Duke Energy To Forgive $10 Million Line Of Credit To DNC

Duke Energy Forgives $10 Million Line Of Credit To DNC
Open Image Modal
FILE - In this Sept. 6, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama and his family and Vice President Joe Biden and his family celebrate their nominations as the confetti falls at the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C. Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla. Message to convention planners: Three days are enough. Both major parties packed their presidential nominating conventions into 72 hours, one day short of the traditional four-day celebration _ prompting few complaints from either delegates or the viewing public. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

The Democratic National Committee will not have to repay the full $10 million line of credit from Duke Energy -- the country’s largest electric power company -- used to fund the 2012 Democratic National Convention, contradicting the committee’s self-imposed prohibition on corporate funding for the Charlotte-based event.

Duke Energy, which is headquartered in Charlotte, announced Thursday that it would forgive the Democratic Party of its unpaid loans, instead leaving shareholders to cover $6 million, according to the Charlotte Observer.

Duke spokesman David Scanzoni defended the company’s move to the Charlotte Observer, explaining that the impact on stakeholders was minimum at best.

“That’s a (large) sum of money, but it did not have a large impact to shareholders,” Scanzoni told the publication. “For most stockholders, it’s not on their radar.”

Scanzoni told The Huffington Post Friday that Duke’s involvement in the DNC was an “economic development event” for Charlotte.

The DNC did not respond to a request for comment from The Huffington Post.

In 2011, the DNC made an unprecedented decision to ban direct corporate donations to the host committee -- co-chaired by Duke CEO Jim Rogers -- in an effort to reinforce the party’s middle-class, grassroots messaging.

“This convention and the new way it is being financed will allow more people from all over the country to be involved in this historic event,” Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic Party communications director, said in a 2011 statement. “This unprecedented step is another sign that things are continuing to change under President Obama’s leadership and that this will, in fact, be the ‘People’s Convention.’”

After struggling to raise money, the DNC backed away from its corporate contribution ban, using the host committee to establish a separate -- but closely affiliated -- entity named New American City, Inc. The new entity openly solicited high-dollar donations, including corporate contributions, to cover convention costs. Duke Energy was one of the three largest donors to the group.

Although it is legal for corporate donors to give financial and in-kind contributions to convention host committees, Duke’s decision to dismiss the DNC’s massive debt brought accusations of political hypocrisy and corporate favoritism.

Reince Priebus, chairman of the National Republican Committee -- called out Democrats over Twitter on Friday, calling the loan forgiveness a “$10 Million Payday” for the DNC.

Watchdog groups are also skeptical of the once-loan-turned-gift, claiming that the $10 million line of credit gives the company, including Rogers, unfair influence in the Obama administration.

Their skepticism is not unfounded: last fall, The Huffington Post reported that, “If the convention goes without a hitch, it would go far to solidify Rogers’ position within the ranks of the political elite -- and help him leapfrog onto the shortlist of potential administration officials Obama could appoint in a second term.”

The report continued, “All of this rubbing elbows provides Duke Energy with enormous intangible benefits. As Rogers told the Wall Street Journal this spring, ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re going to be on the menu.’”

Scanzoni told HuffPost that the company was not attempting to win favor with the Obama administration via its involvement in the convention.

“It was an economic development investment with great dividends for the city -– no political connections at all," he said.

In addition to the $10 million loan and $4.14 million contribution to New American City, the Charlotte Observer reported that Duke Energy also donated $1.5 million in in-kind contributions toward the Democratic convention. Rogers personally gave $339,000 -- which included a fundraising assistant marked as an in-kind donation.

Will Wrigley contributed reporting.

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

10 Major U.S. Federal Immigration Laws
The Naturalization Act of 1790(01 of10)
Open Image Modal
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was our country's first set of laws dealing with citizenship. Applicants had to be "a free white person" of "good moral character." This excluded indentured servants and slaves. Good moral character was substantiated by establishing residence for at least one year in the state from where he was applying, and at least two years of residence in the country. The Naturalization Act of 1795 would extend that requirement to five years, and is still standard today. (credit:Flickr)
The Fourteenth Amendment, 1868(02 of10)
Open Image Modal
A Reconstruction Amendment that was added to the U.S. Constitution following the Civil War, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment establishes for the first time that children born on U.S. soil would be conferred U.S. citizenship regardless of their parent's citizenship status, race, or place of birth. Last year, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 to Congress, and challenged this. The bill would require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident for a child to be granted citizenship. According to the bill's text, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and "clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth."Prior to this, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) introduced a similar bill in 2009. (credit:Getty)
The Naturalization Act of 1870(03 of10)
Open Image Modal
The Naturalization Act of 1870 explicitly extended naturalization laws to "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent." This meant that for the first time, African-American children would be conferred citizenship upon birth. Asian immigrants and other people of color are excluded per the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795. (credit:Getty)
The Page Act of 1875(04 of10)
Open Image Modal
Named after Republican Representative Horace F. Page, this is the first U.S. federal immigration law to explicitly prohibit the immigration of a particular group: persons of Asian descent. Primarily meant to limit Chinese immigrant labor and prostitution, the Page Act prohibited the immigration of: (1) contracted labor from "China, Japan, or any Oriental country" that was not "free and voluntary," (2) Chinese prostitution and (3) criminals and women who would engage in prostitution. Ultimately, the Page Act severely restricted the immigration of Asian women. Only 136 of the the nearly 40,000 Chinese immigrants who arrived in the months before the bill's enforcement were women. And, it would pave the way for the Chinese Exclusion Act.In this picture, Michael Lin, chair of the 1882 Project, a coalition of rights groups seeking a statement of regret over that year's Chinese Exclusion Act, speaks on May 26, 2011 in Washington, DC, at the US House of Representatives in front of a reproduction of a 19th-century sign that aimed at rousing up sentiment against Chinese Americans. Lawmakers introduced a bill that would offer an official statement of regret for the act, which banned further immigration of Chinese to the United States and ended citizenship rights for ethnic Chinese. (AFP PHOTO/SHAUN TANDON). (credit:Getty)
The Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882(05 of10)
Open Image Modal
Signed by President Chester A. Arthur, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first federal immigration law to prohibit immigration on the basis of race. The bill barred all Chinese laborers, skilled and unskilled, from immigrating to the U.S. for ten years. It was made permanent by 1903, and was not lifted until the 1943 Magnuson Act. The 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark finally extended naturalization laws to persons of Chinese descent by ruling that anyone born in the United States was indeed a U.S. citizen. This editorial cartoon from 1882 shows a Chinese man being excluded from entry to the "Golden Gate of Liberty." The sign next to the iron door reads, "Notice--Communist, Nihilist, Socialist, Fenian & Hoodlum welcome. But no admittance to Chinamen." At the bottom, the caption reads, "THE ONLY ONE BARRED OUT. Enlightened American Statesman--'We must draw the line somewhere, you know.'" (Image Source: Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, vol. 54 (1882 April 1), p. 96. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons). (credit:Wikimedia Commons)
The Naturalization Act of 1906(06 of10)
Open Image Modal
The Naturalization Act of 1906 further defined the naturalization process: the ability to speak English was made a requisite for immigrants to adjust their status. (credit:Flickr Creative Commons)
The Immigration Act of 1924(07 of10)
Open Image Modal
U.S. President Coolidge signed this U.S. federal bill into law. It capped the number of immigrants who could be admitted entry to the U.S. and barred immigration of persons who were not eligible for naturalization. And, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 required, an immigrant had to be white in order to naturalize. The quotas varied by country. Image Source: Flickr Creative Commons, NYCMarines. (credit:Flickr Creative Commons)
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)(08 of10)
Open Image Modal
The McCarran-Walter Act kept up the controversial Immigration Act of 1924, but formally ended Asian exclusion. (credit:Flickr Creative Commons)
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965(09 of10)
Open Image Modal
When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, it abolished the quota system that favored immigration from Europe and limited immigration from Asia and South America. (credit:Wikimedia Commons)
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996(10 of10)
Open Image Modal
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) is a piece of legislation that defined an array of issues to do with legal and illegal immigration -- from outlining how border patrol agents should administer visa processing, to the minutiae of how to handle deportation proceedings -- IIRIRA established enforcement and patrolling practices. (credit:AP)