Bartlett Naylor co-authored this blog post with Amit Narang.

After two years of studying the proposed Volcker Rule, with 20,000 comments from bankers and the public, hundreds of meetings with Wall Street lobbyists, and 18 months past the rule’s congressionally mandated deadline for enactment, we’re now being told by the American Action Forum (AAF) — a self-described “center right policy institute” — that this was a rush job.

The Volcker Rule figures as a hallmark in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. It prohibits proprietary trading — gambling — by federally insured financial institutions.

The Volcker rule is about the worst example AAF could have come up with of a so-called rushed rulemaking. The simple and demonstrable truth is that our current regulatory process is far too slow and unwieldy to work effectively for the American public, and the Volcker Rule is the case in point.

Financial agencies missed deadline after deadline as they crafted the Volcker rule. Part of the delay was that they faced an unprecedented lobbying barrage from Wall Street to weaken the rule with loopholes or block it completely. So it is pretty incredible to see AAF try to re-write history and trick the public into believing that the regulators rushed this rule. AAF can distort the record and cherry-pick facts, but it doesn’t change the fact that, although the public and our economy are both far better off with the Volcker rule now in place, it took far too long.

The AAF adds that a new “administration” study reveals “annual” costs could approach $4.3 billion, proof that the regulators didn’t appreciate the ramifications of what they approved.

That $4.3 billion “annual” cost detailed in the administration study largely stems from the high end of losses the biggest banks might suffer shedding some of their high-risk assets, largely hedge funds. It is, in fact, a one-time cost, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) estimates the cost in a range of $0 to $3.6 billion. The high end of the compliance estimate makes up the balance of the $4.3 billion.

Continue Reading

Last night my colleague Christine Hines and I hosted an online conversation about one of the most insidious threats facing consumers: forced arbitration clauses.

If you missed the conversation, check it out below:

Many people never think to read the gobs of fine print in contracts for things like cell phones and credit cards, but companies are increasingly using those types of contracts to restrict our access to the justice system.

Continue Reading

TysonCNBCRecently I appeared on CNBC to discuss whether to lift the 39-year old ban on exporting US produced crude oil. Ending the ban is bad policy for 5 reasons.

I. Allowing the export of crude oil will raise gasoline prices for American consumers. As I’ve argued before, while the oil boom can’t lead to affordable energy for Americans, it has led to a very slight discount for US refiners, which in turn lowers gasoline prices just a tad.

II. It doesn’t make sense to start exporting crude oil when we’re still importing 7.6 million barrels of oil every day, and we’ll continue to be dependent on imports for a long time.

III. Exporting crude will provide incentives to produce more oil, further straining environmental concerns from fracking and deepwater drilling, and exacerbating the impacts of global climate change from its overseas consumption. While we are currently exporting record amounts of refined petroleum products like diesel and gasoline, allowing the export of the raw crude oil will significantly increase the rate at which we export domestically produced oil. That’s because right now crude oil producers must first ship their product to a refiner, where it can take a while to turn the crude into end products. Allowing for direct crude exports will allow producers to bypass the refineries altogether, and will expand the number of export ports from which to unload the crude.NA-BZ765_OILEXP_G_20140122181803

IV. Crude oil exports won’t be effective as a diplomatic tool to counter influence of, say, Russian or Saudi energy exports because the United States simply lacks adequate spare capacity to meaningfully dilute those countries’ dominance over certain markets.

V. Focusing on whether to export crude oil or not misses the larger point: we can’t have this debate in a vacuum separate from the need to establish a national energy and climate policy that comprehensively establishes a clear path for consumers to enjoy access to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy for generations to come.

Tyson Slocum is Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program. Follow him on Twitter @TysonSlocum

This year opens yet another chapter in the ongoing battle to achieve meaningful disclosure of corporate political spending. Ever since 10 law professors filed a petition at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) asking the agency to require publicly traded companies to disclose information on their political spending, Public Citizen, along with our allies in the Corporate Reform Coalition, have been pushing to make the rule a reality.

We got a great boost last week when newcomer to the fight, Missouri Secretary of State, Jason Kander, weighed in with a comment to the agency.

“Full disclosure of corporate political spending is imperative to ensure all investors have equal access to accurate, complete, and timely information about the corporations in which they are invested,” wrote Kander. He added, “In my judgment, there is no doubt that reasonable and responsible corporate transparency – including with respect to political spending – is in the best interests of investors, companies, and the general public.”

Continue Reading

Follow on Twitter

Congress passed – unanimously in the Senate and without debate – and President Obama will sign, H.R. 2019, the “Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act” (named after a 10-year old child who died last year of brain cancer). If the legislation actually did what it touts – to finance pediatric research – it would be a noble bill for a noble cause.

But it is a fig-leaf bill. Its real purpose is to begin dismantling the presidential public financing system, and is very unlikely to produce any revenues for pediatric research.

The bill was originally introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), a longtime opponent of campaign finance reform. After Harper was unable to persuade Congress to approve earlier legislation that would have entirely defunded the public financing program, Harper re-worked the bill into what it is known now.

The legislation transfers public funds used to pay for the nominating conventions into the general treasury, then states that those funds may be used for pediatric research, if Congress ever decides to appropriate the funds for that purpose.

This same Congress slashed National Institute of Health (NIH) funding by $1.55 billion, which finances the pediatric research program, in the appropriations bills, and then placed caps on any further spending by NIH. The Kids First Research Act, if ever implemented, would transfer from the presidential public financing system to pediatric research, a pittance of what Congress slashed from the research budget. And even that pittance is not likely to happen. Given current spending caps on governmental agencies, Congress also would have to pass legislation lifting the spending ceiling for the National Institutes of Health to carry through with this appropriation, something that this Congress is very unlikely to do.

Continue Reading

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.