Paging Barack Obama

By
February 17, 2009

Update: Politico runs a similar story listing millions of dollars given in large part to Dems. It also individually lists Senators … but no Barack Obama? Why, is this data wrong? It adds up to far more than they point out for legislators. They gave over 20k to the Big 0. What's the deal?

Stanford and his companies gave $128,500 to the Republican National Committee, plus $2,000 to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), $4,000 to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), $4,000 to Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas), $4,000 to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and $4,800 to the committees of Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), among other contributions.

Update: Culture of Corruption? Let this sink in. As far back as 2002 a watchdog group raised concerns regarding almost $100,000 Stanford Financial Group (SFG) gave to 527s possibly for specific influence on legislation – with 40k of that going to, so we've been told, Obama's good friend Tom Daschle.This year Obama raked it in from SFG. But there's more given Dashcle's speciality – Health Care Tech. Stay with me, it comes together.

The report cites examples such as the Stanford Financial Group, which gave $40,000 to the 527 group of Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), and $50,000 to that of Democratic Caucus Chairman Martin Frost (Tex.). At the time of the donations, Stanford was fighting a Clinton administration proposal on money laundering, and neither leader protested when congressional Republicans scuttled the bill.

Fast forward to Oct. 2008. Health Systems Solutions is "poised for rapid growth."Hmm. HSS is, essentially, SFG. SIB (below) is Stanford's offshore bank. And their business is? And Daschle was going to do what with medical records and with Health Care in general? No wonder they were "poised for rapid growth". At whose expense? Just what vendors do you think would get the business as they gave America the business with "health care reform" given these connections? Hmm. Change you can pay for, maybe?

Stanford International Bank Ltd. has agreed to purchase up to $5 million in the convertible preferred stock of Health Systems Solutions Inc.
The agreement gives Health Systems Solutions (OTCBB: HSSO), a software and technology company based in Tampa, long-term capital to invest in developing new products and services, Stan Vashovsky, chairman and chief executive, said in a release.

Hmm – the Feds are charging Stanford Financial Group with an $8 Billion dollar fraud.

HOUSTON — Stopping what it called a “massive ongoing fraud,” the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday accused Robert Allen Stanford, the chief of the Stanford Financial Group, of fraud in the sale of about $8 billion of high-yielding certificates of deposit held in the firm’s bank in Antigua. Also named in the suit were two other executives and some affiliates of the financial group.

Where did all that money go? It couldn't be this Stanford Financial right? John McCain sure got the short-end of that stick.

Maria Rodriguez
Banking
Stanford Financial Group Updated
Q3/2008
Barack Obama
$5,100
 
R Stanford
Chairman
Stanford Financial Group Updated
Q2/2008
Barack Obama
$4,600
 
Yolanda Suarez
Chief of staff
Stanford Financial Group Updated
Q2/2008
Barack Obama
$4,600
 
Paul Gallant
Analyst
Stanford Financial Group Updated
Q3/2008
Barack Obama
$4,600

James Davis
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
STANFORD FINANCIAL GROUP Updated
Q1/2007
John McCain
$2,300

David Nanes
President Mexico Stanford
Stanford Financial Group Updated
Q3/2008
Barack Obama
$2,300
 
Tom Raffanello
GLOBAL SECURITY DIRECTOR
STANFORD FINANCIAL GROUP Updated
Q4/2007
Rudy Giuliani
$1,300
 
Joan Stack
HR Director
Stanford Financial Group Updated
Q3/2008
Barack Obama
$1,000

Joan Stack
Hr Director
Stanford Financial Group Updated
Q1/2007
John Edwards
$250

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. mark l. says:

    chicago tribune-the fundamentals of the economy are strong?
    “Maybe the stimulus plan, which Obama plans to sign on Tuesday, will speed that process. Even skeptics must hope so. But the greater reason for optimism is the fundamental strength, flexibility and resilience of the American economy. It’s down right now, but there is nothing irreversible about that.”
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0217edit1feb17,0,6160328.story

  2. LOL says:

    “when congressional Republicans scuttled the bill.”
    …?

  3. LOL says:

    you’ve linked to the Huffington Post, Common Dreams, and the NYT to make your point. Republicans killed the billed that would have reformed what you’re talking about.
    Fascinating.

  4. Lala says:

    What was the money-laundering bill? Was it for online gambling which was in Antigua (where SFG banks its money)?

  5. Lala says:

    There were a lot of attempts to stop the off-shore gambling – it didn’t pass until 2006 and then Barney Frank tried to overturn the UIGEA (by proposing a different law?).
    “In September, (2006)the Senate passes the Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 2006 (H.R. 4411) after the bill is attached to unrelated legislation (Safe Ports Act) on a Friday night just before Congress breaks for its election recess. President Bush signs the bill into law on October 13. As a result of the legislation – which has exemptions for horseracing, state-run lotteries, and fantasy sports – American financial institutions are banned from processing any transaction with an online gambling operator. Big, publicly traded companies like Partygaming and 888.com close their operations to American players and the industry’s revenues take a major hit. It’s the end of the world as we know it….
    2007
    – In April, (2007)U.S. congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) kickstarts legislative attempts to overturn the UIGEA, proposing the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act. Two weeks later the British Medical Journal argues that banning online gambling is good for Parkinsons patients, and Taiwan officials bust the largest Internet-gambling ring yet.”
    http://www.gamblingplanet.org/history_main.php

  6. Lala says:

    Politico is running this story too but with different figures.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18955.html

  7. Karen says:

    I was going to say the same thing about Politico. No mention of Obama there!

  8. Lala says:

    He made sure he threw in some high figures for Republicans.

  9. IslamoLlama says:

    “– Republicans killed the billed that would have reformed what you’re talking about. –”
    But, but, but, he gave money to Obama! Several thousand dollars even! And Obama wanted to implement health care reform which Dan – economic wizard that he is – has determined will definitely absolutely benefit the Standford Group, assuming they aren’t busted by the SEC for fraud.
    Question: If Obama is so in bed with Stanford, why did the group get busted on his watch and not Bush’s? Where was the Bush SEC on this last month, or last year even? Why wasn’t this grossly partisan super-liberal George Soros wanna-be taken down by the law and order Republicans back when he was doing all the damage?

  10. IslamoLlama says:

    “– Republicans killed the billed that would have reformed what you’re talking about. –”
    But, but, but, he gave money to Obama! Several thousand dollars even! And Obama wanted to implement health care reform which Dan – economic wizard that he is – has determined will definitely absolutely benefit the Standford Group, assuming they aren’t busted by the SEC for fraud.
    Question: If Obama is so in bed with Stanford, why did the group get busted on his watch and not Bush’s? Where was the Bush SEC on this last month, or last year even? Why wasn’t this grossly partisan super-liberal George Soros wanna-be taken down by the law and order Republicans back when he was doing all the damage?

  11. Todd says:

    Exactly, Islamo. You’d think that Bush’s SEC would be gleeful to nail a Democratic donor, wouldn’t ya?
    The real point is that Bush and the Republicans believed that market participants would self-govern themselves, making the SEC and all the other regulatory watchdogs toothless, lazy, underfunded and light on warm bodies. Essentially, they put the foxes in charge of the chicken coop the entire time they governed, with Greenspan’s blessing. Should we really be at all surprised that the foxes ran wild? Perfect recipe to destroy the integrity of U.S. financial markets. It worked, too.

  12. EmilioLizardo says:

    And this whole case was put together in the last three weeks, just since the eeeevvviiiilll BushCo went out of business? By all those “new” Obama people at SEC? Right!

  13. SDN says:

    Now, Emilio, sentence first, evidence afterward.
    It’s the Chicago way!

  14. mark l. says:

    “If Obama is so in bed with Stanford, why did the group get busted on his watch and not Bush’s?”
    by this criteria, you are exculpating bush and enron, and implicating clinton.

  15. CaptainVictory says:

    +1, Emilio.
    Todd and Islamo, be fair. Do you have any idea how much work goes into these cases before they send in the Marshals? They have to get the investigation underway, build up a strong enough case to get an ex parte seizure order, build a team for the raid and a plan for what to seize and how to seize it, etc. And the Feds are generally extra disciplined about this kind of thing, which only makes the buildup take longer. Add to that the international protocols they probably had to follow (which makes it take longer still).
    So where was Bush’s SEC? No doubt building the case for the raid you saw unfold today.

  16. jr565 says:

    IslamoLlama:
    Question: If Bush was is so in bed with Enron, why did Ken Lay get busted on his watch and not Obama’s?
    Also, Todd and Islamo, which president signed the deregulation of the banks law that you say is Bush’s fault and which Obama pinned on Bush’s and republican policies? It’s ok you can google it. Hmmm, isn’t that Bill Clinton? Who sold securitization of mortgages to banks. Hmmm, isn’t that Bill Clinton? Who expanded the CRA and forced the banks to lower standards? woudln’t that be Clinton? Who passed NAFTA? Clinton? Is Clinton a republican or a democrat? Now I’m not saying his policies are even wrong or right. But I’m getting sick and tired of you partisans lying about the record when democrats had no problems deregulatng banks. And I bet you and your ilk also praise Clinton for his great economy and say that Bush’s economy wasn’t as good as Clintons. Well fine, but at least own up to Clinton and a large number of dems (as well as repubs) also being for FREE trade and deregulation. Or don’t take credit for a good economy under Clinton.
    And if Bush was SO against regulation explain Sarbanes Oxley, and explain why we have more regulation and more money spent on regulation under Bush then in the past 20 years?

  17. jr565 says:

    http://www.cpeonline.com/cpenew/sarox.asp
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
    Again, please explain Sarbanes Oxley and then explain how Bush was for deregulation. When Bush signed it into law he stated it included “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt.”.

  18. Todd says:

    +1, Emilio.
    Todd and Islamo, be fair. Do you have any idea how much work goes into these cases before they send in the Marshals? They have to get the investigation underway, build up a strong enough case to get an ex parte seizure order, build a team for the raid and a plan for what to seize and how to seize it, etc. And the Feds are generally extra disciplined about this kind of thing, which only makes the buildup take longer. Add to that the international protocols they probably had to follow (which makes it take longer still).
    So where was Bush’s SEC? No doubt building the case for the raid you saw unfold today.
    Posted by: CaptainVictory | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 09:02 PM
    —————————–
    There was some speculation in the market today that this may have been the scam that Harry Markopolous told Congress he would expose soon. If that is indeed the case, then what you wrote above, which under normal circumstances is accurate, wouldn’t apply here.

  19. Todd, that’s your argument?

  20. Todd says:

    “Question: If Bush was is so in bed with Enron, why did Ken Lay get busted on his watch and not Obama’s?”
    What a lame question. Ken Lay got busted on Bush’s watch simply by coincidence while Bush was in office,certainly not because of any actions by Bush or his SEC. It was Sherron Watkins, an Enron mid-level executive turned whistle-blower, who exposed the Enron fraud and busted Kenny Boy, much to the embarrassment and chagrin of the Bush family.
    “Also, Todd and Islamo, which president signed the deregulation of the banks law that you say is Bush’s fault and which Obama pinned on Bush’s and republican policies? It’s ok you can google it. Hmmm, isn’t that Bill Clinton? Who sold securitization of mortgages to banks. Hmmm, isn’t that Bill Clinton?”
    Yes, indeed it was Bill Clinton who is to blame for signing that putrid legislation that Phil Gramm and a bevy of other Republicans sponsored that gave us this morass. They are all to blame. You, however, overlook mentioning or blaming Phil Gramm and the other GOP sponsors. Why is that, jr??????
    “Who expanded the CRA and forced the banks to lower standards?”
    The CRA did not force the complete abdication of lending standards. Banks did that themselves because of the massive profits to be garnered. Banks lobbied hard against new guidelines that were recommended by bank regulators and the Bush Administration supported the banks, delaying new regulations by more than a year, into 2006. (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/karl-roves-revisionism/)
    Additionally, a vast amount of esoteric NINJA (No Income, No Job, No Asset) loans were made by private, unregulated financial entities that were not under the jurisdiction of the CRA. There was no heed paid by the Fed, the SEC or any of the other regulatory bodies while Bush was in office, to freewheeling lenders like Quickloan, New Century Financial, Argent, and American Home Mortgage.
    And, answer me this. If the CRA was to blame for “expanding the CRA and forced the banks to lower standards”, then why didn’t this all start to unravel back in the 1990’s?
    And fyi, I’m a centrist. I may seem liberal to most on this blog because most on this blog are well to the right of my views. I definitely blame Democrats like Clinton, Dodd and Frank for their actions but I also expect people like you, jr, to own up to the disaster that is unfolding because of the Bush/GOP unfettered-free-market-policies-at-any-cost from 2000-2008. Own your failures, dammit !

  21. Todd says:

    And more to debunk your glib CRA crap, jr. It’s so tiring to see the same old crap trotted out time and again, blaming the CRA and Fannie and Freddie, which is code for Blame The Democrats. It was the GOP’s lack of regulation and believing that market participants would self-govern, that allowed all this to happen. When you read about the specifics and how this went on, you wonder where all the adults were….
    Barry Ritholtz, a highly respected and frequent contributor to CNBC, Barrons, Bloomberg and author of the book Bailout Nation, summed it up very thoroughly here: http://greeneggsandham.org/wordpress/?p=29
    “Let’s clarify the causes of current circumstances. Ask yourself the following questions about the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act and/or the role of Fannie & Freddie:
    • Did the 1977 legislation, or any other legislation since, require banks to not verify income or payment history of mortgage applicants?
    • 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. How was this caused by either CRA or GSEs ?
    • What about “No Money Down” Mortgages (0% down payments) ? Were they required by the CRA? Fannie? Freddie?
    • Explain the shift in Loan to valuefrom 80% to 120%: What was it in the Act that changed this traditional lending requirement?
    • Did any Federal legislation require real estate agents and mortgage writers to use the same corrupt appraisers again and again? How did they manage to always come in at exactly the purchase price, no matter what?
    • Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting (AU) systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?
    • How exactly did legislation force Moody’s, S&Ps and Fitch to rate junk paper as Triple AAA?
    • What about piggy back loans? Were banks required by Congress to lend the first mortgage and do a HELOC for the down payment — at the same time?
    • Internal bank memos showed employees how to cheat the system to get poor mortgages prospects approved that shouldn’t have been: Titled How to Get an “Iffy” loan approved at JPM Chase. (Was circulating that memo also a FNM/FRE/CRA requirement?)
    • The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix,Arizona;Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvesment Act ?
    • Did the GSEs require banks to not check credit scores? Assets? Income?
    • What was it about the CRA or GSEs that mandated fund managers load up on an investment product that was hard to value, thinly traded, and poorly understood
    • What was it in the Act that forced banks to make “interest only” loans? Were “Neg Am loans” also part of the legislative requirements also?
    • Consider this February 2003 speech by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo at the American Bankers National Real Estate Conference. He advocated zero down payment mortgages – was that a CRA requirement too, or just a grab for more market share, and bad banking?
    The answer to all of the above questions is no, none, and nothing at all.
    The CRA is not remotely one of the proximate causes of the current credit crunch, Housing collapse,and mortgage debacle. As I detailed in Barron’s, there is plenty of things to be angry at D.C. about — but this ain’t one of them.”

  22. TJA says:

    If regulation would have prevented this crisis, why is Europe in as bad a shape or worse than the US? I am not letting Bush off the hook, just get your facts straight. The reason you think that Enron was a Republican scandal is because that is what the Democrat enablers in the press want you to think and you swallow it uncritically.
    BTW, the only president to ever do an actual favor for Enron was Bill Clinton, who pressured India to approve an Enron project, and a former Clinton advisor, who called the Bush WH to try to get them to influence a credit rating for Enron, a request that was refused.

  23. CaptainVictory says:

    There was some speculation in the market today that this may have been the scam that Harry Markopolous told Congress he would expose soon. If that is indeed the case, then what you wrote above, which under normal circumstances is accurate, wouldn’t apply here.
    Posted by: Todd | Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 09:28 PM
    ———————————————————————————————————–
    And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
    Be fair, don’t speculate, and for the love of all that is good and pure, don’t engage in non sequiturs.

  24. Lala says:

    Why does Kiplinger lie like this? In this 2002 story they say the CRA requires financials to loan to low income borrowers, but Todd says they weren’t.
    Private lenders
    There has been a proliferation of low-down options in the private market in the last decade, says Doug Duncan, chief economist of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America. Most banks offer special mortgages to low- and moderate-income borrowers because the Community Reinvestment Act requires financial institutions to provide a certain share of business to these economic groups. But no- and low-down options for jumbo loans (higher than $300,700) are harder to find.
    http://www.kiplinger.com/basics/archives/2002/09/story12.html

  25. Notice how Todd pretends to be a “centrist”, but always ends up blaming Republicans for everything.
    When Todd demands investigations and punishment of Obama Party members like Frank and Dodd just like he does for Republicans, then he can be taken seriously. But until then, he’s just another leftist shill who’s desperately trying to explain why he supports Obama Party fraud and corruption.
    Such as this, which Todd bleats and whines and tries to claim never happened.
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
    You see that, Todd? The Obama Party denied that Fannie and Freddie were doing anything wrong or risky. They specifically stated that what Fannie and Freddie were doing was OK because it was for “affordable housing”. The Republicans were trying to impose new regulations, AND THE OBAMA PARTY
    OPPOSED IT.
    Desperate spinning Todd tries to deny that Fannie and Freddie had anything to do with bad mortgage securities — an impossibility when the ratings on those securities were based on THE IMPLICIT GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE THAT FANNIE AND FREDDIE HAD!
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

  26. Peach says:

    “”” If Obama is so in bed with Stanford, why did the group get busted on his watch and not Bush’s?”””
    Yaeh, because the SEC just started investigating them on January 18th!!!
    How dumb must you be?

  27. Lala says:

    What’s going on with Peter Schiff – I’m not familiar with him. I found this video which is a response to a doctored video. What do you guys make of it?

  28. The Ace says:

    Question: If Obama is so in bed with Stanford, why did the group get busted on his watch and not Bush’s?
    Obviously you’re not to familar with the term “investigation
    Let me help you:
    The Bush SEC was investigating this Democratic criminal for the last month.

  29. Don Meaker says:

    I don’t blame the democrats or the republicans. I blame the government. Congress has no power to regulate financials. They only have the power to coin money, which they have debased. Paper money is constituional only if provided by private entities, with private entities having the power to accept, reject or to accept at a reduced value compared to specie.
    The worst SCOTUS decision every held that all commerce is interstate, and failed to shut the door on government meddling. Bet we all see the wonders of how well the government manages the economy. From the Fed Reserve created depression, to the continuing great depression of Roosevelt, the government shows again and again its incompetence in financial and business matters.