TPMDC
« Inside that Conservative Tea Party | Home | Coleman Still Attending GOP Caucus Meetings -- Even Though He's No Longer A Senator! »

Court-Appointed Receiver Asks Dems, GOPers to Give Back Stanford Cash

Several members of Congress are choosing to donate political contributions from accused fraudster Allen Stanford to charity -- with the notable holdouts being Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who has hung onto 4/5 of his Stanford cash, and Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX).

But the Dallas Morning News reports that lawmakers may not have a choice in the matter anymore, now that the court-appointed receiver who's managing Stanford's assets has asked both the Republican and Democratic campaign committees to give back all the cash. From the Dallas report:

Ralph S. Janvey, who was appointed by the U.S. District Court in Dallas to take control of Stanford's assets, asked Democratic and Republican national political committees on Monday to return donations from Allen Stanford and his company's political action committee.

Stanford, his employees and his corporate PAC gave $250,125 to the NRCC since 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Stanford entities gave the most to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - $965,500, according to the center.

Janvey's request does not appear to have been sent to individual members of Congress (yet), but the Dallas paper adds that Sessions has already donated $2,000 to charity to offset his Stanford cash, and is considering getting rid of the rest of the $40,000-plus he received.

Late Update: As the AP reported last night, Janvey's letters seeking a political-cash refund are "highly unusual." The practice is common with charitable donations given by individuals before their assets are frozen, but rarely occurs with campaign donations. Here's how Janvey put his request:

I hereby request your committee return to the receivership estate all campaign contributions made by Mr. Stanford or the other defendants to your committee. By returning such amounts to the receivership estate, you will help reduce the losses suffered by victims of the alleged fraud.

3 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

I've represented clients too numerous to mention in receivership situations, and I have never, ever, ever, ever heard of this before, and several of my clients were associated with fairly large sums in contributions to political action committees, which the regulators agreed would be off limits from clawback.

A key difference here may be--indeed must be--the presence of very recent donations.

Or maybe the receiver just understands that this is money she can get back--high profile case, lots of attention, who the hell is going to say, 'No, your thieving guy in receivership can't have the money back he gave me four months ago?"

Fun fun.

user-pic

A lot of that offshore money is crooked money from illegal arms trade, illegal drug trade, tax dodging and human trafficking.

So this is an opportunity to show beyond doubt how criminals have purchased influence from your home state senator.

Washington : money talks regardless of its source.

user-pic

This makes sense to me. You don't get to keep stolen property even if you bought it, much less if it was given to you.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address