More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Nick Nyhart

Nick Nyhart

Posted: January 13, 2010 03:00 PM

Bank CEOs: What About the Campaign Cash?

What's Your Reaction:

As the CEOs of big Wall Street firms testify before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission this week, Public Campaign has joined with Common Cause to ask Commission Chairman Phil Angelides to explore the role campaign contributions from the financial industry to members of Congress played in weakening the financial regulatory system that led to the economic collapse.

These Wall Street investors--some of the most brilliant financial minds in America--have invested $63 million in campaign contributions since 2000. These bankers don't make that kind of investment without expecting a big return.

In the letter released today, we've asked the commission to:

  • Review e-mail traffic from company staff, lobbyists, and other consultants to members of Congress and their aides.
  • Review any internal corporate documents that reference campaign fundraising.
  • Seek testimony from Wall Street lobbyists to more fully understand the political and policy strategies they employed to influence lawmakers and the role of campaign contributions in carrying out those strategies.
  • Explore any written or verbal requests made by lawmakers for fundraising assistance from financial industry leaders or lobbyists.

The CEOs questioned today--whose banks were bailed out with taxpayer money for problems they created--have spent millions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying fees to maintain the weak regulatory environment that allowed them to derail our economy. Even today, these politically connected firms are working to gut or kill financial reforms moving through Congress.

In today's second panel, Peter Solomon testified before the commission that he also believed campaign contributions need to be explored. "The Commission might examine the role of campaign contributions as they relate to Federal Government's regulatory structure," Solomon said. "The financial community has become increasingly active in Washington and is now one of the largest contributors to Federal political campaigns. Even today, one can see the detrimental effects of its lobbying on Government action to create transparent, accountable, and efficient markets."

Any analysis that gets to the roots of what happened must include an in-depth look at how campaign contributions played a role on the policy making process.

 
As the CEOs of big Wall Street firms testify before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission this week, Public Campaign has joined with Common Cause to ask Commission Chairman Phil Angelides to explore...
As the CEOs of big Wall Street firms testify before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission this week, Public Campaign has joined with Common Cause to ask Commission Chairman Phil Angelides to explore...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:25 PM on 01/14/2010
Campaign finance.

The congressional version of "don't ask, don't tell".
10:26 AM on 01/14/2010
I simply want this inquiry commission to ask two specific questions. What is the "present" level of leverage employed in financial risk management instruments within the major investment banks and are "dark trades" still being conducted for elite customers?

Whether or not they paid back the TARP, they're got off the turf with tax payer dollars and continue to receive extraordinary low cost funding from the Fed by which they conduct simple arbitrage. Any arrogance on their part in their testimony, which I witnessed last Fall, should be answered with a sledge of unmitigated resolve for Congressional intervention. (The last is a dream, of course.)

Goldman Sachs, who happened to be on the right side of the melt down, got paid off on their positions through the back door with TARP. Just because they were right about "a system gone leverage crazy" does not exempt the from collusion.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:12 AM on 01/14/2010
Nick, let's stop using "nice" words like these:
* campaign contribution
* lobbying
* "constitutionally protected(!) corporate freedom of speech"

Instead, let's use the word that is actually contained in Article 2, Section 4:
* BRIBERY

(which sits right there alongside TREASON)

The Founders of our system of government expressly intended their handiwork to be "the Supreme Law of the Land," and in this section they intended to impose a blanket prohibition upon government corruption of any and all sorts. They obviously knew that both Bribery and Treason could destroy the Republic ... the "enemy within" and the "enemy without" are equally destructive; nay, the first is even more so.

Where there is "bribery," there is also its handmaiden: "extortion."

Our nation cannot be run by racketeering. What we are faced with is not a "legitimate" thing that must be "regulated." No, it is a devastating Felony that must be ruthlessly (but lawfully!) expunged.

Today, less than 1,000 people are raping and pillaging 308 million others. Through the enabling crime of Bribery.
05:32 AM on 01/14/2010
With an economic system pretty close to laissez-faire capitalism, only political influence will protect citizens against the excesses of the economic system. Consumer protection, regulation and labor organization have been systematically marginalized. Combined with an electoral system which through fund raising is corrupt by design and faciltates the highjacking of the political system by corporate interests citizens are exposed to all kind of predatory practices. Simply checks &balances require the exclusion of corporate interests from the political system. Lacking a better alternative capitalism as such is probably not the issue, but protecting cititzens against its excesses definitly is. Reform of campaign financing adressing the root of the problem is pivotal.
06:04 PM on 01/13/2010
Ya think!

Go back to the courts to remove corporate personhood and money as free speech in a last ditch effort to save the Republic. No hyperbole intended.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shane Nahumko
Let them eat iPads!
06:16 PM on 01/13/2010
Great idea, but it's not gonna happen. In fact the Supreme Court seems to be moving the other way, loosening the rules of corporate contributions! http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/us/politics/09donate.html?hp What a wonderful world we live in! www.theendisalwaysnear.blogspot.com
04:12 AM on 01/14/2010
That's because Wall Street has paid off the Supreme Court.