been made as an outright contribution to a host committee rather than disguised as a loan) - - I just don't know. Smells different, though. But that's a separate issue from whether the accepting of a large corporate contribution was illegal in the first place, and responsibility for the tax treatment lies with Duke Energy, not the political party.

 

Writing off a bad debt expense is perfectly legal.

 

Nothing much surprises me about the perpetual campaign of this administration, but I am surprised no one has brought up Obama's marketing of the $500,000 private seat licenses to get his ear.

Edited March 5, 2013 by GG