I was originally going to headline this column "Run, Sarah, Run." But then I realized what a joke it was–and a one-liner at that–so I had to turn to something else to fill the space.
And then I thought: How about the American Council of Life Insurance's February 3 statement regarding life settlement securitizations, which uses the now-familiar Palin-esque technique of making unfounded allegations to make noise and get noticed. 
The ACLI's comment drew quick and scornful responses from life settlement industry participants. And rightfully so.
For years now the ACLI has been engaged in a very deliberate campaign to conflate legitimate life settlements with stranger-originated life insurance transactions.
In the early days this succeeded, largely because both settlements and STOLI were relatively new and unfamiliar and people had difficulty sorting out the two. But people wised up as the gulf between the two widened.
Part of ACLI's campaign has been to imply that the life settlement business as a whole is in favor of STOLI and as a whole is behind these transactions.
This of course is not true. The Life Insurance Settlement Association has fought to have STOLI transactions banished in various states with as much fervor as the ACLI.
The life settlement business realized long ago that STOLI was a poison that would choke off the growth of legitimate business if it were not prohibited and thus controlled.
Might there be some "bad apples" in the settlement business who would try to promote STOLI transactions nonetheless? I'm sure there are.
But this leads me to a dirty little secret that ACLI has been loath to even acknowledge; this is that STOLI transactions have to be done through life insurance companies. Who else writes life insurance policies?
