CHRIS HAYES: Memo Reveals How Seriously Powerful Interests Take Occupy Wall Street

[BigBearJohn]

This morning, Up With Chris Hayes unveiled a major scoop: the show obtained a written pitch to the American Bankers Association from a prominent Washington lobbying firm, proposing a $850,000 smear campaign against Occupy Wall Street.

The memo, issued by Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford, described the danger presented by the burgeoning movement, saying that if Democrats embraced Occupy, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street.… It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.” Furthermore, it notes that “the bigger concern…should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”

CLGC was pitching an $850,000 campaign of opposition research and targeted campaigns against politicians who supported the movement. It was written by two firm partners with close ties to House Speaker John Boehner: Sam Geduldig joined CLGC before Boehner became speaker, and Jay Cranford left Boehner’s office this year to join the firm. Another partner at CLGC is reportedly “tight” with the speaker.

The American Bankers’ Association acknowledged it received the memo, but that it decided not to act on it. Still, as Chris notes, it’s extremely unlikely this is the only time Wall Street and its allies in Washington considered serious and well-funded opposition to Occupy Wall Street; it’s just one memo that his show happened to obtain.

http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8896362-exclusive-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street-video

[FirstLight]

1. link?

thanks

[WildNovember]

2. Here's one from msnbc. My browser won't connect to the one in the OP, says it 's intranet & not

secure.

http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8896362-exclusive-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street-video


The CLGC memo raises another issue that it says should be of concern to the financial industry -- that OWS might find common cause with the Tea Party. “Well-known Wall Street companies stand at the nexus of where OWS protestors and the Tea Party overlap on angered populism,” the memo says. “…This combination has the potential to be explosive later in the year when media reports cover the next round of bonuses and contrast it with stories of millions of Americans making do with less this holiday season.”

The memo outlines a 60-day plan to conduct surveys and research on OWS and its supporters so that Wall Street companies will be prepared to conduct a media campaign in response to OWS. Wall Street companies “likely will not be the best spokespeople for their own cause,” according to the memo. “A big challenge is to demonstrate that these companies still have political strength and that making them a political target will carry a severe political cost.

[BigBearJohn]

3. thanks. I updated the link.

[RZM]

4. This argument seems odd given what we hear from the movement

The movement is about the distribution of wealth, right? One of the core ideas is that many billions have been unfairly appropriated by the super-rich. Yet given that, we're supposed to think that a rejected pitch for measly 850K is a big deal? Doesn't make sense to me.

[WildNovember]

6. I don't understand your post.

it’s extremely unlikely this is the only time Wall Street and its allies in Washington considered serious and well-funded opposition to Occupy Wall Street; it’s just one memo that his show happened to obtain.

[RZM]

7. I don't doubt that. But that's of course supposition

What we have clear evidence of is this pitch for 850K. That's less than chump change for the wealthiest interests. And it was rejected to boot. This a bombshell with no explosive in it.

[WildNovember]

8. We have no evidence it was rejected except their say-so, either.

Not a bombshell, just a confirmation that such proposals are "normal". I don't understand why you'd want to pooh-pooh it, or why you consider 3/4 of a million dollars "chump change" -- that is the cost just for research. And I personally consider the connections to Boner significant.

[RZM]

9. It sure as hell isn't chump change to me

But given the interests we're talking about here? The wealthiest Americans who control many billions between them? 850K isn't much.

I'm not poo-pooing anything. I'm merely pointing out that given the movement's focus on the immense wealth of the richest Americans, it's a little odd that such a sum is considered a big deal. If it came out that this was the only such pitch, it would be proof of the opposite . . . that the 1 percent really don't give a shit about OWS at all.

[WildNovember]

10. It may not be much in terms of their wealth, but is it "not much" for a political research project?

I think it's in the usual ballpark.

[RZM]

11. But don't you have to put it in that context?

Sure it is a lot of money for research. But for people and interests wielding so much wealth? It's really not much.

[WildNovember]

12. It's a proposal from one agency, for one job for the Bankers Association. I imagine they

bill it at the usual rates for such things. That's the only relevant context.

We haven't seen *all* the proposals. You say we can only speculate that there are more. I think it's a good bet & that these things are a routine part of doing business. There's plenty of documented precedent.

[RZM]

14. Maybe there have been more

I have no more information than you or Chris Hedges. We can speculate all day about what might be going on. But all we can interpret for sure are the indisputable facts. And those aren't raising my eyebrows yet. You may be right that there are more. I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot about this kind of thing we don't know yet. But I can't take that to the bank yet (ha, get it :))

[barbtries]

18. i really don't think

that the price tag is the big deal. it's what they propose to do. it's the way that OWS is simply understood to be "bad" for wall street. it's the connection to the speaker of the house. those are the big deals. and what Chris Hayes was saying about the fact that this is just the only memo that's been leaked is that this kind of chicanery is undoubtedly being plotted and carried out all up and down wall street.

[Skittles]

5. they're skeered

:D

[Brigid]

13. Richard Nixon had a name for this kind of skullduggery.

A comment on that site reminded me of it: "Ratfucking." I think we can't be sure how much significance to attach to this, but the flashbacks are coming fast and furious lately. :crazy:

[aletier_v]

15. It CAN'T be that serious

If Bloomberg has decided he can assume the role of a villian from a Wachowski Brother's film.

At least one of his "advisors" is secretly laughing his ass off that Mr. "Financial Empire" fell for the idea.

Hint to Mike - it's the guy missing work...

because he's laughing himself sick.

[Pachamama]

16. My guess is this is the proposal that was thrown in trash & that another proposal for much more is

....what is being implemented.....

This memo reveals that the powers be are very nervous and gives a glimpse into where they will be going. I have no doubt the propaganda PR machine is already kicked into gear and there will be much more to come soon.

[barbtries]

17. i watched this while getting ready for work today.

heaven forbid anyone in a position of power take a look at what's going on and say, the 99% are right. things are really messed up.