Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) likes to tout his credentials fighting Wall Street, but he's been doing awfully well lately raising money with the help of New York finance types, and Saturday he'll notch another such event.

An invitation shows that former Lehman Brothers bond trader Larry McDonald is rolling out the red carpet for Brown on Cape Cod, just a few days after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg hosted Brown in the big Apple.

McDonald, who wrote the "A Colossal Failure of Common Sense" documenting Lehman's collapse, makes it very clear that he thinks Brown will be good for his industry.

"As a New Yorker, working in the finance industry, I think it's of paramount importance Scott is reelected," McDonald writes in his pitch, warning that "pendulum swings" after financial catastrophes often lead to a situation where "initiative choking regulation is the ultimate job killer."

"We need Scott Brown to help lead our country out of this financial quicksand," McDonald argues, saying that recent failures of the firms MF Global and Peregrine Financial aren't evidence that better regulation is needed, but instead "go a long way to prove we don't need more rules and regulation, we need effective regulators."

He's also clear where he wants Brown to focus his efforts. "Above all, I want Scott on the Senate Finance Committee next year, he's the right choice, not his opponent," McDonald writes.

Brown cast the key vote in passing the Dodd-Frank bill to tighten financial industry regulations -- a fact he cites often in his ads -- but recent reporting also suggests he worked hard to weaken regulation, as well, which McDonald apparently sees as slowing that regulatory "pendulum swing."

"I've spent a lot of time with Scott Brown discussing what's right and wrong about financial reform and Dodd Frank, he gets it, and has the right ideas to make the crucial improvements needed," McDonald says.

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Barney Frank

    The former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank (D-Mass.), whose name is on the bill, is concerned that the law is experiencing "death by a thousand cuts."<br><br>Frank <a href="http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20110711/FREE/110719991" target="_hplink">blames</a> Republicans rather than industry lobbyists for impeding the implementation of the bill. "They have had an impact by having the SEC and CFTC underfunded. That's a serious problem. I do not see this coming from the financial institutions. I see this coming from the ideology of the Republican Party."<br><br>He compares the onslaught to the battle over health care reform in 2009. "They recognize that the financial reform is more popular," he told <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/05/10/136057308/republicans-propose-tweaks-to-new-financial-rules " target="_hplink">NPR</a>. "So with health care, they just did a flat-out repeal, and they also offered budget amendments. With the financial reform, they're trying to nibble it to death ... They are able to do it -- they think; I don't think they'll get away with it -- because attention is focused on the debt limit and on health care. They are trying to do this ... beneath the radar screen."

  • Chris Dodd

    The former Connecticut senator (D-Conn.), who now run Hollywood's main lobbying group, defends the bill but doesn't seem very proud of it. At a conference in Las Vegas, he <a href="http://nakedphiladelphian.blogspot.com/2011/07/dodd-backs-away-from-namesake-bill.html" target="_hplink">joked</a> that he did not want the bill named after him, quipping, "my children are going to have to change their name." <br><br>But he called the Dodd-Frank Act "our best effort. The markets needed certainty. At first, people complained that the provisions were going to take too long to take effect. Now they are saying we are moving too quickly. "We didn't want to strangle innovation and needed to balance it with good regulation and offer harmonization of rules." When we were working on the bill, we were faced with time constraints and high emotion," Dodd said.

  • Ted Kaufman

    Former Delaware Senator Ted Kaufman was a big proponent of stronger regulation of the financial sector. He replied via email to HuffPost's questions about Dodd-Frank. <blockquote>I think it has been an extremely tough year for Dodd Frank implementation. To hit the highlights - <br><br>It has been a very uneven fight with bank lobbyists fighting against regulations and spending $251 million last year and $51 million more in the first quarter, with very little being spent on the other side. Chairman Bachus pretty much summed up the congressional Republican position when he said, "My view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks". They are trying to intimidate the regulators, and cut their budgets. The Senate Republicans say they will block the CFPB director's confirmation until there are major structural changes in the agency. ...<br><br> A year later I find very few who believe that the major financial institutions are too big to fail. Standard and Poor's in their July 12, 2011 statement said "we believe that under certain circumstances and with selected systemically important financial institutions (SIFI), future extraordinary government support is still possible". In addition the megabanks still borrow more cheaply than the smaller banks, giving them a "too big to fail subsidy". Not many believe that "Resolution authority" can be applied to a complex mega banks with so many foreign relationships and businesses.<br><br>It is very discouraging that after so many Americans have gone through so much pain and agony in lost jobs, homes, and self-respect, that we cannot institute the kinds of regulations to avoid another financial meltdown.</blockquote>

  • Paul Kanjorski

    Former Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) was a sponsor of the Dodd-Frank Act. He talked to HuffPost about the status of the law.<br><br> <blockquote>Of course, speed and time isn't of the essence, it's getting it correct. Quite frankly, we did our job, we passed legislation but it was just a skeleton and we authorized rule makers to put the flesh on the skeleton and that implementation determines whether we create a Frankenstein or a human being. It will take years before the full impact of Dodd-Frank is implemented. ... <br><br>If you starve the SEC, you can frustrate its ability to carry out the rules. ... Now Congress is frustrating the appointment of regulators, to put up stumbling blocks to the legislation. ... <br><br>[On the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] I was never the strongest proponent of the concept and I don't know if I would have supported Elizabeth Warren. ... <br><br>There is one section, ratings agencies, that still fails to do the job. I'm not sure what the answer is because we looked at all the past models. I'm not sure if we should have for-profit ratings agencies. ... <br><br>I worked very closely with Paul Volcker on the Volcker Rule, we had a discussion one afternoon where I was saying, 'Can't we give discretion to the regulator?' And he said, 'Look I was a regulator. Unless you make it mandatory, it won't work." You can bet your life the reason we were able to win the Volcker rule and my amendment on TBTF, it came down to [Charlie] Rangel being under ethics investigation. Charlie had always been a true friend and protector to Wall Street and they were immensely opposed to Volcker rule and my amendment. If they had Charlie in a healthy condition, they probably would have brought more weight. He was distracted by his other problems.</blockquote>

  • Michael Greenberger

    A University of Maryland law professor, Michael Greenberger worked as the director of the CFTC's Division of Trading and Markets in the late 1990s. <blockquote>I know to someone looking from the outside in, who isn't experienced with rulemaking, that it appears to be moving too slowly. Contrast that with Wall Street, which is crying that it's moving too fast. <br><br>The CFTC has acted very effectively. With over 50 new regulations, for a small agency with 700 employees, that is an awful lot of work to do. ... As someone who was in Clinton administration for four years and prior to that spend 26 years litigating rulemaking, they've done an effective job. It's a lot of work, they just started adopting final rules. On balance they've worked very hard, very effectively and very competently.<br><br>They're moving from regulating swaps with $50 trillion of notional value to $300 trillion to off-exchange swaps, building the infrastructure, the clearing facilities, the alternative swaps execution facilities - it's very intricate complicated stuff. The delay on position limits has the most immediate adverse effect. That has turned out to be the most controversial of all these controversial rules. ... I think the chairman and the commissioners have done an admirable job amid intense opposition from House Republicans. ... <br><br>Two regulations that came out that I commented on, agricultural swaps and manipulation, I agree with those rules. The new manipulation regulations, especially in food and energy sector, will see series of new manipulation cases, will have an effect on commodity prices. By the fall, you'll see enforcement actions, a series of manipulation cases dealing with alleged malpractices in food, energy and metals. Crude oil is a prime candidate [for such an action], also basic food staples where you're seeing run-ups and copper. The canary in the mine for this is that they brought crude oil case using the more difficult standard that didn't go into effect until these new rules were in place in which they can prove intent through circumstantial evidence. There is no division in commission over that rule, even hardline anti-regulation types agree that if there is an intent to manipulate prices, that should be gone after by CFTC. There was industry opposition but this is an unassailable. ... <br><br>They're much more split over position limit rules. ... And there are very controversial ownerships rules for clearing facilities. The proposal had two alternative tests, one was very favorable to Wall St, to keeping control of these groups in the hands of Wall Street. Those are all pending.</blockquote>

  • Harry Markopolos

    The whistleblower who repeatedly brought evidence of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme to the SEC to no avail, Markopolos replied to HuffPost's questions about Dodd-Frank via email. <br><br><blockquote>The only thing I can figure out is that the agencies don't have enough staff on hand for rule-writing within the time period that Congress gave them. And that makes sense, since the main job of these agencies is supposed to be oversight and enforcement not rule writing. Rule writing to the extent we have under Dodd-Frank you get to do only after major crises, so no agency is staffed up for this.<br><br>Far better that they get it right than on time. Other than that I have no thoughts, only opinions.<br><br>I'm glad the CFTC is finally going to bring Forex under a regulatory umbrella. I'm eager to see what they do on that, ditto for OTC derivatives.<br><br>As for the SEC, I'm eager to see if two dark areas of corruption are addressed - municipal bond financing/disclosures/accounting and bond trading.</blockquote>

  • Bill Black

    A professor at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, Bill Black worked as a counsel at the Office of Thrift Supervision during the savings and loan crisis. This comment on Dodd-Frank is excerpted from a column he wrote earlier this year for <a href="http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0111black.html" target="_hplink"><em>Dollars and Sense</em> magazine</a>. <blockquote>What about the long-awaited bank reform law, which Congress finally delivered in July 2010 in the form of the Dodd-Frank Act? The law does not address the fundamental factors that have caused recurrent, intensifying financial crises: fraud, accounting, executive and professional compensation, and regulatory failure. The law does create a regulatory council that is supposed to identify systemic risks. The council, however, will be dominated by economists of the same theoclassical stripe who not only failed to identify the systemic risks that produced the recent financial crises, but actually praised the criminogenic incentives that caused those crises. </blockquote>

  • Spencer Bachus

    The powerful chairman of the House Financial Services committee, Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) recently wrote an op-ed for <em><a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58596.html#ixzz1Sf7mc6Ip" target="_hplink">Politico</a></em>, excerpted below, to describe his critique of Dodd-Frank. <blockquote>The Dodd-Frank Act has been described by supporters and opponents alike as the most sweeping reform of the financial services industry since the Great Depression. It can also be described as a story of the "good, the bad and the ugly."<br><br>A few of its provisions represent useful reforms to a financial system that came close to the brink of collapse in the fall of 2008, but the "bad and the ugly" parts far outweigh those. And their impact on our economy will be staggering.<br><br>The two primary factors that drive our economy, capital and workforce, will both be harmed by Dodd-Frank. Tucked into the law's 2,300 pages are 400 regulatory mandates that will be imposed on the private sector. Both financial and nonfinancial businesses will be forced to shift capital from hiring, investments in new equipment and other productive uses to comply with these new rules. Likewise, these businesses will have to redirect their workers' time and energy to compliance rather than productive work. </blockquote>

  • Richard Shelby

    Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking member of the Senate Banking committee, recently expressed his thoughts on Dodd-Frank during a hearing in Congress.<br><br> <blockquote>It is now one year since the passage of Dodd-Frank and we can see more clearly the consequences of its special interest agenda. The Act has not helped investors, but has saddled Main Street and providers of capital -- the engines of economic growth -- with a long list of new regulatory requirements. At a time when the unemployment rate is at 9.2 percent, this hardly seems like a wise course.</blockquote>

  • Dean Baker

    Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, replied to HuffPost via email to express his thoughts on the pace of Dodd-Frank implementation.<br><br><blockquote>I would certainly say too slow, because as this process drags on we get further removed from the public sentiment behind reform. <br><br>This means that the only people in the room will be the people from the financial industry. This will allow them to write the rules in a way that minimizes the impact of the regulation. This is why it was important to get everything nailed down in the bill itself. It is also why the industry lobbyists pushed to include all these delays and allow so much discretion in writing the rules. They know the game and at the end of the day, they are likely to make a joke of much of the bill. </blockquote>

  • Tim Ryan

    Tim Ryan, the president and CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, recently gave a speech (partially excerpted below) at a summit held by the industry group to discuss the impact of Dodd-Frank.<br><br><blockquote>You've heard how big the Dodd-Frank mandate is: 235 rulemakings, already generating 41 reports, 71 studies authored by 11 different federal agencies and bureaus. Much work has been already done - as of July 1, we have finalized 38 new rules. But, we still have a long road ahead of us. 26 deadlines have been missed. 215 rules have yet to be proposed. 122 rulemaking deadlines come due in the third quarter of 2011 alone. That's more than a quarter of all required rulemakings, all taking place in the midst of an unstable economic environment. <br><br>Regulators are faced with a daunting task of implementing Dodd-Frank. There are a lot of balls in the air and we're not as targeted as we should be. To complicate matters, multiple regulators have joint jurisdiction over the same markets and products. We are concerned coordination across regulators, jurisdictions and geographical borders is just not happening at the level it should. <br><br>What will happen if we lack the coordination and the time to assess the totality of regulatory burdens? <br><br>We will greatly decrease the odds that when each rule is completed, they will fit with other rules to effectively regulate the markets in the efficient, cohesive manner intended by Congress. <br><br>What is the danger of rules not working together? <br><br>We risk impeding the flow of capital and credit, which in turn would undermine both economic growth and job creation.<br><br>This would impact not just the financial markets, not just global corporations; but would have a profound impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. </blockquote>