Different strokes for different protestors

Operating on very different pieces of turf, the Occupy movement and the budding shareholder revolt are putting the status quo on notice: no more business as usual.

With May Day marches across the country earlier this month, the occupiers signaled they’re not going away. They intend to keep taking public space, protesting and reminding the country what our democracy has lost in a takeover by corporate powers.

Meanwhile, corporate shareholders appeared to be slumbering in the wake of the financial crisis, lulled by soothing predictions about economic recovery and buoyed by a stock market recovery.

But taking advantage of an advisory vote granted them in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, shareholders have recently taken highly publicized swipes at excessive compensation plans for CEOs at Citibank and British Petroleum and several smaller banks.

At Citibank, 55 percent of shareholders rejected the notion that a company whose shares dropped 45 percent over the past year, wiping out $60 billion in shareholder equity, owed its CEO a $15 million salary hike. Citibank’s board said it would carefully consider the shareholders’ concerns.

CEO compensation plans narrowly won approval at General Electric, where the value of the stock has fallen 45 percent over the past 5 years, as well as at insurance giant Cigna, but not without noisy protests. At Credit Suisse and Barclays, a sizeable minority of shareholder voted against their executives’ compensation packages.

And excessive compensation is not the only thing shareholders are upset about. Some Cigna shareholders also expressed their opposition to the $1.8 million Cigna spent lobbying against health care reform in 2009.

At Wellpoint and Aetna insurance companies, shareholders want company officials to improve disclosure of their political spending, after the Center for Political Accountability found that both companies’ disclosure policies "leave significant room for serious misrepresentation of the company's political spending through trade associations."

Four of Wellpoint’s directors who are standing for reelection also face unusual no vote campaigns because the company has failed to live up to earlier commitments to improve disclosures of their political spending.

To be sure, these actions represent only a small number of corporations so far; most shareholders are approving without a fight the executive pay plans proposed by the board of directors’ compensation committees.

But like the occupiers protesting in the public square, the shareholders at these major corporations have driven a very large, sharp stake into their turf, and these first, highly publicized steps toward more accountability and transparency are likely to inspire more like them.

Occupiers, with their horizontal leaderless anarchist principles and drum circles, and shareholders, with their focus on the bottom line, might not seem to share much other than a desire for more accountability and a sense that the system as it is, isn’t working. But both groups are equally shut out of this political season, with neither party doing anything but paying the slightest lip service to their issues.

The occupiers and the shareholders are also carrying an important message for the rest of us: democracy isn’t just a matter of walking in to the ballot box and pulling the lever for our team every four years and waiting for the politicians to fix our problems.

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Occupy / Outrage - 05/09/2012

Don't Let the Bad Guys Get Away!

Hollywood loves a good chase. Last night at the Oscars, Tinsel Town sent a strong message to the rest of the country – the bad guys are getting away, and the cops aren’t even on their trail.

For a brief instant the Obama administration’s sorry efforts in holding bankers accountable for the financial collapse took center stage at, of all places, the Academy Awards.

Accepting his Oscar for “Inside Job,” his documentary about the financial collapse, Charles Ferguson used the opportunity to remind the audience of millions that not a single banker had gone to prison for fraud.

Ferguson was saying what the mainstream media has deemed a non-story, following President Obama’s lead in downplaying accountability while highlighting evidence of economic recovery.

But Ferguson joins a handful of prominent critics, including Bill Black, Simon Johnson, former Sen. Ted Kaufman, Dean Baker and Matt Stoller, who have been sending the same message in a variety of less prominent venues.

Meanwhile the president, far from insisting that his prosecutors develop fraud cases against top bankers, appoints them to top positions in his administration.

Typical is this recent column from the New York Times oped columnist Joe Nocera, who pooh-poohs the criminal aspects of the financial meltdown, blaming it on widespread “mania.”

Make no mistake; these are hard cases to make. In the 90s I covered the prosecution of savings and loan magnate Charles Keating, the poster child for bad behavior and political shenanigans for that earlier banking fiasco that also followed a rash of deregulation. Keating was convicted in both state and federal court. Though the convictions were overturned, Keating did serve four and a half years of his five-year state sentence.

Good prosecutors don't mind tough cases. They enjoy the challenge. But their bosses set their priorities and have to give them the support they need.

The Obama administration is barely even trying, afraid of alienating the bankers it’s trying to court. The cases that have been brought are either minor sideshows or they’ve been mishandled.

A local prosecutor told me that federal authorities have shown no interest in the painstaking work of building serious cases against bank executives, which would involve authorities going after minor players such as mortgage brokers, and working their way up the chain of responsibility.

In Inside Job, former New York state attorney general Eliot Spitzer has a suggestion for prosecutors – do unto the bankers what the prosecutors did unto him: go through their credit card receipts looking for evidence of illicit activity, like paying for high-priced hookers. Bust the bankers for their bad personal behavior and then obtain their cooperation in investigating financial abuse.

It may work; it may not. But at least prosecutors wouldn’t be sitting on their hands. They’d be doing their jobs – aggressively going after the bad guys.

 

 

Around the Web / Martin Column / Uncategorized - 02/28/2011

Taking Aim at Wall Street - With Jack Bauer

After a day consumed with the Goldman-Sachs hearings, last night I caught up with the latest installment of  the television show “24.”

Spoiler alert: I’m going to disclose what’s happening in “24, ” which focuses on the life of a mythical high-level super antiterrorism agent, Jack Bauer, who is pitted constantly and single-handedly not only against the wily, relentless terrorists but against the corrupt and inept politicians and government officials who are his bosses, usually at the same time.

I don’t always agree with the politics of “24.” But I find it insanely entertaining and profoundly troubling. It’s also one of the few public entertainments that confronts directly the issues of authority and morality we’ve been grappling with since 9/11.

In the latest episode, Bauer actually goes against his president, to whom he’s previously shown the utmost loyalty, because he finds out she’s covering up evidence of an assassination. She’s doing it for the greater good of course; to promote a fragile Middle East peace agreement.

At some point, Bauer finds that the principle of accountability is stronger than his ingrained loyalty to his president.

Accountability, Bauer says, is so fundamental to democracy that it cannot be compromised.

When one of his former colleagues, now his new boss, hears what he’s scheming, she cautions him not to go against his president. “You’re not thinking clearly,” she says.

“I’m the only one who’s thinking clearly,” Bauer shoots back.

After a day of watching Goldman’s officials studiously avoid answering questions in the Senate, “24” put a grim exclamation point on one of the most infuriating aspects of the financial crisis: the utter lack of accountability the financial industry has borne for how it wrecked our economy, through fraud, ineptitude, greed and recklessness.

The Obama administration has made clear it’s not interested in punishing bankers: for the greater good of repairing  the economy, we’re told,  we don’t want to look backward too closely.  We need to move forward.

Left unspoken are the millions in contributions that Wall Street has lavished on the Democrats, and the web of interconnections between the administration and the financial industry, most notably Goldman-Sachs.

We’re offered the faux accountability in the emotionally gratifying theater of the Senate Goldman hearings, the SEC’s attempt at reviving its abysmal reputation after missing the Madoff and Stanford massive fraud schemes by suing Goldman for fraud, and the limp, clumsy Financial Inquiry Commission led by Phil Angelides.

Which are fine as far  as they go. I hope they provide some impetus to put real muscle into financial reform, and they serve some purpose in reminding people how angry and ripped off they feel.

But let’s not forget they’re mostly theater. For example, the Republican senators took turns with their Democratic colleagues beating up on Goldman for CSPAN, while outside of camera range they get their Wall Street fundraising mojo back.

One of the sharpest critics of the lack of accountability has been Bill Black, a former bank regulator during the S&L crisis, who emphasizes that it was multiple robust criminal investigations that uncovered the widespread wrong-doing at the heart of that financial meltdown.

One official who gets it is Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, aka the bailout, who has raised the possibility of criminal investigations and tangled with the Treasury Department.

Meanwhile the mainstream media  serves up pap about how the mild financial reform proposed by the Obama administration is “the biggest overhaul of the nation’s financial system since the Great Depression.”

That’s just not true. The largest overhaul of the system would be the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which had kept federally guaranteed traditional banking from riskier casino-style gambling activities which banks found fabulously lucrative before they blew up the economy. The current reform proposals contain nothing as earth-shattering as that.

Despite happy talk of an economic recovery  that still looks far off to many on Main Street, the politicians are finding the public’s outrage over their handling of the financial crisis is not abating, fueled in part by the political grandstanding.

Like Jack Bauer, we’ve had it with the corruption and the blundering. Public outrage over Sen. Chris Dodd’s close ties to subprime cronies forced him to retire. Conservative Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln, facing a tough reelection battle, wrote a tough bill that would regulate toxic derivatives. Then she was forced to give away  her Goldman-Sachs campaign contributions. On Tuesday, 62 members of Congress wrote a letter demanding that the Justice Department, not just the SEC, investigate Goldman-Sachs. And a handful of senators are preparing amendments that would toughen financial reform.

I know “24” is a fantasy but one of the reasons it’s so compelling is the way it embodies and scrambles the desperation of our current moment, and Jack Bauer, armed to the teeth in a stolen helicopter, touched a nerve this week. Accountability is our most important arsenal.

Martin Column - 04/28/2010

Obama to Bailout Cop: Beat It!

The Obama administration, which has increasingly been adopting a can’t do attitude when it comes to putting real teeth into financial regulation, now wants to take out the teeth already in place.

Treasury officials are signaling they’d rather not have the same aggressive special inspector general overseeing the $700 billion federal bailout anywhere near their new $30 billion bank subsidy to encourage lending to small business.

I wrote about that inspector general, Neil Barofsky, a couple of weeks ago, suggesting he was one of the few public officials actually trying to protect our money rather than just acting as a rubber stamp for Wall Street’s raid on the U.S. Treasury.

Barofsky has issued a series of scathing reports raising questions about federal officials’ handling of the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Treasury officials contend that although the $30 billion would come from unspent TARP funds, it’s technically not TARP. So Barofsky should butt out. Their real reason for not wanting Barofsky around is simple: the banks don’t like him looking over their shoulders.

You can’t blame the banks for that. No doubt it’s a lot more fun to spend your federal handout without some nosy former federal prosecutor scrutinizing every move you make.

But for the Obama administration to go along with it is troubling and baffling. The president promised an unprecedented level of accountability, understanding that openness would go a long way toward restoring credibility in the financial system and the government’s ability to oversee it.

But Treasury officials appear to be more concerned with keeping the bankers happy than they are with keeping them honest.

The news about Barofsky surfaced as the administration appeared to be backing away from its recent embrace of former Fed chief Paul Volcker, who favors limits on bank size and risky financial trading. Predictably, the financial titans were balking at the proposals.

The administration’s move against Barofsky is both bad policy and bad politics. It seems designed to hand live ammunition to the mistrustful antigovernment troops of the Tea Party.

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have been quiet on the issue. The president and the Democrats have accomplished what at one time would have been seen as a nearly impossible task: handing the mantle of accountability and openness over to Republicans, who are howling with outrage over the idea of keeping Barofsky away from the small-business lending subsidy.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Ca., said earlier this week: “Denying SIGTARP the ability to defend taxpayers sends a chilling message that IGs who conduct real oversight will be punished for holding this Administration accountable.”

At the very least, the administration needs to come to its senses and regain its commitment to transparency. Let Barofsky do his job. The administration should be paying better attention to his criticisms, not trying to get rid of him.

Action / Martin Column - 02/25/2010

If You Can't Explain it, You Can't Regulate it

Imagine if government officials who controlled some crucial aspect of our lives, say the war in Afghanistan, spoke about it in public only in another language.

Greek, say.

Only those who understood Greek would be able to talk about it or ask questions.

Now imagine that those who controlled the policy were unelected, appointed by a mysterious group of Greek-speaking weapons manufacturers whose business would benefit from the war.

Got it?

That’s about what we have in the U.S. Federal Reserve, a quasi-government agency that speaks in its own language, whose members are appointed by banks, and are not accountable to anybody else.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column - 11/24/2009

Never-Ending Bailout is Not a Partisan Issue

It would be hard to find two congressmen more politically opposite than Brad Sherman and Jeb Hensarling.

Sherman is solid Democrat from the San Fernando Valley in southern California. Hensarling is a red-meat Texas conservative protege of former senator Phil Gramm.

Sherman and Hensarling may not agree about anything else.

But the two men have been outspoken in one shared view: that the bailout known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP has lacked accountability or transparency from day one.

Martin Column / TARP - 10/14/2009