More

Maria Cantwell Flips Vote On Financial Reform Bill, Senate Nears Margin Needed For Cloture

First Posted: 07/01/10 09:54 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:55 PM ET

Cantwell Financial Reform

One of the two Senate Democrats opposed to the pending financial reform bill flipped Thursday and announced that she would back a bill she had until now steadfastly opposed for being too weak, potentially bringing Democrats to within one vote of the 60 needed to end Senate debate and secure passage.

A spokesman for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) exclusively told HuffPost that the senator planned to back the bill. She later said in a statement that after reading the final version of the legislation -- and receiving a letter of assurance from a top derivatives regulator -- she would now support the overhaul "because of tough new regulations of derivatives added in final conference negotiations."

Cantwell had previously opposed the bill for its perceived laxity in dealing with firms that try to evade its requirements for derivatives trading, as well as the discretion it affords regulators who may seek to weaken its provisions.

Despite her newfound support, she still cautioned that the bill does not end the perception that some financial firms remain too big to fail. President Barack Obama's top economic adviser has said that ending Too Big To Fail is the "central objective" in reforming the nation's financial system.

Derivatives, financial instruments that transfer risk, were at the center of the financial meltdown and resulting crisis. Largely traded without government oversight, these products were presumed to be the province of sophisticated parties who knew what they were doing, and thus did not need to be regulated. The worst financial crisis since the Great Depression largely changed that view.

But Cantwell said the proposed reform package didn't go far enough and risked missing "the entire heart of the matter," as she put it in a May 20 statement. Pro-reform groups pointed out a raft of loopholes in the bill that passed out of the Senate. The legislation:

  • Did not impose sufficient penalties on those who evaded the legislation's requirements that a type of derivative known as a swap, which involves regular payments over a specific time period, be routed through a third party that would guarantee counterparties against default;
  • Did not prohibit the use of these swaps and, more egregiously, expressly stated that no swap can be voided for failure to fulfill this requirement;
  • And did not give regulators sufficient authority to mandate that these third parties, known as clearinghouses -- facilities that execute trades for parties who are required to post collateral and mark their positions daily to prevailing market prices -- accept swaps which could otherwise be rejected in order to allow the parties to the contract evade the clearing requirement altogether. The legislation mandates that standard swaps contracts go through a clearinghouse.

So parties to a contract could have evade the requirements without penalty and yet still have their contracts be legally enforceable despite this evasion. The requirements, thus, were "optional," as Cantwell and pro-reform groups have argued.

Cantwell had offered an amendment to change that, making such swaps illegal and thus unenforceable. In a May 21 hearing before a Senate panel, Commodities Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler said he agreed with Cantwell's position. The CFTC is one of two federal agencies entrusted with policing derivatives.

In the final version of the legislation, which was hammered out by House and Senate negotiators over the past few weeks, a provision was quietly added to make it unlawful for swaps counterparties to evade clearinghouses if their contract is supposed to be routed through one. Cantwell said she pushed for that change.

Also, the final version of the bill increases the power of regulators to mandate that clearinghouses accept swaps, and it eliminated a provision that would have exempted swaps from clearing if a clearinghouse rejected it. That particular provision was feared as a backdoor way for firms to avoid the clearing requirement.

In addition, the new version doubled fines for "knowingly or recklessly" violating the clearing provisions; toughened up limits on commodity contracts that could help prevent speculators from manipulating the market; and it gave American derivatives regulators the authority to require foreign trading venues to register with the U.S., potentially preventing domestic firms from evading U.S. requirements by simply trading overseas.

Gensler has repeatedly praised the bill over the past few weeks, though cautioning much work remains as his agency moves to implement the new regulations. He met with Cantwell on Thursday afternoon after testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

Adam K. White, director of research at White Knight Research and Trading, an independent research consulting firm, said he was particularly pleased with the final result.

"The core bill is very strong. If you remember, the clearing requirement was always meant to be the solution to systemic risk," White said in an e-mail.

White also explained how the bill -- at least when it came to derivatives -- got stronger:

"The Volcker Rule and [Sen. Blanche] Lincoln's 'push out' provisions came after the House had already passed their version. Because Wall Street was focused on the Volcker Rule and Lincoln's swap dealer "push put' provisions it allowed the clearing section to stay strong," he wrote, referencing the provisions named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and current Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), whose respective measures would have banned banks from speculating in the markets and dealing derivatives with taxpayer-backed bank deposits, respectively.

"Cantwell's gambit of voting 'no' on the Senate bill paid off in spades because they made her required changes in the conference committee in order to win her vote," White said. "Because of her strong stand we now have an iron-clad clearing requirement which will make it impossible for Wall Street to avoid clearing their swaps.

"This is a huge victory," he wrote. "This bill does not solve all the problems we have within our financial system but it takes monumental strides toward solving our derivatives problem and derivatives were central to the near collapse of the financial system."

READ Gensler's letter:


Gary Gensler to Maria Cantwell

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
One of the two Senate Democrats opposed to the pending financial reform bill flipped Thursday and announced that she would back a bill she had until now steadfastly opposed for being too weak, potenti...
One of the two Senate Democrats opposed to the pending financial reform bill flipped Thursday and announced that she would back a bill she had until now steadfastly opposed for being too weak, potenti...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,269
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (22 total)
  1 of 3  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
ThatsTheTheWayItIs 09:25 AM on 07/02/2010
Many HuffPosters have "dissed" this bill, without any idea of what it does.

If you've been one of them, read the article carefully to note how small, detailed and probably irrelevant Cantwell's objections were, and how they were fixed with essentially no changes, just reassurance.

I've enjoyed reading the rants here about this bill, clearly based on near-zero information :-)
 Read More...
photo
uniquindividual
I'm unique and so are you
02:38 AM on 07/05/2010
Just vote for crying out loud. If the republicans fillibuster even an incomplete bill, they look bad - they were behind the deregulation that got us here in the first place (Never forget Savings and Loans in the 80s' or Electricity deregulation either.)
photo
castlerider
"A man's home is his castle"
12:55 AM on 07/05/2010
First good news I've seen on this package yet, seeing her confidence and integrity willing to support this legislation.
Incredible how much difference it makes to have a Senate leader we can basically trust.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LinkSync
03:33 PM on 07/04/2010
Is it just me, or is there a real difference between the English Language version of a Bill and the “real” Legalese version?
I mean to say that very often (always?) what a Bill is supposed to do and be about is often made to be otherwise when in legal form.

If you have ever read the actual laws as written, your eyes, like mine, no doubt glazed over within minutes as they pars back and forth to already existing laws and codes and regulations and effect the changes in them the new law enacts.

I experienced all this when I went line by line through the Health Reform Bill and discovered that much of what it ACTUALLY DID was completely at odds with what we were told it was supposed to do. For example I had counted well over 80 NEW bureaucratic entities that all could, and no doubt will, become choke points and so on. Who will own those power points “The industry”?

But the question more fundamentally comes to my now deeply suspicious mind as to WHO it is that writes the actual Law? What are their motivations and is there any oversight of them?
I do not understand the process at all and I think none of us do and I see it as being a place where we all can be, and are being cheated.

Do the Repugnants “OWN” the writers? The Demonocrats? The American People?

This needs at least Transparency.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Socrates100
12:02 PM on 07/04/2010
(Yawn) Can't think of one piece of legislation that wasn't the result of some form of compromise. 'Tis the way our country is governed. So you "can't well" blame Maria for engaging in the political process.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
11:42 PM on 07/03/2010
What a surprise a Democrat who compromises away all meaningful reform. If you always compromise away all key rules then are you really different than a GOPer?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:39 PM on 07/03/2010
health care "reform", financial "reform", "transparency", please meet the new boss, same as the old boss...don't get fooled again
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
masher
software engineer
11:44 PM on 07/03/2010
The Dems are great actors. They do a great job of "feeling our pain" and then doing exactly what Bush would have done.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
floridafun
01:39 PM on 07/04/2010
teabaggery at it norm. please..name who you think should be next prez and what that person would do (speculate based on their history)? if you cant do it you just like saying no no no just like a 3 yr old.
10:44 PM on 07/04/2010
No one "feels our pain," masher...unless they've lived it. They haven't. They never will. It's the difference between the "ruling class"...and the "rest of us." No one cares.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bluto392
10:20 PM on 07/03/2010
how's maria's bod look? based on the pic with the story, I think I'd h.i/t it
11:41 AM on 07/04/2010
ha ha ha
04:34 PM on 07/04/2010
She is hotter looking than Patty Murray, my other senator.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ramsha
03:18 PM on 07/03/2010
Do the Tea Baggers and other Republican constituents realize that this Bill if passed will likely prevent another Mega Recession in the near future at least.
10:40 PM on 07/03/2010
"if passed will likely prevent another Mega Recession"

nope. all it does is digging the hole deeper. Especially with the Chinese slowing down purchase of US debt and stocking up on gold. Especially with France, Germany, Sweden not tempted to spend wildly like the US.
photo
dvtaz
Stop whining. Hard work equals success
08:43 AM on 07/03/2010
Cantwell was holding out for a big payoff. It will eventually come out what it took to buy her vote, and it had nothing to do with a change in the legislation. Whose the next Democrat to get a sweetheart deal?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hoosierbrad
I know it when I see it.
08:27 AM on 07/03/2010
Good. Pass the bill and try to strengthen it later. Pragmatism in politics is a virtue, not a sin.
10:43 PM on 07/03/2010
"Good."

nope.

passing a bill for passing sake is just foolish. Damage done by bad bills cannot be negated completely. Already one is walking knee deep in cruddy crumbs from previous past bills.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:39 PM on 07/03/2010
Incremental bankruptcy with serfdom guaranteed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:10 AM on 07/03/2010
Private sector jobs more than double in June, the stock market dives. Lloyd, the senate hearing is just a nag-a-thon, we won't molest your derivatives.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:43 AM on 07/03/2010
Again, then. TBTF is a myth that only lives in the minds of some in congress! On what legal principle does the taxpayer get inserted into the derivative agreement between the counterparties to accept being required to pay for their risk?!

The first sentence of the third paragraph in the letter from Gensler to Cantwell gives only his assurances, when we need hard and fast laws on the books! Gensler states: "I believe that a significant portion of the market will be subject to this mandatory clearing requirement." With billions and trillions of taxpayer dollars at stake Gensler's belief is not strong enough to protect the taxpayers! WE need hard and fast laws on the books, not simple assurances from some regulator that will be lost in the winds of time!

On what legal principle is the taxpayer forced into the derivative contract by cramming the payment of the risk down the taxpayers' throat! It is NOT their burden to accept!

FREE the TAXPAYERS!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:31 AM on 07/03/2010
Moderator: Please post my comment of 4:22. I hope that you are not so sensitive as to cancel a comment that uses a four letter word that begins with an "f" standing for fornication, as to cancel the whole otherwise acceptable (to you) comment. By the way, that particular four-letter word's etymology is older than Mathuselah.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:33 AM on 07/03/2010
that would be 6:22 est
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
optimist7
02:51 AM on 07/03/2010
So are the 60 Senate votes there now? Or, will we see a repeat of the 2009 healthcare reform summer with a 2010 finance reform summer, and the Republicans and Tea Parties running around attracting as much media attention as possible to convince the public that the Democrats and their reform bill are no good to garner Republican votes in November?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
springsm
02:14 AM on 07/03/2010
That is a devious and untrue headline. She did NOT flip, she had stronger language put into the bill and with that she can support it. come on HP...be true about this stuff.
02:53 AM on 07/03/2010
Why do expect the spin machine to be truthful? It was funny how the anti-war activitists were discarded like trash after Obama was elected. To be replaced by the pin the tail on Sarah Palin game.