iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Auction 2012: How The Bank Lobby Owns Washington

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

First Posted: 01/30/2012 11:25 am Updated: 01/30/2012 7:50 pm

Auction 2012 is a weeklong series in collaboration with "The Dylan Ratigan Show" and United Republic.

When Washington puts policy on the auction block, bankers are consistently the highest bidders.

The industry's most striking victory has been the watering down of post-financial crisis reforms, to the point that banks are now bigger than ever and the bonuses keep flowing. But Wall Street's campaign spending and lobbying power is so intimidating that banks have repeatedly stuck the public with the tab for their losses and no one in Washington stops them.

Why hasn't the government done something about outrageous ATM fees? Or credit card interest rates up to 30 percent? Bankers' clout is such that common-sense pro-consumer legislation is presumptively dead on arrival at Capitol Hill if it threatens banks' revenue streams.

An epic recent battle between consumers and Wall Street was fought over a congressional proposal to give bankruptcy judges the legal authority to modify principal balances on mortgages in a way that is fair to both parties. Known as "cramdown," it would have allowed more than a million ordinary Americans to keep their homes. But because it would have leveled the playing field between banks and debtors -- and would have forced banks to officially recognize losses they don't want to acknowledge -- the financial services industry fought cramdown with everything it had.

In May 2009, toward the end of his futile battle for cramdown, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) famously told a radio host, "And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

Consider the numbers: The finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector combined to spend $6.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions from 1998 through 2011, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' examination of public records. That's $1 billion more than any other sector spent on Washington.

A recent study by the Sunlight Foundation found that individuals within the FIRE sector were head and shoulders above those in other industries in making large campaign contributions.

Big banks' undisclosed contributions also underwrite powerful trade groups like the American Bankers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable.

And more than half of the lobbyists working for the FIRE sector are ex-government officials -- in many cases, onetime lawmakers and staffers who helped write laws that deregulated the industry. When in need, the banks can call on the firepower of former Senate leaders like Phil Gramm, Trent Lott and Bob Dole and former House leaders like Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey and Dick Gephardt.

CONSUMERS LOSE

Despite widespread public support, an attempt by Durbin and firebrand Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to cap interest rates on credit cards in 2009 was doomed by industry opposition.

Starting in February of that year, reports emerged that millions of cardholders were being told their interest rates would go up -- in some cases to 30 percent -- if they missed even one payment. Then-Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) concluded that lenders were "gouging" customers to make up for losses. Readers told The Huffington Post their stories of woe.

By April, the backlash on Capitol Hill led Sanders to propose an interest rate cap of 15 percent. "We both want to reinstitute the notion of a usury law for the United States," Durbin told HuffPost's Ryan Grim.

The New York Times in May declared the bill a shoo-in. "Lawmakers say the industry's time has come," wrote reporter Carl Hulse. And President Barack Obama's rousing May 14 town hall meeting excoriating the credit card companies played well in Albuquerque, N.M.

But that very same day, the Sanders amendment died in the Senate with only 33 votes. It needed 60.

The Times somberly explained, "The banking industry, which had some heavyweight representatives monitoring the vote, warned that an interest rate limit could cause a sour reaction in the financial markets."

A year later, in May 2010, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced an amendment that would have allowed individual states to cap credit card interest rates. The goal was to close a federal loophole that permitted credit card companies to headquarter in states with looser rules, like South Dakota and Delaware, and charge whatever they wanted to charge nationwide.

That proposal was defeated by a 60-35 vote.

Also in May 2010, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) launched a campaign to cap ATM transaction fees. Noting that ATM fees average $2.50 and can run as high as $5 -- while the real cost of processing a transaction is about 35 cents -- Harkin proposed to cap fees at 50 cents. "The burden falls more heavily on low-income and moderate-income people," he noted. "That is grossly unfair."

Banks opposed the idea, arguing that capping fees would just lead to fewer cash machines, including those owned by banks.

Harkin couldn't even get a floor vote. Two weeks after he first put forth his proposed amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, he took to the Senate floor and asked to be heard. It was his own party chief, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who denied his request -- because the Republicans hadn't agreed to it.

"What kind of games are being played around here?" Harkin asked the Senate chamber. "I've had this amendment pending ever since the beginning. And I have not been allowed to bring it up."

BANKS GET THEIR WAY

So what explains the banks' ability time and again to kill bills that threaten their bottom line?

Georgetown Law School professor Adam Levitin, who closely followed the cramdown debate, observes that banks push all the levers in Washington.

"They make an awful lot of campaign contributions," said Levitin. That "would be number one. They aren't making those just out of the goodness of their heart. They're hoping that it gets them some influence. It certainly gets them an audience at the very least."

Then there are the "army of lobbyists," Levitin said. "I think it's hard for your average citizen to understand the intensity of lobbying of both people on the Hill and in government agencies."

Alongside the professional lobbyists come actual bankers -- but not necessarily the Wall Street crowd, even though they have the most at stake. The financial industry brings in local bankers, often from the lawmakers' own districts.

"The banks that really had the big portfolios were not the face of the opposition," recalled Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who championed cramdown on the House side. "The [American Bankers Association] always sends up the owner of some three-branch community bank instead."

Click image to enlarge.

"The community banks and credit unions have outsized political influence relative to their role in the economy," Levitin explained. Members of Congress will always make time for them.

In March 2009, after the House Democratic leadership made a "herculean effort," Miller said, the cramdown measure passed the lower chamber 234-191.

But in the Senate, thanks to ferocious bank lobbying -- and a puzzling lack of support, if not outright opposition, from the Obama administration -- it was defeated by a wide margin, with the bill falling 15 votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to a final vote.

After the vote, Durbin despaired to HuffPost reporter Grim, "Frankly, I can't match what the bankers are doing in terms of lobbying."

Meanwhile, David Kittle, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, gleefully told the American News Project, "We led the way on this, and we are clearly responsible for defeating this for the third time in the last year."

Durbin told Grim he still held out some hope for the future: "When the voters speak, some elected officials listen. So I hope that, if we fail on mortgage foreclosure and we fail on credit card reform, I hope that people in this country will stand up and say to Congress, 'You've got the wrong friends.'"

The Auction 2012 series explores the ways industries influence policymaking in five areas: banking, energy, health care, trade and education. Read Dylan Ratigan's blog post introducing the series and his blog post on banking.

Follow this diagram of how banks became gamblers from Dylan Ratigan's book "Greedy Bastards":

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Auction 2012 is a weeklong series in collaboration with "The Dylan Ratigan Show" and United Republic. When Washington puts policy on the auction block, bankers are consistently the highest bidders.
Auction 2012 is a weeklong series in collaboration with "The Dylan Ratigan Show" and United Republic. When Washington puts policy on the auction block, bankers are consistently the highest bidders.
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,538
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (91 total)
08:56 AM on 03/06/2012
give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank.......give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CommonSenseAmerican
Occam's Razor isn't something you shave with!
01:41 PM on 02/23/2012
The voters and the appointed leaders are to blame for allowing this to happen. The voters need to STOP voting along party lines and really truly look at the candidates and their track records. I mean come on people. You look at some of the top ranking R's and D's and (to me) I don't know how these people continue to get voted in year after year with the things they have allowed.

Also, maybe this is too simplistic but, can the Senators and Congressmen simply NOT allow the lobbyist to influence them? What I mean is, can they just not meet with them? Can't these elected officials be called out for their inability to be influenced in something that is clearly wrong?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Frederick Bosick
Science and Computer Guy
06:52 PM on 02/10/2012
It's long past time to hang 500 bankers and Finance Company CEOs for the economic terrorism known as the Great Recession. Lobbyists disappear when the guy who signs their checks is 6 foot under.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roman238
Telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
12:02 PM on 02/10/2012
They don't just own Washington...they own all of us.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:44 AM on 02/04/2012
I think that lobbying should be terminated. It should no longer be allowed. It is the cause of much of the garbage that happens in government. It is a form of paying off politicians in order to gain favor.
If the banks spent billions on lobbying, did that come out of the bailouts? Probably not, but nevertheless I think you see my point.
05:14 PM on 02/01/2012
People blame banks, the campaign donation money, the two main political parties, the lobbyists, the PACs, the corporate interests, etc.

But if you really trace the problem back to its source, those are not the root problem. The voters themselves are.

Many voters only consider the candidates placed right in front of them by the mainstream corporate-owned media, even though most of those candidates got the money to make themselves visible by taking legal bribes (campaign contributions) from organizations that seek some special benefit. And then they complain about how the politicians they elect answer to the interests whose money made those candidates visible. Candidates like Ron Paul, who attract enough individual donors to not need special interest groups' money, are the exception.

Public discussion about campaign finance usually has the unspoken assumption that voters won't consider a candidate who does not have tons of advertising and endorsements. That does not have to be true, especially because voters can use Google to easily learn about all the available candidates, and give them equal consideration. Granted, this requires people without Internet-connected devices to go find a way to access the Web. It also requires people to figure out what to type into the Google search box (something like "Presidential candidates"?), and how to dig through the results. It's reasonable to demand that effort of anyone who will bother to vote; people who can't be bothered to look at the full range of choices should not vote.
photo
Ockhams Hammock
Debate is good. Sending Obama help is better.
03:37 AM on 02/01/2012
It's frankly irritating these days how little interest I get when I put money in the bank and how obscene the bonuses are for banking executives.

Then again, in the era when banks paid a more or less decent 4-5 percent interest on savings, it was irritating that real estate millionaires would borrow money from the same bank, buy up a bunch of apartment buildings and raise my rent. How was the bank acting in my interest?

To be honest, I don't mind rich people making money, particularly if they do something well and contribute to the general well being of the community. If a young up and coming baseball player makes a million dollars a year, I say good for him. Of course, I admit when an aging star on my favorite team earns $20 million a year and hits a lowly.210, I gripe like everyone else. Why should someone who's incompetent be paid so much?

Actually, I can remember when banks were not so mercenary. Can we please have banks again that don't treat their customers like pigeons? In too many places around the country, it's obvious George Bailey is no longer running the community bank.
10:21 PM on 01/31/2012
Remember Romney's jibes about "european socialism"? Boy are they ever trying to innoculate us against that big bad evil....but it is worth taking a look at Norway and Sweden to judge for ourselves. They CHOSE socialism when they confronted their own 1% in the 30's. We may NOT choose as they did but the GOP has plenty to fear if people start investigating on their own and figure out that a country "of/for/by the people" might have been intended to actually work for them (instead of just the corporations)

http://www.alternet.org/world/153929/how_swedes_and_norwegians_broke_the_power_of_the_%E2%80%981_percent%E2%80%

And I'm sorry, I should credit the poster who shared the link.....I'll do that next...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Pauline Seville
Maximus Decimus Meridius is fiction
11:34 PM on 01/31/2012
I have family in Norway, it is a beautiful civilized country.

Last week, I came across the post you cite...it was interesting about the nationalization of banks in the 30's. Thanks for re-posting....I forgot to save it.

Have a nice evening.
10:39 PM on 02/01/2012
You're very welcome. I also find it interesting that we, in the US, do have one version of a state bank....in North Dakota and they have done much to insure local access to fully collateralized credit. Seems those Scandinavians and Progressives of the last century knew a thing or two that didn't quite catch on in this country last time 'round. In light of all of the "Socialist Euro" comments being thrown around I'm doing some research on my own. It's funny about that preference for Europe thing though....the GOP are the ones that seem more European focused to me...of course they're trying to go back to Europe of the 18th century before all those pesky revolutions and such where rich people could just do as they pleased without pretense or apology.......am glad the link was helpful to you.....
10:18 PM on 01/31/2012
the GOP so hated Brad Miller that they "re-districted" him out of his seat....and now the scion of a banking family (George Holding) is running in that district. Only thing is .... in the TV ads he doesn't admit to his family's roots in banking (First Citizens) OR even the fact that he's a Republican.....If they're so doggone proud of their "business savvy" and the GOP brand you'd think they'd be touting both just a little more but then again, therein hangs the tale.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AndyWright68
Freedom is inevitable!
07:47 PM on 01/31/2012
The government is just the guns for banksters. Eliminate statism and they have nothing.
01:28 PM on 01/31/2012
Nice diagram. Text too small. Can't read it.
10:55 AM on 01/31/2012
I am so disgusted. I think the most surprising tidbit in this article is the role of local banks. The article claims that the local banks seem to be fighting just as hard alongside the huge ones. I have my money with a local bank (I'm done with Bof A), and I wil investigate my local bank's role in this mess.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
11:01 AM on 01/31/2012
If there is a God I hope he smites the B of A a mighty blow: here is an excellent short read. Somewhere a Banker Smiles

Muffled noises from the ranks of the babbling paranoid

By Joe Bageant

It's hard as hell to keep conspiracy theories out of one's mind these days. And I'm not talking about "Who really brought down the Twin Towers? or the "Are Zionists behind the Iraq War?" kind of stuff. The booger stalking my ragged old mind these days puts both of those in the shade. And it runs like this:

Is the consumerist totalization of this country and the world really a conscious plot by a handful of powerful corporate and financial masters? If we answer "yes" we find ourselves trundled off toward the babbling ranks of the paranoid. Still though, it's easy enough to name those who would piss themselves with joy over the prospect of a One World corporate state, with billions of people begging to work for their 1,500 calories a day and an xBox chip in their necks. It's too bad our news media quit hunting with live ammo decades ago, leaving us with no one to track the activities and progress of what sure as hell seem to be global elites, judging from the financial spoor we find along every pathway of modern life.

more:http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2006/12/somewhere_a_ban.html
01:25 PM on 01/31/2012
Thanks for the Bageant article, muck-raker., It is especially interesting because...did you notice the date of the article? 2006...BEFORE the crisis occurred. He may have foreseen what was on the horizon. As I read it, it was as if it was written today...it fit in perfectly with the present situation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Gudzikowski
free,natural,harmless,individual
09:46 AM on 01/31/2012
This revolting development has gone far enough! Even Thomas Jefferson said; "If we let banks rule state we will all become homeless." I believe there should be an ultimatum that give banks 90days to return to sound banking or deal with the consequences of being taken over or driven out of bussiness. Maybe the revisitation of the revolutionary war be brought to light and deal with the carpetbaggers of present day politics that should have been done after the original wars end.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
10:30 AM on 01/31/2012
agreed FF: excerpt: We knew the crisis was serious back in 2008. And we thought we knew who the “bad guys” were—the nation’s big banks, which through cynical lending and reckless gambling had brought the U.S. to the brink of ruin. The Bush and Obama administrations justified a bailout on the grounds that only if the banks were handed money without limit—and without conditions—could the economy recover. We did this not because we loved the banks but because (we were told) we couldn’t do without the lending that they made possible. Many, especially in the financial sector, argued that strong, resolute, and generous action to save not just the banks but the bankers, their shareholders, and their creditors would return the economy to where it had been before the crisis. In the meantime, a short-term stimulus, moderate in size, would suffice to tide the economy over until the banks could be restored to health.

more: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/stiglitz-depression-201201
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montezaro
09:41 AM on 01/31/2012
Whoever has the power to print and control the amount of money owns the country. That power is given to Banks by the Constitution. (Amendment 8 and 10).
09:39 AM on 01/31/2012
Not a news flash that the weasels are winning. The bankster elite has the system wired so they can keep their casino open that's rewarding their executives beyond any measure of equitable compensation.

Their most heinous crime is hedging, p/o which is short selling & actually betting against their own investors most of the time. They've made so much mega-billions they can buy both Presidential & most Senatorial candidates every election. The article shows proof of this: "But in the Senate, thanks to ferocious bank lobbying -- and a puzzling lack of support, if not outright opposition, from the Obama administration -- it was defeated by a wide margin, with the bill falling 15 votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to a final vote."

What did you expect from an Administration that retained Bernanke & Geithner to oversee Obama? It's a bankster autocracy, lets just replace the seal of the US with teh Goldman Sachs logo. I'm sure GS would approve!