Get Off Corporate Crack

I spent last week at the Netroots Nation conference in Minneapolis, a gathering of activists who embrace the progressive label in one way or another.

The news media was there in force, churning out stories about how these progressives are dissatisfied with President Obama’s performance. That’s especially true in his handling of the economy, where unemployment is still too high, the foreclosure crisis is still rampant, the financial sector still hasn’t been adequately reformed after its excesses and Wall Street lobbyists have tangled up in knots even the meager attempts to regulate bankers.

One refrain summed up the frustration with the president’s performance on the economy: “No one has gone to jail.”

But beyond the venting that the media focused on was another, potentially bigger story that has the possibility of leapfrogging the divide between left and right.

That was the emerging demand for a mass movement to rid our politics of the corporate funding that has been as devastating as crack cocaine was in the streets.

Our politicians are hooked on corporate crack, and they will do anything and say anything to get it. They will break any promise, without caring how foolish and hypocritical they look.

This corporate money undermines both parties: Democrats promise to protect workers and consumers but end up promoting ineffective half-measures, while Republicans express support for the free market but actually support the unfettered power of a corporate oligarchy.

I had the opportunity to point out a recent example of how this corporate crack makes fools out of politicians and even the president of the United States during a Netroots session with Jeremy Bird, national strategy adviser to the Obama campaign.

I recounted how one day after reading about a secret meeting between Obama and his Wall Street donors at the White House, I received an email from Obama asking for five bucks, promising a different kind of fundraising campaign that didn’t rely on fat cats.

“Which is it?” I asked Bird. You can read Roll Call’s account here.

Bird responded that Obama’s “multi-faceted” fundraising wouldn’t take money from political campaign committees or lobbyists,  but Wall Street contributions are welcome.

Does the president really see a distinction, or is he just hoping no one is paying attention?

If the politicians are counting on people feeling too cynical and helpless to take action, that may be changing, sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens’ United, which said that corporate campaign contributions are a form of free speech so they cannot be restricted.

During another session, John Nichols, the Nation’s crusading Washington correspondent issued a fiery call for a nationwide movement to promote a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens’ United.

He compared the potential impact of such a movement to the impact of  the movement for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Though the “right to life” movement hasn’t achieved success. Nichols said, it has changed the nature of the debate.
Back on the subject of overturning Citizens’ United, Nichols said, “I can live without the actual constitutional amendment. But I can’t live without the movement.”

We need a movement that labels corporate crack exactly what it is.  It’s not speech. It’s bribery.

 

Action / Around the Web / Congress / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 06/22/2011

The Scandal That Won't Go Away

Despite the efforts of our public officials and bankers to ignore it, downplay it, paper it over or make it disappear, the fraud surrounding the mortgages at the heart of the financial collapse is the scandal that won’t go away.

Two big stories breaking over the past week showed what strong legs the scandal has. First, Huffington Post reported on a series of confidential audits that showed five of the country’s largest mortgage companies defrauded taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans.

Then the New York Times and others trumpeted an investigation of the mortgage securitization process by New York’s new state attorney general, Eric Schneiderman. This investigation won strong praise from two of the toughest watchdogs on the financial beat, Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone and Robert Scheer at Truthdig, who portrayed Schneiderman as a hared-charging prosecutor who unlike the feds and other state attorney generals, is not intimidated by Wall Street.

But Reuters financial blogger Felix Salmon argued that confidential audits, which were turned over to the Justice Department were a much bigger story than Schneiderman’s investigation.

Until Schneiderman’s investigation bear some fruit, I think history suggests we should be skeptical of officials who claim they are going to get tough on the banks and protect consumers.

Salmon pinpoints the real significance of the Schneiderman investigation – the continuing cracks in the state attorney general’s 50-state coalition that was negotiating with the banks to settle claims of mortgage fraud. Some Republicans had already criticized the state attorney generals for being too tough on the banks, referring to a proposed settlement as a shakedown. Other critics have raised questions about whether the attorney generals are being too soft, having sat down to negotiate without having done robust investigations first to gather ammunition.

Whatever the outcome of these on-going investigations’s, the week’s news guarantees one thing – the mortgage fraud scandal, and its offspring the foreclosure scandal, are not going away any time soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Around the Web / Foreclosures / Martin Column - 05/19/2011

Elizabeth Warren's Inside Move

So President Obama did not appoint bailout critic and middle-class champion Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

He did appoint her to an important-sounding post as a White House adviser with responsibility to set up the agency, which after all was her idea in the first place.

Is the president actually marginalizing her with the window dressing of a fancy title? Or will she have a meaningful role in setting up the agency and shaping policy?

The punditocracy has gone into overdrive analyzing the president’s handling of Warren.

The positive spin is that it’s a savvy political move on Obama’s part to get her to work right away creating the agency and avoid a Republican filibuster, and that the president will finally be hearing from an insider not under Wall Street’s spell.

The more skeptical interpretation sees it as the latest example of the president’s failure to push back against Wall Street on issues that Wall Street cares about. As he has in the past, rather than picking a principled fight with Wall Street (and Republicans) Obama found a way around it.

The third spin, from Barney Frank, is that Warren actually didn’t  want a permanent appointment now, keeping her options open to either exit the administration or accept the job later.

Writing on WheresOurMoney.org earlier, Harvey Rosenfield, eloquently described why Warren is the best person to lead the new agency.

Warren has been a long-time critic of predatory lending practices and the American way of debt. In her role as congressional monitor of the federal bank bailout she’s been a fearless straight shooter and a down-to-earth demystifier of the complexities and foibles of high finance.

But Obama’s handling of her appointment reinforces the impression that he’s weak in the face of Wall Street’s power. Why in the world, with a high-stakes election less than 2 months away, would the president want to avoid a fight with Wall Street and Republicans on behalf of the undisputed champion of the middle-class and consumers? If the president does intend to appoint Warren to head the agency later, does he seriously think it will be easier later?

Unlike most of the president’s other top economic advisers, Warren has never been cozy with Wall Street. But it’s simply not realistic to expect the president is about to get more aggressive in reining in the big banks with Warren on the inside.

The president has shown that he is capable of ignoring perfectly good advice from well-respected advisers with impressive job titles within his administration. Remember Paul Volcker? The former Fed adviser has been a lonely voice within the Obama administration warning about the continuing dangers of the too big to fail banks and too much risky business in the financial system. But the president used Volcker as little more than a populist prop, preferring the more conciliatory approach championed by his other top economic adviser, Larry Summers, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Fed president Ben Bernanke. These three effectively fought off the tougher aspects of financial regulation at the same they time touted themselves as real reformers. While the president made clear Warren will work directly for him, will she be able to match Summers, Geithner and Bernanke, all seasoned bureaucratic infighters? She’s done little to endear herself to them and has publicly tangled with Geithner.

There’s no question that Warren, a Harvard bankruptcy law professor, has already played an extraordinary and important role in helping understand the financial collapse and its fallout. She’s never been anything but forthright, no-nonsense, principled, unafraid to speak truth to financial power and to demand accountability. She will need all those qualities as well as thick skin and nerves of steel for her new job. The stakes are high. I wish her well.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / Paul Volcker / President Barack Obama - 09/17/2010

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