Archive for April 12th, 2011

April12

Mrs. Warren’s Profession

By: Bartlett Naylor

"Bart Naylor" "Financial policy"Goodness, some members of Congress really don’t like Elizabeth Warren. Is it because she’s a law professor? From Harvard? Or is it simply that she threatens to end “unfair, deceptive or abusive practices,” which is what the Dodd-Frank charges the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) with doing?

Consider what’s transpired in the last few weeks. Two weeks ago,  House Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), along with key subcommittee chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), “all but accused Professor Elizabeth Warren of lying to Congress” in the characterization of our colleague Ed Mierzwinski of U.S. PIRG. Bachus and Capito alleged that the existence of draft CFPB materials offering advice to the state attorneys generally about the negotiation of a settlement with the large mortgage servicers (4 of the 5 biggest are owned by the biggest banks) somehow means that the CFPB is meddling in matters beyond its purview.

And last week, several Members of Congress launched new efforts to immobilize the power of any new CFPB chief.

First, Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) introduced a bill to make the CFPB subject to the congressional appropriations process. Presently, the CFPB’s budget derives from the Federal Reserve and does not need to be appropriated annually by the Congress—a process often characterized by unseemly special-interest mischief and interference with important agency missions. Next, Senator Moran introduced a bill that would freight the CFPB with a commission. House members introduced parallel legislation. A strong chief is needed to empower a new consumer protection agency; the goal of those proposing a commission structure is to slow the agency down and hamper it in performing its duties.

Republican members of Congress are not shy in their views. Rep Bachus infamously said, “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.” Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) said the CFPB  was “the last thing that our lenders need.” Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill.) ridiculed the “theoretical consumer protection” the agency would provide.

“This is not about Elizabeth Warren,” Bachus said. “This is about giving one person total unbridled authority and power.”

But Warren hasn’t even been named to head the agency yet, and so to us this seems like it is about far more than Professor Warren and her work. The attack on the CPPB bears a suspicious taint of putting big banks ahead of the American public. There should be no reason for Members of Congress to shy away from ending “unfair, deceptive or abusive” banking. We implore them to do so.

Bartlett Naylor is financial policy advocate for Public Citizen’s Congress Watch

This piece originally appeared in The Hill.

Posted in: Congress1 comments

April12

A step in the right direction

By: Micah Hauptman

Money plays too large of a role in elections. To compete in an increasingly money-driven system, candidates spend their days “dialing for dollars” and meeting with interests that can bankroll their campaigns. The recent Supreme Court case Citizens United only makes matters worse, allowing organizations to spend vast sums of money in the dark of night. The public is losing faith in our campaign finance system and rightfully so.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights took a step in the right direction Tuesday morning. Led by Senator Durbin, the subcommittee held a hearing on The Fair Elections Now Act, which would offer a new system for financing campaigns. The Fair Elections Now Act would allow candidates who value grassroots rather than corporate support, to accept matching public funds with small private donations. As a result, there would be increased transparency and accountability for our elected officials, who would respond to voters’ interests instead of deep-pocketed donors’.

Much of the hearing focused on the impact Citizens United has had on elections. Public Citizen’s recent report, “12 Months After” confirms that the damage is clear. Corporate expenditures are at an all-time high, corporate lobbyists wield influence like none other, and transparency is on the decline.

Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, the Brennan’s Center Monica Youn, and Tea-Party election attorney Cleta Mitchell testified before the subcommittee.

Simpson presented a real-world view of electioneering to the panel. He offered a grim picture of our current system, as our elected representatives spend too much of their time “begging” for money. He said legislators hate this aspect of their job, but they continue to do it because it’s necessary to win. However, as a result, America suffers. Simpson ardently voiced his support for changing the current scheme so our elected officials can do what really matters: meeting with other legislators, debating bills on the floor, and offering solutions to our nation’s problems.

Youn spoke of how our campaign finance system allows for “Godiva Chocolate” organizations to thrive. According to Youn, they are “Godiva Chocolate” because they are rich, dark, and we have no idea what’s inside them. Under the current regime, sophisticated and shadowy organizations commit what amounts to legal money laundering. They direct vast amounts of money for their political causes, with no accountability. What Youn was referring to is becoming clearer in every election cycle. We’ve all seen the commercials, “Paid for by Americans for mom and apple pie,” but we don’t know who “mom and apple pie” really are.

Mitchell didn’t see an issue with any of this. She believes our election system works just fine. She even said that it’s a part of elected officials’ jobs to raise money, just like it’s her job as an attorney to seek clients. However, unlike attorneys, our elected officials should not spend their time selling out to the highest bidder.

Senator Franken, who was nonplussed at her testimony, asked her how it’s acceptable that corporations can spend large amounts of money in campaigns, without disclosing it to their shareholders. She dodged the question, saying Franken was “confused.” They tussled for a few minutes when Mitchell, seemingly triumphant said, “We just had a confuse-off.” To which Franken retorted, “Yes, and I won.”

Just as Durbin and Franken challenged the status quo in the hearing today, we must continue to demand that our elected officials are responsive to the people, not other interests. The Fair Elections Now Act is a good start.

Tell your representatives that the Fair Elections Now Act is a good start.

Micah Hauptman is a licensed lawyer working with Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division



Posted in: Campaign Finance2 comments

April12

Because our elections are far too important . . .

By: Rachel Lewis

"Craig Holman"Our elections are far too important to leave to auctioneers and well-financed special interests.

That is why Congress should pass the Fair Elections Now Act (S. 750 and H.R. 1404), which offers a new system for financing campaigns that relies on public funds matching small private donations. Doing so not only would help improve the openness, honesty and accountability of government, but also would free public officials to respond to the interests of voters rather than deep-pocketed donors.

If we want to protect the environment, design a better health care system and improve our energy policy, we need a political system that encourages lawmakers to listen more to voters than to oil and gas companies, pharmaceutical giants and other industries.

Several states and localities have been operating under comprehensive public financing systems for years. These systems work. They draw rave reviews from lawmakers while producing more diverse fields of candidates. Even better, lawmakers who run under the systems spend significantly less time raising money than those who do not, giving them more time to do the work of the people. Consider that in 1976, successful U.S. Senate candidates spent an average of $2.3 million in 2010 dollars. In 2010, the average Senate winner spent an astonishing $7 million. It is estimated that senators spend a third of their time fundraising. That’s time that isn’t being spent on policymaking.

And consider this: A study of contributions to gubernatorial candidates in Arizona found that privately funded candidates in the 1998 and 2002 election cycles received more than 70 percent of their campaign contributions from people living in areas with per capita incomes of $40,000 or more. In contrast, following adoption of public financing in Arizona, candidates who opted into the state’s public funding system received up to 68 percent of their qualifying and seed contributions from people living in zip codes with per capita incomes below $40,000.

The Fair Elections Now Act envisions a system that is entirely voluntary for candidates and imposes no new restrictions on the campaign fundraising or spending of those who do not participate. But it could transform elections into true contests of ideas and merit, rather than fundraising prowess.

For these reasons, Public Citizen enthusiastically rallies in support of the Fair Elections Now Act and applauds the campaign to clean up elections by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) and all their colleagues who have co-sponsored this important legislation.

Take action today, support the Fair Elections Now Act!

Craig Holman is Public Citizen’s government affairs lobbyist.

Posted in: Campaign Finance2 comments

April12

Frackaholics. Is natural gas our new best friend or, are we simply trading addictions?

By: Rachel Lewis

T. Boone Pickens has abandoned wind, no thanks to the lack of proper incentives from the federal government. His next big idea, detailed in an environment360 blog post, is to revolutionize our highways and climate by pushing for a tax incentive that would help tractor trailer trucks make the conversion from diesel to compressed natural gas.

In theory, the plan is tempting. However, Fen Montaigne of environment360 consulted with Public Citizen’s energy program director Tyson Slocum who pointed out that:

. . . much of the natural gas Pickens is counting on to power the U.S. trucking industry will come from the hydro-fracturing, or fracking, of shales — a process in which a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals is forced at high pressure deep underground to free natural gas trapped in shale formations.

"Frackaholic"
The problem is because fracking was given an exemption from the Clean Air Act during the Bush administration, we don’t know what chemicals are being used. We do know that these  unknown chemicals are affecting the water tables and often health of residents in communities across the country where fracking is taking place.

Yesterday, The Hill broke word of a damning study by Cornell University that said that shale gas, which is obtained by hydraulic fracturing, would contribute more to greenhouse warming than coal over the next twenty years.

This is bad news for Obama. Raw Story pointed out that just weeks ago while giving a speech about energy at Georgetown University Obama said,

‘Recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves — perhaps a century’s worth of reserves, a hundred years worth of reserves — in the shale under our feet,’

In the Huffington Post, Brendan DeMille just wrote:

Fracking, sadly, has been given the green light for now by the Obama administration . . .  The Energy Information Administration currently estimates that the U.S. will rely on shale gas for roughly 45% of our energy needs by the year 2035.

Are we trading one bad addiction for another? Do we really want to become a nation of frackaholics?

Learn more about the unsafe and unregulated practice of fracking.

Posted in: Energy, Environment, Midmorning Refill, Uncategorized0 comments

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.