Financial sector mounts lobbying campaign to fight new regulation plan

[JohnWxy]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-28-financial-sector-lobbying_N.htm

WASHINGTON — Wall Street, commercial banks and an array of other business interests are undertaking an all-out lobbying effort to shape legislation that imposes sweeping government oversight of the financial services industry.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent ($52.1 million for Lobbying_JW) $2 million on advertising, including commercials slamming the creation of a federal consumer-protection agency, and plans to spend more, said David Hirschmann, CEO of the chamber's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness. Bankers around the country, meanwhile, have sent about 250,000 letters to Congress raising alarms at the behest of the American Bankers Association, said Edward Yingling, the group's president. The association issued a "call to action" to its members recently, urging bankers to reach out "early and often" to senators who are expected to take up the legislation early next year.

On the other side, Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of labor and civil rights groups formed in June, has spent nearly $2 million pushing for tougher regulation of the financial sector, Executive Director Heather Booth said.

~~
~~


Commercial banks, investment firms and credit-card/financing companies together have spent more than $126.5 million (YOUR BAIL-OUT MONEY AT WORK_JW) to sway Congress and the executive branch during the first nine months of 2009, according to data compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. The chamber, meanwhile, has spent $52.1 million on lobbying this year — more than any other single association or company.
(more)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Commercial banks, investment firms and credit-card/financing companies together have spent more than $126.5 million

Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of labor and civil rights groups formed in June, has spent nearly $2 million
pushing for tougher regulation of the financial sector...


Gosh, I hope Chief Justice John Roberts get's his way and lifts ALL restrictions on corporations "right" to free speech. You can see how hindered they are now.__JW

[DJ13]

1. When Obama took office, and the banks needed saving

He had the perfect opportunity to force a return to previous regulations, and promote improved consumer regulations on them.

But no, that might hurt big contributers to his campaign, couldnt have that.

What a wasted moment that will now come back and bite us all in the ass.

[JohnWxy]

3. When Obama took office the imminent collapse of the banking system was his biggest immediate crisis

to deal with. To propose that he could he could have taken time to begin a regulation reform legislation while at the same time being involved with the immediate crisis of the imminent failure of the banking system is patently rediculous.

on PBS newshour last night they had an interview with two journalists/writers who both just wrote books on just this subject. I will provide a quote from that interview:

PBS Newshour: Looking Back at Wall Street's Behavior in 2009

~~
~~
JEFFREY BROWN: So, why has nothing happened yet?

JOHN CASSIDY: Well, I think, you know, two things. Number one, I think the government did a pretty good job of preventing a complete financial catastrophe. They took all these emergency measures, the Fed pumping money into the economy, lending to banks that needed it, the Obama administration introducing a stimulus package. All those measures combined managed to prevent a return to the 1930s, which, if we had been gathering this time last year, some people would have been worrying about. But the authorities, I think, were so busy concentrating on averting the immediate crisis, they didn't take any long-term measures. And now what we have found, as the economy has recovered, these big banks have got lobbying power again in Washington. The political agenda has moved on. It's all focused on health care. And the sort of Wall Street reform movement has been stymied. And, you know, it is not clear to me at all that we're going to get any significant changes.

(more)

Now, currently there is a bill in the House to re-establish some adult supervision in this Post Republican-Deregulation World. There is honest debate on whether it goes far enough. But mainly it was the enormous effort to keep the banking system solvent followed by the Health Care War that took up a lot of peoples' time and attention.

Congress is getting to this problem as everyone (save the Fascists on the right of the aisle) recognizes we must have regulation of the financial sector - even Alan Greenspan recognizes this - albeit about a decade and a half too late. I fully expect the Corporate Lobbyist Fascist Party to fight effective regulation of the financial services sector and to slip in every loophole the declared lobbyists for the financial sector can dream up.

[DJ13]

4. Bullcrap, they needed help, they wouldnt have fought new regulations

[JohnWxy]

6. I'm trying to make sense of your cmt. WHO would not have fought new regulations? THE BANKS???

IF YOU THINK THE FINANCIAL SECTOR WOULDN'T FIGHT NEW REGULATIONS READ THE O.P. IF YOU DON'T THINK THE FINANCIAL SECTOR IS NOT FIGHTING REGULATIONS YOU ARE FLOATING IN SOME OTHER UNIVERSE THAN THE ONE THE REST OF US LIVE IN.

Both the authors and the rest of the rational community recognize that fighting to keep the banking sector from collapsing was in fact a big enough job (which was then followed by the Health CAre Wars) to keep the administration thoroughly occupied. I would like to have seen regulation reform for the banking industry sooner but Obama determined that getting to HCR was the next priority. I guess you could argue that point with him but he isn't trying to protect the banking industry from regulation. He knows it is needed. We can only hope that adequate regulatory legislation is achieved despite he Corporate Lobbyist party's oppostion to it.

It's not credible to say that the Obama administration should have done the regulation reform AND pulled off the prevention of the banking collapse at the same time. In a perfect world we might see that happen. But this is the real world and the administration was feverishly trying everything they could think of to prevent a second Great DEpression.

NOw that the collapse of the banking industry appears to have been averted we can see if the Obama administration will do what needs to be done. I expect that they will. Will they pass regulations as tough as they should be? I hope so, but as the O.P. points out the banking sector is throwing a lot of money at Congress so that can certainly have an affect. Obama and the Democrats cannot snap their fingers and make it happen. They have the Corporate lobbyist party to deal with and as the Health CAre war has shown they can be implacable foes to progress.

Also, you can be sure the Corporate Lobbyist (Fascist) party will be trying to impede any real progress toward effective regulation of the banking industry. THey also can be counted on to try to slip in loop-holes for traders, banksters and hedge funds to slip through - that's what they are paid for.

[DJ13]

7. Your entire premise is based on the bailouts being the only alternative

Thats a flawed assumption.

Many renowned economists were advocating for nationalization back then.

Look, all Im saying is that instead of propping them up with little asked in return back then only to see them turn around now and fight to keep regulations needed to prevent them from destroying our economy again, our government should have given them the bailouts with strings attached.

Strings such as accepting the needed re-regulation that they now are fighting.

Do you want them to continue acting as if they never were in danger, or do you want to see the issue corrected so they can never again place our entire economy at risk by leveraging at obscene amounts (like they've already gone back to)?

[JohnWxy]

8. many "renowned" economists? Thank you veddy much..see links..

I had talked in the past about nationalizing or at least opening up a competing public bank. But realistically (well, nationalization anyway) would have been a very revolutionary move. Not really realistic to expect him to do that. But it certainlly was an intriguing idea. I still think he could have gone with a public bank to provide loans to compete with the banks and later it could have been privatized.


The Bad Bank is a BAAAAAD Idea.




since providing credit to consumers and businessmen is so important to the smooth

[jwirr]

2. Is there anything these banksters will not do to destroy our nation?

[Demeter]

5. Haven't Seen Any Sticking Point Yet

Except paying taxes. Somehow, I don't think the banksters would willingly pay taxes, even if their lives and fortunes depended on it.