Why would Bill Nelson return the $46,000 Stanford donations to Stanford.....

[madfloridian]

instead of giving the money to the charity to which he had planned to give it?

This morning I read that he would give the money to a charity in Jacksonville. Tonight I read that he is considering the option to return it to the Stanford company as requested by the lawyers for that company. Is that what is usually done with such donations? I wouldn't think so.

Nelson may not donate tainted $$ to charity after all

WASHINGTON -- Earlier today, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, said he would donate nearly $46,000 to the Jacksonville charity Dignity U Wear in order to purge $45,900 from his campaign that he received from the firm of financier R. Allen Stanford, who has been accused of a massive investment fraud.

That may no longer be the case. Lawyers assigned to recoup losses from the $8 billion fraud case have encouraged lawmakers, including Nelson, to give their tainted money back to them. Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin said the office was reviewing the request to decide what to do.

"We've selected a charity to send an amount equal to $45,900 in campaign contributions associated with Stanford. But we're also seeking guidance on whether it can be returned to the Stanford company's court-appointed receiver," he wrote in a statement.

Here is the PDF request from the Stanford Group with instructions:

Returning contributions

Here is another article mentioning this quandary in which Bill Nelson finds himself as possibly the largest recipient of donations from them.

Nelson holds off on charitable contribution

At the urging of a court-appointed receiver, Senator Bill Nelson’s staff this afternoon decided to hold off on his decision to send the campaign donations he had gotten from accused financier Allen Stanford to a Florida charity.

Nelson, like many politicians who received money from Stanford and his company, had promised to send an equivalent amount to charity. Nelson picked Dignity U Wear of Jacksonville to get the $45,900 that Stanford and company had sent to his campaign since 2000.

But a federal judge in Texas issued an order freezing Stanford’s assets and appointed a receiver to keep track of the money. The receiver issued a statement this afternoon urging recipients of campaign cash to send it to the court-appointed body.

Nelson’s office is seeking guidance on what to do with the money.

What advantage would there be to giving the money back instead of to charity?

[Dr.Phool]

1. So the lawyers can collect their fees?

I doubt it would wind up with the investors.

[leftstreet]

2. This makes no sense

In receivership, they freeze assets.

Why would they ask for campaign cash to be returned?

:shrug:

[tyedyeto]

3. No advantage except to distance himself from the 'organization'. n/t

[madfloridian]

4. But Nelson could do that by giving to charity.

instead of giving the money back to Stanford.

[kirby]

5. It makes sense to me...

If the assests are going to be frozen, all assets belong to the depositors. Returning the money puts it in the pool of those who were ripped off.

[HooptieWagon]

6. Because DLCers are 90% as corrupt as republicans? n/t

[4lbs]

7. Where did Stanford get the money to donate to Nelson's campaign in the first place?

Since there's the issue of $8 billion in the investment fraud, isn't it highly likely that most, if not all, that campaign money was defrauded investor money?

Shouldn't they get as much of that back as possible?

Think about it.

You put $50,000 of your life savings into one of Stanford's funds, supposedly based on utilities. You think it's extremely low risk, not much worse than T-bills. Very low rate of return as well due to the relative high safety. You don't care though, since it's going to be there for decades until you turn 65.

Now, it turns out you were scammed out of all that money. Is it your fault? You thought you were putting money in a safe fund for retirement.

Then you find out that your money went to politicians' campaign contributions.

Would you want your money back, even if you found out that the politician(s) donated or were planning to donate the money to charities? After all, you are still out $50,000 of your life savings.

The politicians are technically in possession of stolen property, which in this case is investors' monies.

The same thing would be if you were given a car as a gift. You want to give that car to charity, but then it is discovered that the car is stolen. By law, you must give that car back, and not to charity. It's not yours to give away.

[snowbear]

8. Maybe he meant to send it to Stanford U?

.
.



...

----(j/k)