How You and I Are Paying Wall Street to Lobby Congress to Go Easy on Wall Street
The new administration and Congress are busy preparing the second tranche of bailout money for Wall Street -- TARP II -- at the same time they're developing a new set of regulations to make sure Wall Street doesn't get into this kind of mess again. But will the old politics intrude?
Wall Street is one of the biggest campaign contributors to both parties, and the Street's contributions have increased considerably over the last several election cycles. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, by the 2006 elections, Wall Street contributions to the Democratic Party had caught up with its rising contributions to Republicans.
For years, Wall Street lobbyists have been among the most aggressive on Capitol Hill. They're the ones who pushed Congress and the Clinton administration to tear down the wall that had separated commercial from investment banking -- a wall erected in the 1930s, after the Great Crash and the Depression revealed how important it was to keep the two distinct. In subsequent years, as Wall Street created ever fancier derivatives, Wall Street lobbied against regulating the new instruments -- and their arguments, backed by the campaign contributions they bundled and wielded, won the day. The Street lobbied against giving the Securities and Exchange Commission the power and resources needed to oversee what was going on. Again, they lobbyists won. They lobbied against raising taxes on hedge fund and private equity managers whose gigantic incomes, they said, were nothing but capital gains and therefore should be taxed at 15 percent -- lower than the marginal rate paid by most Americans. Again, they won. They lobbied against better oversight of credit rating agencies, and against changing the way those agencies were paid. They said there was no fundamental conflict of interest when rating agencies were compensated by the very firms whose securities they were rating. Again, they won.
When all of this led, as many knew it would, to a speculative bubble of proportions never before seen -- and as Wall Street traders and executives took home more money than anyone had ever before seen -- a crash was all but inevitable.
Yet what's happened to the Wall Street campaign contributions and to the lobbyists? They're still going strong. We now know that many of the financial giants that have been bailed out by taxpayers continue to finance a platoon of Washington lobbyists, who are at this moment trying to influence TARP II and the next attempt to regulate Wall Street. In effect, your money and mine, and that of all other taxpayers, is paying these lobbyists to push Congress in a direction we have every reason to believe is not in our interests but in the continued interests of Wall Street. Citigroup, the recipient of $45 billion of taxpayer money so far, is still fielding "an army" of Washington lobbyists, according to the New York Times. Its lobbyists are working on a host of issues, including the bailout. In the fourth quarter of 2008, when it got its first infusion of bailout money, Citi spent $1.77million on lobbying fees. During the last three months of 2008, at least seven other firms receiving bailout funds (American Express, Capital One, Goldman Sachs, KeyCorp, Morgan Stanley, PNC and Bank of New York Mellon) lobbied the government about the bailout.
Would it not be a reasonable condition for receiving additional bailout funds -- from TARP II -- that a firm cease its lobbying activities and campaign contributions (as well as any contributions it makes indirectly through its executives) at least until it fully compensates taxpayers what we have provided it?















that a firm cease
Insofar as genuine identifiable "registered lobbyists" are used, the obloquy is easily focussed.
How, though, to clamp down on the lobbying that goes on socially, given the thorough interpenetration of, eg. the Goldman Sachs Alumni Association and the "Fraternal Order of Treasury Secretaries and Deputies"
Maybe we are currently better off, when the grunting hogs are forced to wear nametags before they are turned loose on the trough.
January 26, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is another reason that we need to nationalize these banks. We can't stop them from lobbying or paying huge bonuses to executives if we don't control them.
January 26, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear! You're right, Destor. We're "half pregnant" with these banks now. Just rip the bandaid off and have it over with -- full nationalization and full control. Then they can stop robbing us blind (like, by dolling out $4 billion in "bonus" money).
-- ARG
January 26, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that should be "doling" (not "dolling").
-- ARG
January 26, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they should be allowed to lobby. The TARP rules should simply require that lobbyists' bills won't be paid.
January 26, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually don't think the lobbying thing is such a great scandal. The best way to address that is to reform the way Congress does business with ALL corporations (especially with respect to campaign financing). Good luck with that.
A million dollars for lobbying is a drop in the bucket in terms of the TARP money.
Somebody posted a while back how terrible it was that GM was still spending 10 million dollars this year (same as it did last year) for lobbying, but now they're asking for a bailout. Well, duh. They're not going to get the bailout if they don't lobby for it!
-- ARG
January 26, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a question: Does "lobbying Congress" mean the same thing as filling campaign coffers for members of Congress?
Just a second question: Didn't Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff do this same thing?
January 26, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Long Memory,
its a gigantic money laundering operation. Taxpayer's dollars go to the banks, the banks pay the lobbyists, the lobbyists and the banks pay the politicians in the form of campaign contributions.
Senator Chuck Schumer is the Democratic version of ex Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm; as bag men for the money changers both are fathers of the present day economic tsunami. Gramm is gone, now if we can only get rid of Schumer we will have made a great start on the road to recovery.
January 27, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Congress will not take measures to ensure Wall Street will buy American, there's no reason to believe they'll do anything substantive to curtail lobbying.
-AF
January 26, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wall Street WANTS and NEEDS more bailout taxpayer dollars to sustain their wealth; it's just not enough to be billionaire these days and have something left over to pay your nanny's salary.
January 26, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this important post.
I think it is a huge deal that any group that is handed the hard-earned tax dollars of Americans would turn around and use those tax dollars to lobby against the interests of most Americans and the country as a whole.
Not the first time it's happened, to be sure. I suspect other groups, and perhaps foreign countries that receive our tax dollars, probably turn right around and do the same thing.
Congress, with the American people sitting idly by, have enabled the American tax dollars to become the commons for a few. The tragedy is playing out as expected.
This madness has got to end before it is too late.
January 26, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The new administration and Congress are busy preparing the second tranche of bailout money for Wall Street -- TARP II -- at the same time they're developing a new set of regulations to make sure Wall Street doesn't get into this kind of mess again.
Is that true?
Is the Administration and Congress developing new rules for Wall Street? If so, could you link to those new regulations?
January 26, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it is not reasonable as far as you've stated the case.
It might be reasonable to require open books to some extent, if TARP funds are received. This could include detailed info on money paid to lobbyists and the right for the government to examine the books of said lobbyists to see how that money was spent. And on a tangent to the topic, open books could go further than in re lobbying payments and the like.
This fits the "transparency" notion without being directly punitive. It should have been in TARP I, along with such things as requiring deferment of high levels of executive compensation and large bonuses.
January 27, 2009 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lobbying is here to stay, in fact our form of government presupposes it.
As it is now, the deck is stacked in favor of business financed lobbyists. By contrast, AFL-CIO has 6 paid lobbyists on Capitol Hill which puts it 74th on the list headed by business lobbyists. (Environmental protection, child welfare, human rights...didn't even make the list.)
Given the weak-kneed, mush-brained nature of congressmen, when assaulted by 61,000 lobbyists asking for favors with the guarantee of pay-back it's no surprise that we've gotten (and will continue to get) the shaft. And by the way, more PAC money went to Dems than Repubs in '07.
January 27, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Logico, you're right on. This is disgusting.
@ARG, you've got a good point, too. I received a petition today about this topic, asking Congress to a) put an end to taxpayer-funded lobbying, and b) support public funding of elections. Until we reform how these guys get elected, everything they do is going to reek.
Here's the link:
http://snipr.com/itsgottastop
January 28, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink