Press "Enter" to skip to content

Corrupt Campaign Donor Drives Noem to Faith in Government

The South Dakota Democratic Party is trying to make hay of Congresswoman Kristi Noem's refusal to relieve herself of $2380 in donations her campaign received from corrupt, disgraced, and disbarred South Dakota banker Lee C. Peterson. (Disbanked? What's the financial term here?)

Rep. Noem poo-poos calls for her to divest herself of dirty money that she's already spent. On the bright side, this minor kerfuffle has driven the tarnished Tea Party darling to rediscover her faith in the federal government:

Noem dismissed the Democratic demands.

"Those contributions were last year during the election cycle. They were spent," she said. "I haven't followed closely this issue of Mr. Peterson, but I'm sure the FDIC is handling the situation appropriately" [emphasis mine; David Montgomery, "Noem Brushes off Demand to Donate Campaign Contribution," Rapid City Journal, 2011.10.06].

I'm glad that when she and her campaign donors are in trouble, Kristi can count on the federal government to do the right thing.

Now Noem isn't the corrupt banker here. I can understand the stress she's under what with trying to make ends meet.

Recall, however, that Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin was not party to the corrupt activities of fellow legislator Charlie Rangel. Yet in 2010, SHS sent her Rangel money to charity, after the national Republican spin machine (megaphoned in now-deleted posts from March 2 and 3, 2010, from Dakota War College) bruited what they branded the impropriety of keeping such dirty money. And Herseth Sandlin's giveback was $17,000, not the relatively measly $2380 Noem clutches so dearly.

I'm not convinced Noem is obliged to give back money given to her by someone else who made mistakes. But replace the party labels, and the Republican party certainly would think she is.

Bonus Noem Nincompoopery! Kristi is holding private chats with Tea Partiers in Rapid City, but she also wants Rapid Citians to breathe more toxic dust from the cement plant. Now I get the plan: if Shad Olson and company won't come to heel, she'll just kill off her disgruntled base!

2 Comments

  1. Thomas 2011.10.13

    I worked with Mr. Peterson years ago and from what I know, Mr Peterson was not in banking when Kristi was running for office. In fact, Mr. Peterson had resigned from banking at least a couple of years before Ms. Noem's campaign. Therefore, I see no problem. Also, before you consider a person corrupt or disgraced, you should make sure you have your facts straight. One day you will answer for the words you have spoken of others.

  2. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.10.13

    Oooh, what's that last line supposed to mean, "Thomas"?

    I think if you're forced not to participate in banking, you've been disgraced as a banker. The FDIC said it found reason to believe Peterson "engaged in misconduct including, but not limited to, violating Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 215.5(c)(4) and (d), violating the South Dakota lending limit, SD ST 51A-12-2, making nominee loans, falsifying bank records, making material misrepresentations to the Bank, failing to disclose material facts to the Bank, extending credit without obtaining the requisite loan documents, extending credit in excess of the amount authorized, and engaging in self-dealing." So what part of that doesn't fit the definition of corruption? What facts do I and the FDIC not have straight?

Comments are closed.