A Newsweek article argues the new Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission should play the role I was advocating for a truth and reconciliation commission to bring daylight and justice to the events leading to the financial crisis.

Michael Hirsh argues:

we don't necessarily need a parade of Wall Streeters headed to the Big House. What we do need, however, is a parade of witnesses who will provide what's been missing so far in this crisis—a prominent outlet for public outrage. In the last nine months, the Obama administration and the grandees in Congress have been designing solutions without much input from the outside, often using experts from Wall Street (especially "Government Sachs"). It's pretty much been a closed system.

Like I said, we need some public, inclusive, truth and reconciliation.

• 6 Comments

This is seriously worrying. The US Supreme Court is to create an opportunity to revisit curbs on corporate spending on political advertising.

You might think the army of former insiders hired by the healthcare industry to lobby for private interests in healthcare reform at a cost of $1.4 million per day was already sufficiently invasive of democracy.

The current US Supreme Court, however, is using a narrow case arising from the previous presidential election to raise the possibility of rolling back controls on corporate financing of election advertising, essentially threatening to hand deep-pocketed corporations a blackmailing tool against any elected official who is reluctant to pursue their particular legislative agenda.

If these constraints are rolled back you can kiss goodbye the last vestiges of "By the people" US democracy.

• 0 Comments

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill has passed the House of Representatives late Friday night.  Although the bill is too watered-down for many progressives, it does seem indeed to be better than no bill at all; considering it only passed by 7 votes, it seems the US came very close to having no bill. 

Sam Stein: "The climate change bill would reset drastically the way the U.S. government approaches the issue of regulating pollution. Instituting a cap and trade system, the bill aims to cut America\'s production of greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050. The legislation also includes provisions to create alternative energy sources and cleaner technologies, as well as more efficient building standards.

In an effort to recruit the support of lawmakers sitting on the fence, its authors, prominent progressive Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Ed Markey (D-Mass), reduced goals for carbon emission reductions and threw in favors for the coal and agricultural industries."

• 0 Comments

The Washington Post reports on the splits within the Democratic party over terms of the climate change bill currently before Congress.

An interesting insight into legislative horseplay.

Did I say "interesting"? What I actually meant to say was "depressing".

• 0 Comments

Yesterday's NY Times has a nice long analysis of the lengths the major banks are going to in order to avoid regulation--or to minimize the inevitable.  The banks' line of defense includes, obviously, aggressive lobbying and public declarations that "too much regulation will stifle financial innovation and economic growth."  

The main question, of course, for the financial industry and the politicians who seek to regulate it is not whether regulation is needed, but how much regulation there should be, and how far it should go. 

• 1 Comment

A bill seeking to curb greenhouse gases has made its way through the committee process and is on its way to a vote by the House of Representatives.  According to the Washington Post, "The bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050."  Although the bill is considered too weak by some environmental groups, Greenpeace chief among them, a majority of environmentalists appear to approve the bill as being a good first step in reducing the US' carbon emissions.  The bill also has the support of President Obama, although, again, it is weaker than he had hoped it would be, and weaker than the platform he campaigned on. 

• 0 Comments

Congress has approved measures designed to protect credit card users from many of the industry's favorite predatory practices.  In the same bill, they approved the rights of licensed gun owners to carry loaded weapons into national parks and wilderness areas.  Ah, the intricacies of Washington politics.

• 0 Comments

The Center for Public Integrity has released a report on the $370 million spent on campaign donations and Washington lobbying by subprime lenders.

Most of the largest originators of subprime loans were owned or financed by (now) household names including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan and Bank of America - yes, the same banks who have received the lion's share of the TARP bailout funds.

It is time to lock down rampant, destructive flows of money into politics.

• 0 Comments

The Capital Eye blog at OpenSecrets.org sets out links to information showing which sectors have paid how much money to which political campaigns.

The blog explains that it is difficult to fully understand this week's hearings on climate change in the US Congress without this data, including:

• "Overviews of federal campaign contributions by the energy sector over time. This breaks down into contributions from electric utilities, the mining industry and oil and gas companies. Automakers and the agriculture sector, among others, will also likely want to offer input as energy-related legislation moves forward. And, of course, we can't forget the environmentalists and alternative energy producers, who now appear to have a more prominent seat at the table.
• These industries also try to peddle influence by lobbying the federal government. Take a look at how much the energy sector, electric utilities, the mining industry and oil and gas companies spent on lobbying in 2008. For automakers, go here; for the agriculture sector, go here; and for environmental groups, go here.
• How much have individual members of Congress received from these industries? OpenSecrets.org can show you: energy sector, electric utilities, mining industry, oil and gas companies, automakers, agriculture, environmentalists and alternative energy producers. Play around with the dropdowns and slider menu to change the timeframe or see totals to specific members of the House and Senate. 
• Check out which industries gave the most to members of the various 110th energy-related committees (111th coming soon) by going here and selecting any of the following: House Energy and Commerce Committee; House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee; House Science Committee; Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
• House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.) penned the cap-and-trade global warming bill before their committee this week. Take a look at their individual profiles to see where these two are getting their money, here for Waxman and here for Markey.
• For a look at how the various industries tried to influence energy-related legislation in the past, take a peek at Capital Eye's 2008 Power Struggle series and 2007 Power Play series."

• 0 Comments

Perhaps for reasons of propriety, bank donations to politicians have fallen even as new regulatory constraints are being debated.

The Bloomberg article mentions Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co in particular.

• 1 Comment