Bank of America was a recipient of $45 billion in bailout money from the government, so they’re really getting fiscally responsible. For example: They only spent $10 million on sponsoring the NFL Experience event at the Super Bowl.

According to the Bank of America, the official bank of the NFL, its NFL partnerships and product tie-tins “generate significant revenue streams.” The bank said it was legally required to fulfill its contract to be an NFL sponsor and that its NFL product sales had already increased since the Experience began Jan. 24.

The bank refused to tell ABC News how much it is spending as an NFL corporate sponsor, but insiders have put the figure at close to $10 million. The NFL Experience was on top of that and was inked last summer, according to the bank.

Schatz said that deal or no deal, the event sponsorship should have been abdicated once the bank took billions in bailout funds.

“The Super Bowl is a big deal, but it’s a bigger deal that Bank of America is being bailed out by the America taxpayers,” [watchdog group president Tom] Schatz said. “This is an exceptional year and it’s a time to say we’re not going to do business as usual. We’re going to say no, we’re going to show some restraint, and we’re going to cut back on something that really isn’t absolutely necessary.”

On first glance I could see how this would piss a lot of people off since not only did banks prove they run their business about as effectively as a retarded chimp, but also other bailout recipients such as GM pulled out of their Super Bowl commitments. But still, it could be a lot worse. At least there wasn’t the previously planned Bank of America Hookers and Cocaine for the Sponsors Tent or The First Annual Bill Belichick Takes a Hot Wing Shit on a Pile of Government Bonds Halftime Show Sponsored by Bank of America. The latter of which would be extra silly since not only would they have had to buy the government bonds and Bill Belichick’s endorsement, but also the hot wings. Sure two of those alone might have made fiscal sense but dammit, not all three.

I’m kind of on Bank of America’s side for this one. Yeah, maybe it’s not brilliant spending $10 mil on a sponsorship at this time but at least they’re trying something to get customers beyond shrugging their shoulders and asking the government for more money. Bank of America could be buying sandwiches for poor kids and politicians would be calling for a public castration followed by a flogging with dildos. Which, while entertaining, won’t generate much revenue.

[source]