Financial Firms Have Given Lavishly To Both Parties In Congress

[Better Believe It]

Financial industry's campaign donations could help it in bailout
Firms have given lavishly to both parties in Congress. That could help them get the language they want in the bill - as well as block provisions such as homeowner assistance.
By Tom Hamburger and William Heisel
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
September 23, 2008

The sense of urgency facing Congress was heightened by a sharp sell-off in stocks, suggesting the fragility of financial markets anxious for government action. Yet another factor in the mix was money: The securities, banking and mortgage industries are among the biggest campaign contributors to both parties.

Since 2002, the sector has contributed more than $1.1 billion to congressional candidates, with Republicans getting an edge during that period, according to federal lobbying records. The figure does not include millions more donated to the favored charities of prominent politicians and the hundreds of millions spent on lobbying. The sector is among the biggest donors overall; by comparison, another major category, lawyers and lobbyists, gave $646 million during the same period.

In the 2008 election cycle, the list of the top recipients of donations from the financial services, insurance and real estate sectors (all likely to be affected in varying degrees by the legislation) included the leading presidential candidates.

Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama took in $22.5 million, followed by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with $21.5 million. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, was close behind with $19.6 million.

Money rained down also on the top members of Congress who are steering the legislation.

Please read the entire article at:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-polmoney23-2008sep23,0,295648,full.story

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. The best government money can buy. And, it's payback time.

[blm]

2. Some Dem lawmakers are NOT influenced by donations from banking institutions and never have been....

Read this from the 2004 Dem platform - Kerry SPECIFICALLY added this issue to the platform:

August 27, 2004
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM; Kerry Sees Credit Card Abuses, And Promises Steps to End Them
By LOUIS UCHITELLE

Senator John Kerry added a plank to his platform yesterday, promising to push for legislation that would curb what his campaign describes as abusive practices in credit card and mortgage lending.

The proposals coincided with the announcement of new Census Bureau data showing that family and household income, adjusted for inflation, had fallen over the first three years of the Bush administration. The decline came as consumer debt rose, and the new plank promised relief for wage earners in straitened circumstances.

''Abusive lending practices can take a huge bite out of the incomes of families who are working and can barely pay their credit card bills,'' Robert Gordon, Mr. Kerry's director of domestic policy, said.

Companies that issue credit cards, mainly banks, often double the interest rates if a cardholder is late with a monthly payment or the holder's creditworthiness is challenged. Mr. Kerry would require notice before each rate increase and limit the increase to a few percentage points.

''There is no proportionality now in these increases,'' Gene Sperling, an economic adviser to Mr. Kerry, said. ''They can go from 8 to 28 percent.''

A Kerry administration ''would ask Congress to legislate standards and to direct the Federal Trade Commission and bank regulators to impose regulations consistent with those standards,'' Mr. Sperling said. Much of this would be achieved through amendments to the Truth in Lending Act, he and Mr. Gordon said.

Credit card lenders would also be required to disclose, in prominent type on bills, how long it would take to pay off a debt, and the cost in interest if the card holder made only minimum monthly payments.

A California law imposed this standard, but credit card issuers challenged it in court in 2002, and the Bush administration's Office of the Comptroller of the Currency sided with the issuers. The comptroller argued that only federal regulators could impose such a restriction on nationally chartered banks and that his office did not plan to do so. The state lost the case.

Mr. Gordon said that some minimum payments were so low that they barely kept up with interest costs or fell behind them, in which case the balance could never be repaid.

Other changes proposed by the Kerry campaign would require lenders to forgo penalty charges when they allowed card holders to go beyond their borrowing caps. A cardholder with a $5,000 credit limit, for example, can face a penalty for reaching $5,200 even if the card company approved the charge that put the total over $5,000.

Mr. Kerry's principal mortgage proposal would prohibit lenders from using balloon mortgages in most subprime loans, which often go to low-income people at higher rates.

[Better Believe It]

4. Why Then Did Kerry Vote With The Republicans To Repeal The Glass-Steagall Act?

He didn't real or understand the meaning of that legislation? I'm sure Senator Kerry understood exactly what he was voting for.

And why did John Kerry fail to include a plank to restore the Glass-Steagall Act if he supported that act and opposed the repeal of it?

The final Senate vote in favor of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was 90-8-1!!!! Only 7 Democratic Senators and 1 Republican Senator voted against repealing! And the House of Representatives passed the repeal by a margin of 343-86, with Democratic members of the House voting 138-69 for the repeal!

The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Here's how the Senators voted:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (S.900 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 354 Vote Date: November 4, 1999, 03:30 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: S. 900
Measure Title: An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 90
NAYs 8
Present 1
Not Voting 1

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---90
Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, L. (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

Present - 1
Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Not Voting - 1
McCain (R-AZ)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

[blm]

6. Obviously he SPECIFICALLY ADDED A PLANK to the platform to correct the abuses

so....what part of his ADDITION TO THE DEM PLATFORM do you see as wrong?

[ReadTomPaine]

3. Sorry, but there's plenty of difference between these parties.

A world of difference. If you don't believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you for an amazingly low price. I'll toss in a shipment of fresh milk from China for free as a bonus.

[Better Believe It]

5. And What Was Their Difference On The Repeal Of The Glass-Steagall Act?

The vote was 90-8!!!

On this vital piece of legislation we witnessed a remarkable demonstration of "bi-partisan unity" and that has played a major role in causing the economic crisis.

You can deny that all you want but the votes tell the true story.

[blm]

7. Just like welfare reform and telecom act and Patriot Act, some Dems expect to go in and FIX whatever

wrong turns come from these bills. Not all Dems are willing to do that....but, some are.

[Better Believe It]

8. Looks Like Some Democrats Are Left Out To Twist In The Wind

Like the 7 who voted against that reactionary pro-Wall Street legislation.

Well, here's a prediction.

With firmer "control" of Congress after this election, the Democrats who want to "fix" FISA, etc., will again be in a minority while most top Democrats will "reach across the aisle" to demonstrate their bi-partisan unity with Republicans that will please their paymasters.