Brian Beutler has a disturbing article about House conferees working inside the conference committee on behalf of the New Democrats and the New York delegation to kill or weaken key provisions of the Wall Street reform bill.
Because of the conference committee’s complex rules, the Wall Street friendly House members negotiating the final bill have little power to alter the rules on derivatives, which already appear in the base bill. Of greater concern to reformers on the Hill and in advocacy groups is their position on the Volcker rule, named after former Fed chair, and Obama adviser Paul Volcker, and authored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). That provision isn’t in the base bill yet, and that gives the House Dems greater latitude to meddle with it before it’s offered as an amendment.
Two sources identified four House members on the conference committee–Reps. Dennis Moore (D-KS), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Mel Watt (D-NC), and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)*–who have privately pushed to write a loophole into the Volcker rule which would allow banks to invest in hedge and private equity funds. That loophole has the strong backing of Bank of New York Mellon, and State Street Bank and Trust among other firms, but is fiercely opposed by Volcker himself, who has had tremendous influence over the shape of the reform bill up to now. Volcker was supposed to meet with the Democrats yesterday to warn them away from supporting this loophole, but the meeting was canceled at the last minute.
There’s an asterisk next to Gutierrez’ name because his office denied his participation, saying “He hasn’t been working on the Volcker rule.” I actually believe that; Gutierrez has been more heavily invested in pre-funding. But the rest make sense; Moore is a Blue Dog/New Democrat, Meeks is part of the New York delegation, and Watt was last seen under investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics for holding fundraisers within days of the financial reform vote in the House.
One of the banks leading the charge on this, Mike Konczal explains, is State Street Bank, the poster child for why we need a stronger Volcker rule:
Hey look, it’s noted TARP-recipient State Street Bank lobbying and teaming up with Democrats! Remember the Cambridge Winter analysis, released this week, of the complete 2008-2009 failure of State Street and the subsequent taxpayer bailout? If you are interested in reform and the lobbying process read it again (here’s my discussion of it).
State Street runs the custodian business of 19 trillion dollars in assets. This is the business of physical and electronic safekeeping and record-keeping of equity, fixed-income, and money market securities for institutional investors. It’s really low margin, high volume, and boring. Essential, but boring. If one of these firms had a major guns-blazing-into-failure collapse like Lehman did, it would destroy a large part of the world economy. Hence the reason we bailed it out when its shadow banking division collapsed in 2008-2009 [...] And there State Street goes, lobbying away to make sure it can continue to do the very things that required taxpayers to bail it out the first time around.
On a separate front, the White House apparently stepped in to gut corporate governance provisions, and then lied about it to Ryan Grim and Shahein Nasiripour.
The White House is intervening at the last minute to come to the defense of multinational corporations in the unfolding conference committee negotiations over Wall Street reform.
A measure that had been generally agreed to by both the House and Senate, which would have affirmed the SEC’s authority to allow investors to have proxy access to the corporate decision-making process, was stripped by the Senate in conference committee votes on Wednesday and Thursday. Five sources with knowledge of the situation said the White House pushed for the measure to be stripped at the behest of the Business Roundtable. The sources — congressional aides as well as outside advocates — requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
They responded to comment later that the White House “has not taken a position explicitly” on the issue, which is demonstrably false. Basically, this protects Wall Street CEOs from having their salaries determined by shareholders.
By the way, the ballyhooed “transparency” of the conference committee ran into the lack of C-SPAN channels. They’re not televising the committee right now, opting for the BP hearing (a good call, by the way). Cate Long is the only one I know of live-tweeting from inside the room. I will update when I have more information.




24 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
dday – The House Financial Services Committee website has a livestreaming link for the conference committee here:
http://financialserv.edgeboss.net/wmedia-live/financialserv/16489/300_financialserv-qwertyuiop_070131.asx
Their web page with conference committee-related text, and a link to all archived webcasts is here:
http://financialservices.house.gov/Key_Issues/Financial_Regulatory_Reform/Financial_Regulatory_Reform020210.html
Thanks for the updates, and for the bird-dogging of the unadmitted and dishonest White House/bank lobbyist manipulations of and interference in the process.
What?! Democrats selling us out to corporate interests behind closed doors! Nah, I’m sure there is a reasonable explanation why our congenitally well-intentioned president hasn’t straightened this out yet.
Note in the huffpo article that loyal wall street call boy charlie schumer is putting on some made-for-tv kabuki theatre declaring that he wants to rein in wall street ceo pay now that he knows damn well the senate is in the tank for the white house and the votes aren’t there. Again, we know the pope of hope will straighten this all out though becoz we know it is literally impossible for him to possess anything but the best intentions for the people. He’s a noble man … and he’s extremely smart (that much is true) … but he’s just getting the wool pulled over his eyes for millionth time in the past 17 months. It’s the only explanation that makes any sense.
Z
Finished reading Galbraith’s Short History of Financial Euphoria today. Lessons of history not encouraging, i.e. no learning, too little too late, too soon forgotten. A big disagreement with Galbraith’s history, which ends in the 1980s, is that this episode is much worse than the ones he details in the past, in the sense of lack of any kind of punishment of anyone involved, and much reduced will to do anything to correct it in the aftermath. Also, he writes about a 20 year cycle, but they have now been cut in half, with much more negative consequences.
Financial reform was always kabuki. It is as big a con as healthcare. There is nothing here but shiny objects, and not even many of them.
I, for one, want at least a charm bracelet with all the fin reform ideas. It’s the least the Ds can do for me.
Mel Watt’s district includes Bank of America employees, who work at the headquarters in Charlotte. Its a matter of job extortion plus whatever blandishments an ethics committee might find.
So here’s a good BofA, i.e., Nation’s Bank story. Acquaintance, who ‘retired’ under the following circumstances in her 50s. She was a rising star at Bank of Boston, which got taken over by Nation’s. Next you know, she got invited to Charlotte meetings for such rising stars, under the Nation’s name before they were savvy enough to rebrand as BofA. Those meetings started off with prayers. ‘Twas enough for her, as she had husband & other financial resources. ‘Nuf said.
This is what I was referring to earlier today. I could understand why Watts is backing this, but I’m not sure what’s in it for the others. However, I haven’t dug into it either; I suspect that a lot of it involves donations to their campaign funding.
These…people…do not seem to realize that every stunt like this they pull is another dollar I will be donating to WHOMEVER is opposing them in the November election. They don’t seem to realize that they are ENSURING that I will actively vote AGAINST them no what, come November.
Sorry to be off-topic, but did anyone see this in HuffPost, about Lieberman proposing a bill to give Obama the power to TURN OFF the Internet??
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/internet-kill-switch-woul_n_615923.html
You wouldn’t be surprised, would you?
So the country has, what, another 7-9 years? They’re just buying time.
Jon Walker is upstairs!
Marijuana Legalization Possibly Headed to Detroit Ballot
Wow! hey David thanks.
Think you are going to see anything about this on your so called librul-progressive TV hosts(MSNBC) shows tonight…. No cuz they do the WH bidding & many so called progressives fail to see the filth they are continually selling us on behalf of the WH.
Galbraith does not address the end of empire, and how that might be related to financial euphoria, so no insight into your Q from that particular essay.
My absolute favorite from the book is that in the U.K. in the 1820s, there was a scheme to finance the draining of the Red Sea to find all the riches that the Egyptians lost while pursuing the Jews into Israel.
That book should be a “must read” for anyone who wants to understand a bubble economy.
I have decided that for the upcoming elections, instead of calling members of Congress which doesn’t seem to have an impact anymore, I’m going to call all my friends and family to “remind” them of all the decisions which this Congress have made which are NOT in their best interests. I am keeping a journal with information on statements made and actual outcomes, etc. I will suggest that they further “pass on” the information to their friends. We need change.
Keep in mind that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have ultra conservative bosses at G.E. They have to walk a fine line between getting out the truth as progressives and not angering those bosses to the point that they lose their shows. I think Rachel Maddow is one of the most authentic television hosts after Bill Moyers (who unfortunately is no longer on PBS), and I for one want to support those shows. Who else will provide the progressive viewpoint if they went off the air because we didn’t support them? In addition, Rachel Maddow seems to evaluate issues from a perspective of “is this good for us”? For example, she is questioning using sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico which the President has endorsed. If it had been former President Bush and Fox News, they never would question it.
Another issue to consider: is it actually in the best interest of a company to have the Board of Directors evaluate and approve appropriate compensation for the CEO?
Since the primary responsibility of the Board of Directors is to protect the shareholders’ assets and ensure they receive a decent return on their investment, isn’t it likely the CEO will stop making decisions which are best for the company and more in line with what the board wants? What if the CEO implements cost cutting measures (especially regarding safety) in order to keep shareholders and especially the Board of Directors (who decides said CEO’s pay) happy?
HP is hard to go to anymore, there are still occasionally articles that aren’t sycophantic white-washes but the comments have become cookie-cutter ass kissing jokes, the administration must have 20 interns over there with multiple handles responding to any article critical of Orahma.
I am sorry,Rachel is a tout for the Dem party leadership & WH.
She does for the Dem party what Sean Anus-ity at Faux News does for The GOP.
You wrote ” she is questioning using sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico which the President has endorsed.”
Well maybe she should stop yapping about BP for most of her show and ask the Prez why is it that he gave permission to use Corexit,the dispersant that will harm many as time goes along & worthless sand berms.
Since the Prez said from day 1,the Federal Govt is running the show,why is her show so dedicated to blasting BP & not the WH:BP screwed up ,The feds are now involved with the management of the disaster,& so for her to infer that BP are the ones who are running the show still, is disingenuous.
Please use other sources for your news don’t depend on so called progressive TV host to inform you,they won’t furnish you with the true story.Those WH dinner party invitations means more to ‘em than truth telling.
Good catch.This is what the strategy seems to be.
It won’t surprise me if the DNC is some how involve.This is the same concept that the Bush Admin used,only they used TV & Radio media to go after those who weren’t buying their bulls..t.Remember then those of us who objected to Bush policies were called un-American.
Now the meme is those of us who disagree with the Prez are doing the work of the GOP to bring down a”progressive” Prez.
Yeah,I know (lol)……Obama is a progressive.That’s from the sycophants.
I use a variety of sources to obtain information… scientists, blogs, “news” sources, radio, television, personal friends etc.
If you believe Rachel Maddow is equivalent to Sean Hannity (who I have proven to be an outright liar on numerous occasions), provide 2 examples of outright lies she has made.
What benefit does the Democratic Party receive by having Rachel Maddow provide in depth stories, pictures, and guests regarding the oil catastrophe in the gulf. Wouldn’t it be better to have a “no pictures” policy as is done with aspects of our wars…you know…out of sight, out of mind?
I still believe it is important to support the few “progressive” hosts on television because there are so few (whether I agree or disagree with them on any given day). And, have you considered that ultra conservative G.E. may have laid down the law regarding certain stories such as that on Corexit?
Well maybe, it’s why I am urging you not to put lock,stock & barrel in “progressive” TV hosts.
They won’t furnish you….us with the truth,they represent(work) corporations and the Dem party is closer to those corporations than you & I.
Our welfare is of least import to the Dem party or those damnable GOP creeps.
Look,Rachel said Micheal Steele was under FBI investigation.Steele was not,it was his campaign finance manager.
Well that was a lie,Steele’s campaign manager was under investigation not Steele.And so there is one that I can remember right off the top.
So please, all these people(Maddow,Anus-ity etc) represent an interest, that interest is not necessarily ours…..Please don’t think cuz her views might to be near yours that she won’t lie….
I don’t pay much attention to Maddow or whom ever else…cuz this is what our media is about….find a host that a segment of the populace can identify with….and get’ em to feed us bull….It’s like when NAFTA was going down,Bill Press was on Crossfire saying it would be good for Americans….well,we see what a lie that was,and many people bought that,cuz BPress was supposed to be a Dem.And the Dems don’t hurt ordinary Americans..
And so we have Anus-ity for the GOP & Maddow for the Dems.
Also, don’t believe that this is all the white house and that the senate and house dems are blameless. This kabuki has probably been planned by the rahmbama team for months. First of all, the senate does not have to do what the president tells them to do. The house and the senate can pass a bill and make obama veto it … which I doubt he’s got the guts to do. Personally, I think it is more than a coincidence that the democratic party happened to find a way to keep wall street and corporate chieftains happy prior to the mid-terms … and that the white house, which isn’t up for election until 2012, and the senate, of whom only 1/3rd are up for reelection this year, takes the hit while the house, with every member up for election, comes up principled, but forced into settling for the best wall street bill they could get under the circumstances.
Z