Archive for December 11th, 2009

With passage of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives today takes an important first step in reregulating the financial sector.

Most importantly, the bill creates a powerful financial consumer watchdog agency. Had the Consumer Financial Protection Agency existed during the go-go years earlier this decade, it could have prevented millions of consumers from being ripped off – and protected the banks from themselves. The financial crisis would have been significantly less severe.

It also contains some modestly beneficial provisions in investor protection, establishing liability for credit ratings firms, regulating derivatives and imposing leverage limits on the largest institutions. And it includes an important measure for a comprehensive public auditing of the Federal Reserve. But the bill doesn’t do nearly enough to rein in the Wall Street banksters and is wholly incommensurate with the devastation Wall Street has wreaked across the land.

The bill does very little to address industry structure. Wall Street and the big banks engaged in reckless betting under the belief that they were too big to fail – that they were protected by a federal backstop. The biggest banks are now bigger than they were before the crisis. The solution to the too-big-to-fail problem is to

Continue Reading

Any day now, the Supreme Court will decide the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. In fact, this Monday is the next most likely day for a decision. We are bracing for it, because it could dramatically tip the balance of power in our democracy.

Since the day the case was re-heard on Sept. 9, when Public Citizen members and activists held protests across the country, we’ve been waiting to hear if the decision will have limited, but worrisome consequences, or if the court will unleash unlimited corporate spending in our elections. In previous decisions, the Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld the constitutionality of the ban on direct corporate spending to influence elections. But the Roberts Court may now reverse a century’s worth of precedent on limits to corporate spending.

At the heart of the case is the debate about free speech rights of for-profit corporations.  Though the First Amendment was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, for the past three decades, a divided Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to influence the political process. This could reach an extreme conclusion in Citizens United v. FEC.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.