Lamborn Campaign Banking Badmouth May Be Illegal

8 thoughts on “Lamborn Campaign Banking Badmouth May Be Illegal”

1. that results in an extraordinary withdrawal of funds from such bank or that results in impairing public confidence in such bank and any person who shall counsel, aid, procure, or induce another to start, transmit, or circulate any such statement knowing the statement to be false

   This portion makes me think that the statute is probably intended to punish people who intentionally and maliciously cause a run on the banks, statewide panic, or other extraordinarily damaging circumstances.

   There are a few problems with trying to apply this to Lamborn’s statement:

   1. Bank Rate gives the bank in question three stars. I’m not convinced that it isn’t in some way possible to construe this as below average. There are so many possible averages — average of all banks? Average of CO banks? Average of banks that offer a particular account type?
   
   2. Integrity Bank doesn’t seem to even be trying to prove that Lamborn has caused a run on the bank or damaged public confidence — their letter says he could.
   
   3. Even if his statement was false and it did damage the bank as set out in the statute, it’s not clear that he knew the statement was false when he made it.

   That said, he should probably try to quietly pull the ads.

   Log in to Reply

   1. The Bankrate.com Memo shows both above and below average detailed ratings.

      Probably the most worrisome might be this:

      Asset quality highlights

      Asset quality is a major determinant of the viability of any banking institution. Poor asset quality will have a very direct impact upon the other components and bank regulators invest substantial amounts of time and resources in gauging the quality of a bank’s loans and investments.

      Key Asset Quality information and ratios:
      
      Ratio (%) Assessment
      
      Nonperforming Asset Ratio (2) 73.35 Highly Problematic

      Loss Reserve Coverage (3) 33.99 Substantially Below Normal

      So, while at a glance, the lawyers have a point that Lamborn’s ad is misleading, Lamborn could make an equally convincing case that they were talking about those pesky details.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Is if Lamborn pushes back and makes an argument that the bank is below average.

         Log in to Reply

         1. That’s exactly what the lawyers for the bank are complaining about.  But Lamborn’s not an FDIC examiner.  He’s cherry-picking the information.

            He’ll get away with it in all probability.  The only question is, will it save his job?

            Lamborn is a reliable GOP vote, but otherwise useless.  As Democrats, are we better off if Bla-bla-bla is his replacement?
            

            Log in to Reply

2. I think the wisest thing is for posters to NOT comment on this particular bank

   Log in to Reply

3. Even if it applies, the mental state requirement  is unlikely to be met.

   Even if the mental state requirement is met, political speech has special constitutional protections.
   

   Log in to Reply

4. the statements are “false” or whether they “result in impairment of public confidence,” the statute provide for a criminal violation, but no civil remedy. The alleged criminal offense is of no consequence, unless and until the district attorney determines to pursue charges. When that happens, I will eat my hat (if I wore a hat). No DA will touch this, nor should they.  

   Log in to Reply

5. here:

   GOP Ally of Big Coal Smears Environmental Activist With Kiddie Porn Accusation

   http://www.motherjones.com/blu…

   Log in to Reply