Are The Democrats Still The Party Of Harry Truman? Or Is It Just Another Wall Street Party Now? NAFTA 2.0

In October 1948, President Harry Truman was stumping Minnesota, on behalf of both his own successful re-election campaign and a Senate bid by then Minneapolis mayor, Hubert Humphrey. During an appearance in St. Paul on the 13th, Truman delivered an address at the Municipal Auditorium which was carried nationally on radio. It included this critique of the Republican Party, a critique that most Democrats wouldn't be able to use today, thanks in large part to Bill and Hillary Clinton, among other neoliberals, including Status Quo Joe, Mayo Pete and Bloomberg, who have infected the Democratic Party and changed it fundamentally-- and not for the better:

Today the forces of liberalism face a crisis. The people of the United States must make a choice between two ways of living-- a decision which will affect us the rest of our lives and our children and our grandchildren after us.

On the other side, there is the Wall Street way of life and politics. Trust the leader! Let big business take care of prices and profits! Measure all things by money! That is the philosophy of the masters of the Republican Party.

Well, I have been studying the Republican Party for over 12 years at close hand in the Capital of the United States. And by this time, I have discovered where the Republicans stand on most of the major issues.

Since they won’t tell you themselves, I am going to tell you.

They approve of the American farmer-- but they are willing to help him go broke.

They stand four-square for the American home-- but not for housing.

They are strong for labor-- but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights.

They favor a minimum wage-- the smaller the minimum the better.

They indorse educational opportunity for all-- but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools.

They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine-- for people who can afford them.

They approve of Social Security benefits-- so much so that they took them away from almost a million people.

They believe in international trade-- so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement.

They favor the admission of displaced persons-- but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.

They consider electric power a great blessing-- but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.

They say TVA is wonderful-- but we ought never to try it again.

They condemn “cruelly high prices”-- but fight to the death every effort to bring them down.

They think the American standard of living is a fine thing-- so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people.

And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.

Now, my friends, that is the Wall Street Republican way of life. But there is another way-- there is another way-- the Democratic way, the way of the Democratic Party.

At one time-- in Truman's day for example-- the chart below would have looked much different. These are the current members of the House who have taken the most bribes from the Finance Sector-- the class of miscreants FDR labeled "the banksters"-- in the 2018 cycle. These are the only ones who took at least a million in bribes:

• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $2,253,625
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $2,134,472
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $1,718,006
• Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ)- $1,549,650
• Andy Barr (R-KY)- $1,537,784
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $1,438,794
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $1,430,888
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $1,416,015
• Antonio Delgado (D-NY)- $1,290,587
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- $1,283,038
• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- $1,270,853
• French Hill (R-AR)- $1,183,912
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)- $1,145,089
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $1,070,719
• Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA)- $1,067,278
• Lee Zeldin (R-NY)- $1,021,840
• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $1,020,550
• Tom Malinowski (New Dem-NJ)- $1,006,027

Bribes like this can really mount up in a few cycles. Since being elected to Congress, the super-corrupt GOP minority leader Kevin McCarthy has gorged himself with $9,508,537 in bankster "contributions." The next biggest career criminal along these lines is majority leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, with $7,356,624 finding its way into his campaign coffers. The third biggest criminal recipient of Wall Street dough was dispatched by AOC last year. Joe Crowley had gobbled up $7,217,725 in bribes from the banksters. Am I saying these politicians should be bundled off to prison in the next half hour to await trial? Yes, I am. And I'm not the only one who opposes politicians taking bribes from financial institutions that are charged with regulating.

Several progressive candidates are running on platforms built on strict opposition to Congressional bribery. Cenk Uygur has been studying congressional corruption for many years. Now he's running for Congress in a wide open field in which all the front-runners, both Democrat and Republican-- are on the record approving of bribery, although they insist it isn't bribery. I asked Cenk to explain why it is bribery and what he plans to do about opposing it when he's in Congress. "No one thinks JP Morgan Chase is giving a politician money for their health or for charity," he said flatly. "Everyone knows it's a bribe. And if they give that same politician a second 'contribution' that means they got a return on investment. And to be fair to them, an American politician is the most profitable thing you can buy. And they're almost all up for sale. This is a sick system that has to be fixed immediately. I'm running in CA-25 to make sure we end the obvious bribery and the brazen corruption."

And speaking of which, Pelosi and her team announced this morning-- on the same day that the Democrats announced just 2 impeachment charges against Trump-- that the House Dems will back Trump's new NAFTA 2.0. Remember, corporate Democrats like Pelosi always go for these sell-out trade deals, so this wasn't unexpected. It's days like today that I especially appreciate Bernie's call for a political revolution, something that no other candidate is even close to understanding, let alone doing.

I spoke to at least a dozen progressives today. Most said they feel uncomfortable with the Trump trade bill but that they will go along with it because... Trumka:

Make no mistake, we demanded a trade deal that benefits workers and fought every single day to negotiate that deal; and now we have secured an agreement that working people can proudly support.

I am grateful to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies on the USMCA working group, along with Senate champions like Sherrod Brown and Ron Wyden, for standing strong with us throughout this process as we demanded a truly enforceable agreement. I also commend Ambassador Robert Lighthizer for being a straight shooter and an honest broker as we worked toward a resolution.

Why the sell-out from Trumka? I'm hearing the big sweetener to get him on board was the deal on hitching Butch Lewis and Mineworker pension fixes that Richard Neal floated a few months ago. So far, just one of the progressives I spoke with said he's inclined to vote against it anyway. Just one. I hope he can persuade some others. And even if labor is happy, environmental and Climate groups sure aren't.

Dear Representative,

On behalf of our organizations’ over 9 million members and supporters, we strongly urge you to oppose a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that fails to meet the baseline standards for environmental and climate protection that the environmental community has consistently called for.

Correcting NAFTA’s environmental failures and addressing climate change in modern trade agreements is a top priority for our organizations. For over 25 years, NAFTA has contributed to climate change, toxic pollution, economic insecurity, and social inequity. We will vigorously oppose any deal that would perpetuate NAFTA’s track record of helping corporations dump pollution, outsource jobs, push fossil fuel dependency, and undermine hard-fought environmental protections.

Before, during, and after the Trump administration’s renegotiation of NAFTA, we and other leading environmental organizations repeatedly named specific changes to curb NAFTA’s environmental damage. The administration ignored nearly all of our concerns. The deal that the Trump administration produced last year-- the United States-Mexico- Canada Agreement (USMCA)-- would encourage further outsourcing of pollution and jobs, offer handouts to notorious corporate polluters, and prolong Trump’s polluting legacy for years. The deal not only fails to mention, acknowledge, or address the climate crisis, but would actually contribute to it.

Since this summer, a team of Democratic members of Congress has worked to try to eliminate these and other fundamental problems by negotiating meaningful changes to the Trump administration’s deal. We have actively supported this effort with detailed recommendations to achieve the following essential environmental priorities:

• Binding climate standards, backed by 110 members of Congress, to curb outsourcing of climate pollution and jobs and to ensure the U.S. and its trading partners fulfill commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement
• Binding clean air, water, and land standards to halt the dumping of pollution in Mexico

• Obligations to fulfill commitments under an array of key multilateral environmental agreements

• A new, independent and binding enforcement system to stop environmental violations

• Removal of corporate polluter handouts that support tar sands oil and fracked gas

• Elimination of broad rights for corporate polluters to sue Mexico over environmental policies in tribunals

• Elimination of rules that would help corporate polluters weaken and delay our environmental regulations 


In case you missed it yesterday, please take a look at this Twitter thread from Paul Krugman:

And, one wag cautioned a few minutes ago that this is probably a better deal than what progressives could have gotten in a Status Quo Joe or Mayo Pete presidency. Now that really is sad.

Kicker: Media is already laughing: "Democrats are saying Trump is an existential threat on one hand and helping him with his trade deal on the other."

Do We Need A President To Protect Us From Wall Street? Not Sure? You Will Be Soon

The same information can be presented in different ways to create or bolster different narratives. A Quinnipiac poll came out this morning and much of the establishment media presented it like this:

Biden Viewed Most Favorably of Top Democrats

• Joe Biden at 53% to 33%
• Bernie Sanders at 44% to 42%
• Elizabeth Warren at 30% to 37%
• Michael Bloomberg at 22% to 32%
• Hillary Clinton at 32% to 61%

There's nothing dishonest about those numbers. Except they don't much matter in a primary. Let's look at a different way of looking at the polling data. This is how Democrats-- you know, the ones who can vote in the primaries-- view the candidates (this is favorability/unfavorability:

• Biden- 84%-7% (8% haven't heard enough)
• Bernie- 74%-13% (10% haven't heard enough)
• Hillary-70%-23% (6% haven't heard enough)
• Beto- 45%- 4% (51% haven't heard enough)
• Kamala- 41%-4% (54% haven't heard enough)
• Elizabeth Warren- 60%-12% (28% haven't heard enough)
• Cory Booker- 46%-5% (48% haven't heard enough)
• Michael Bloomberg- 36%- 19% (44% haven't heard enough)
• Gillibrand- 28%-7% (64% haven't heard enough)
• Sherrod Brown- 24%-2% (73% haven't heard enough)

So what's the takeaway? Democrats don't know enough about the candidates to make up their minds. OK, May I suggest watching this video from a former Wall Street banker? If you pay attention to what she has to say, you won't need to know anything more before you vote:



Who's going to take care of this problem for real? Biden? LOL! Gillibrand? LOL! Booker? LOL. Bloomberg? LOL! Beto? LOL! Sherrod Brown? ROTFLMAO! How about someone else?

How Many Democratic Senators Joined Wall Street And The GOP To Screw Bank Customers?

Just before Tuesday's vote to further gut Dodd-Frank and open the U.S. up to another bankster greed-driven economic catastrophe, Orange County law professor and congressional candidate Katie Porter wrote to her supporters that "As a consumer protection attorney, I've spent nearly 20 years fighting powerful special interests like Wall Street lobbyists. I've collaborated extensively with Elizabeth Warren on ways to protect the middle class from being scammed by powerful institutions and corporations. Unfortunately, I have to alert you to a new attack on consumers coming later this week. The Senate is days away from voting on a bill called the 'Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act,' though the actual bill will do none of those things. This bill would roll back or eliminate key protections that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act put in place after Wall Street's recklessness caused a global recession. I'm urging the Senate to Vote NO on this legislation."

Porter is running in CA-45 for a seat held by Wall Street shill Mimi Walters. But before she can take on Mimi, she has to get through another Wall Street shill, New Dem, Dave Min, who ran Chuck Schumer's Wall Street operation when Schumer was working hand-in-glove with the banksters to set them loose on consumers. Schumer has taken more in bribes than any other politician in American history who was not a presidential candidate-- and more than some presidential candidates. As of now Schumer the Finance Sector has given Schumer $26,754,908, compared to $12,338,704 to McConnell and $12,165,694 to Paul Ryan... so more than both of them together! Min has been part of Schumer's "success" in that scheme.

Which candidates are being backed by Wall Street this cycle? It's worth noting which non-incumbents they're making their biggest contributions to so far. Of course their biggest bribes in the House went to half a dozen crooked incumbents who are already serving their every interest:

• Speaker Ryan (R-WI)- $2,649,603
• Majority Leader McCarthy (R-CA)- $1,500,400
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $871,524
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $867,506
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- $867,225
• Kyrsten Sinema- $792,137

Of course, these 5 men and one woman should all be in prison but these are the crooked politicians who aspire to be just like them and are already taking large bribes as banksters bet on their chances to be able to kick their own constituents to the curb while carrying Wall Street's water. Austin Frerick, the progressive candidate running for the Iowa congressional seat occupied by GOP money grubber David Young, cut right to the chase: "I cannot believe that Democrats can support this bank deregulation bill after what we went through as a country a decade ago. But this is what happens when Democrats take money from corporations and lobbyists. This is also why I refuse that money."

David Gill's primary is coming up in less than two weeks. He's been fighting for the kind of economic fairness Elizabeth Warren is talking about for decades, not just for his campaign. “As is almost always the case on such issues, I stand with Senator Warren here. It amazes me that our elected representatives have so quickly forgotten the financial crisis which brought so much pain to so many ordinary Americans only 10 years ago. I suspect that those representatives never actually felt the pain, given their place in life. The ordinary men and women that make up the majority of IL-13 certainly did feel the pain of that recession, and they are the ones who will be hit hardest by a recurrence of our economic woes. The regulations within Dodd-Frank should be strengthened, not weakened. I look forward to getting to Washington early next year and working to protect Americans from bankers whose greed knows no bounds.”

The half-dozen worst non-incumbent candidates(so far):

• Josh Harder (D-CA-10)- $229,094
• Perry Gershon (D-NY-01)- $222,866
• Dan Koh (D-MA-03)- $199,818
• Mikie Sherrill (New Dem- NJ-11)- $178,578
• Pat Ryan (D-NY-19)- $171,879
• Matt Haggman (D-FL-27)- $158,790

It's essential to stick with progressives like Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) on this issue and to support candidates like them-- like Katie Porter, Austin Frerick and David Gill. Mimi Walters (R-CA) has already gobbled up $400,108 from the Finance Sector this year. David Young (R-IA) has taken $124,350 and Rod Davis (R-IL) took $174,652-- just this cycle!

The only other California candidate besides Josh Harder to have taken over a hundred grand from the finance sector is the sleaze bag in CA-49, Mike Levin, who has managed to vacuum up $124,232. Wall Street knows who they can count on. And it isn't Elizabeth Warren. In fact, when Mark Takano was strong-arming California convention delegates to vote for Dave Min, one of his arguments was that no one endorsed by Elizabeth Warren could win in Orange County. Strange thing for a progressive to say. Here's Elizabeth Warren talking about the bill Katie Porter was campaigning against this week:

[H]ere we are-- on the verge of making the same mistake Congress has made so many times before.

The banks don't want you to know what's in this bill-- because if you did, they know you'd fight back. It was written by Senators in back rooms and jammed through the Banking Committee, where its authors voted down every single amendment, every single idea, to make the bill even one smidge better or protect consumers just one tiny bit more. They voted against every amendment, even if they agreed with it, because Republicans and Democrats had locked arms to do the bidding of the big banks.

There's a lot of dangerous stuff in this bill. Today I want to focus on the harm it will do to America's consumers.

But I'll start with what's not in the bill because what's not in this bill should make Congress ashamed. Strong consumer protections. Banks get their wish list, but consumers get next to nothing. This bill is called the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, but in all 148 pages, there's only a few watered down provisions that help consumers.

Equifax loses data for nearly half of all adults in America, lies about it, and this Congress-these Senators-still can't manage to pass a bill with some teeth to hold the company accountable. That says it all-this is a bill written by big banks to help big banks, not a bill to help American families who are still getting cheated by the companies that make huge profits off them.

So what's actually in this bill? Start with the first part of the bill-- Section 101, "Improving Consumer Access to Mortgage Credit."

When you get a mortgage, your lender usually spends some time combing through your financial records to make sure you can repay the loan. That's good-- American families don't want to take out loans they can't afford and banks don't want to make loans that won't get repaid.

Bailout Caucus

Before the financial crisis, that whole process went haywire. Lenders were making crazy loans with ballooning payments and exotic features that consumers didn't understand. Lenders didn't care if customers could repay-they got their fees up front, then sold the loans to distant investors and the original lender was long gone before the homeowners got in trouble. But the families were stuck. Eventually, the payments skyrocketed, and homeowners who couldn't keep up defaulted, losing those homes.  After the crisis, Congress changed the rules. They told lenders that they had to start underwriting their loans again to protect consumers and the economy. But since this takes time and money, Congress told the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to write a rule that says that there's no need for the lender to investigate if this is a super-safe, boring, plain-vanilla loan.

That's reasonable.

But Section 101 of this bill is not reasonable. It takes the CFPB rule and stretches it in all directions, tearing open big, dangerous loopholes. This bill says banks, have some fun. Bring back the greatest hits of financial crisis housing scams. Scoop up the profits on the front end, and leave families holding the bag on the back end.

I understand breaks for banks that make straightforward loans, but these loans are too risky. And they come at a bad time. Rising interest rates mean that exotic products like adjustable rate mortgages are making a comeback. Bank lobbyists are dragging us back to the bad old days when banks had free reign to scam consumers.

Here's another section: Section 104 makes it harder to enforce anti-discrimination laws by telling loads of institutions that they don't have to comply with a law called the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or "HMDA." HMDA requires most financial institutions to tell the public and the CFPB who they're lending to and at what rates and terms. Regulators and law enforcement use the data to make sure that American families don't have a harder time getting a loan because of who they are or where they come from.

This bill takes a sledgehammer to HMDA by exempting 85 percent of institutions from reporting HMDA data. If this bill passes, there will be entire communities where there will be no data whatsoever-- which means there will be no ability to monitor whether people are getting cheated because of their race or their gender.

Again, this couldn't come at worse time. Lending discrimination is real. A new comprehensive report that looked at housing markets all over the country just came out from the Center for Investigative Reporting and Reveal, and its findings should make us all sick to our stomachs.

In 2015 and 2016, nearly two-thirds of mortgage lenders denied loans to people of color at higher rates than for white people. According to Reveal, in the Washington metro area. "In 2016, Native American applicants were 2.3 times as likely to be denied a conventional home mortgage as white applicants. For black applicants, it was 2.2 times as likely. For Latino applicants, it was 1.9 times as likely. For Asian applicants, it was 1.6 times as likely." The Reveal report showed that this problem happens in giant banks, but also in small banks.

Here's the thing. None of that analysis would have been possible without HMDA data from big institutions and small ones. Without the data, we'd all be sitting here in the dark, maybe wondering if some mortgage lenders discriminated against African Americans or women or Native Americans, but we wouldn't have any way to know-and no way to change it if they were. Gutting HMDA allows us-- actually forces us-- to look the other way when discrimination happens. And that's disgraceful.

...Only a bunch of bank lobbyists-- and their friends in Washington-- would call this a consumer protection bill.

American families weren't in the back room when this bill was written. They don't have millions of dollars in campaign cash to get senators' attention. They don't keep an army of lobbyists on their payroll. No, American families are busy going to work, helping the kids with homework and trying to catch up on a thousands things. They are trying to pay off student loans or maybe to save a little for their kids to go to college. Some are trying to put aside a few bucks for a mortgage.

They trust us to stand up for them and make sure they have a fair shot at homeownership-- at the American dream. And they trust us to make sure that we're not turning over the keys to our economy to the same people who crashed it ten years ago and ran over a bunch of American families on the way.

I know we're outnumbered, but this fight isn't over. Make no mistake, I'm going to do whatever I can to convince enough other senators that this is a bad deal for American families, and a dangerous one. I'll push and tug and talk to anyone who will listen about how this bill will hurt the people we were sent here to represent. And maybe, just maybe, maybe for once the Senate will start listening to voters instead of donors.

Heitkamp: "We Have Enough Votes Right Now To Pass It," And By "We" She Means The Corrupt Senators Owned By Wall Street

Looks like I stumbled onto something Saturday-- my use of the term "Bailout Caucus," pissed off some senators. Turns out the polite way of talking about the topic is to refer to the "Bank Lobbyist Act." My bad. The good guys gnash their teeth when rebellious types refer to corrupt right of center Democrats-- many in danger of losing their seats because they are corrupt and right of center-- as the BailoutCaucus: Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Jon Tester (MT), Chris Coons (DE), Tom Carper (DE), Joe Donnelly (IN), Claire McCaskill (MO), Gary Peters (MI), Mark Warner (VA), Tim Kaine (VA), Joe Manchin (WV) and Michael Bennet (CO) + independent Angus King (ME).

We'll leave that aside for a moment and go over what NPR reported, a report you can listen to at the top of the page about how the Trump Regime and their Republican allies in Congress are in the process of destroying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Trump's interim head of the bureau, corrupt anti-regulation fanatic Mick Mulvaney has been trying to make "radical changes to deter the agency from aggressively pursuing its mission."

The CFPB on Monday unveiled a new strategic plan to that end. In a message accompanying the plan for the years 2018 through 2022, Mulvaney wrote, "we have committed to fulfill the Bureau's statutory responsibilities, but go no further." The plan says the bureau should be "acting with humility and moderation."

This new direction is consistent with Mulvaney's other memos and statements and formalizes his plans for defanging the watchdog bureau and reshaping its mission, according to insiders and experts that NPR has talked to.

The CFPB is considered a powerful and independent watchdog. But many Republicans have wanted to shut it down since Day 1 because they think it's too powerful. Mulvaney is one of them. As a congressman, Mulvaney called the agency a "sick sad joke." He drafted legislation to abolish it. So people at the bureau were shocked when the president appointed him to run this consumer protection agency.

Within weeks of coming on board, Mulvaney has worked to make the watchdog agency less aggressive. Under his leadership, the CFPB delayed a new payday lending regulation from going into effect and dropped an investigation into one payday lender that contributed to Mulvaney's campaign. In another move that particularly upset some staffers, the new boss also dropped a lawsuit against an alleged online loan shark called Golden Valley Lending. The suit says the lender illegally charges people up to 950 percent interest rates. It took CFPB staffers years to build the case.

"People are devastated and angry-- just imagine how you would feel if years of your life had been dedicated to pursuing justice and you lose everything," says Christopher Peterson, a former Office of Enforcement attorney at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who worked on this particular case early on.

Peterson believes that had the lawsuit been pursued and the CFPB won, it could have clawed back money to help thousands of people who have allegedly been hurt by the lender.

...In his new strategic plan and in memos to staff, Mulvaney has made it clear that he wants to rein in the bureau... Some see this as Mulvaney's way of paying back supporters of his campaign.

"As a congressman he took $62,000 plus from the payday lenders. And now at the CFPB he's doing their bidding," says Karl Frisch, executive director of the consumer group Allied Progress... Of course, Mulvaney's moves could be just conservative ideology for less regulation.

Zachary Warmbrodt's report at Politico Pro is behind a paywall (as of Monday morning) and is far more political and far more ominous than NPR's folksy report. "A debate over the biggest bank deregulation bill since the 2008 Wall Street meltdown," he wrote, "is splitting Senate Democrats and threatening to magnify the party's divisions as it fights to win back Congress." He explained that on one side are the corrupt right-wing assholes and cowards like "Heidi Heitkamp and Jon Tester from Republican-leaning states who support the legislation because they say it will provide relief to small and regional banks and boost rural economies. On the other side are progressive Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and their activist allies, who argue that the bill will put consumers at risk and are working to undercut the moderates, several of whom have tough re-election campaigns this year."

That the legislation-- yes the one we referred to above as the "Bank Lobbyist Act"-- is facing a vote in the next few weeks and is coming a decade after the worst credit crunch since the Great Depression has fueled passions around the debate. Elizabeth Warren said that she's "amazed that, on the 10th anniversary of the 2008 financial crisis, some Democrats are supporting the Trump administration and Senate Republicans on a bill to roll back the financial rules we put in place." The bill put together by Wall Street lobbyists and Mike Crapo (R-ID), S. 2155, "would scale back regulations that Democrats pushed through in 2010 in the Dodd-Frank Act-- the sweeping statute that rewrote the rules of the financial industry and is one of President Barack Obama's signature achievements." Funny how the lobbyist-fueled lawmakers on both sides of the aisle "say the landmark law should be recalibrated to ease restrictions on lenders, in particular the smallest banks that were not responsible for the worst excesses that led to the crisis. For [corrupt right-wing asshole] Democrats from states that Donald Trump won in 2016, it's a chance to show voters they can work with Republicans and help their local economies. Trump administration officials have been supportive of the Senate legislation."

The infighting isn't expected to take down the bill, which probably has enough support to escape a filibuster, thanks to the 11 Democrats co-sponsoring the legislation. House Republicans, who have proposed more dramatic rollbacks, might pose a bigger hurdle. But the Senate floor debate could have repercussions in this year's elections and beyond, as Democrats try to convince voters they can effectively oversee the economy.

Democrats who oppose the legislation are emboldened by the expectation that most of their caucus will be on their side.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is leading efforts to undermine the bill as the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, said his party is "overwhelmingly against it."

"I've talked to damn near everybody about this," he said.

Brown says the bill's backers are overselling its benefits to the smallest lenders and that easing rules for larger banks would threaten the economy.

The legislation is muddying Democrats' message as they try to take back power in Washington, he said.

"The public doesn't want us to lay down for the banks," he said. "The public doesn't have collective amnesia about what happened 10 years ago like senators do."

...Warren, who is expected to easily win reelection this year and is seen as another 2020 presidential contender, may have more of a free hand in the debate to antagonize banks and the Democrats who back the bill.

She said the issue is "whether or not senators are on the side of protecting the economy and taxpayers or on the side of giant banks."

"Remember Countrywide?" she said, referring to the mortgage lender that became synonymous with the crisis. "It was about $200 billion, which is smaller than some of the banks that will be deregulated by this bill. The heart of this bill is to take 30 of the 40 biggest banks in this country off the watch-list so that they can load up on risks again and if things go wrong put the American taxpayer back on the hook."

Brown and Warren are backed by outside activists that are mobilizing to stop the bill from getting traction. They're trying to make it politically painful for Democrats to stand up for it.

Indivisible, an increasingly influential liberal advocacy group that formed as part of the resistance to Trump's election, has published a detailed script outlining how to rebut the bill in calls with Senate staffers.

Indivisible is also calling on its supporters to confront senators about the legislation during the upcoming congressional recess. In sample town hall questions, it suggests that voters ask Democratic senators whether they will commit to opposing "this Republican down payment on ending regulation of Wall Street."

Another progressive group, Demand Progress, has launched a social media campaign through its Rootstrikers arm identifying the bill's Democratic co-sponsors as the "#BailoutCaucus."

Public Citizen, the nonprofit consumer watchdog, has been making its case against the bill on the Hill and by coordinating with allies in the states of Democrats who have co-sponsored the bill.

"We're making it clear that there will be political consequences for being on the wrong side of this bill," Demand Progress campaign director Kurt Walters said. "We and others will then ramp up pressure on potential swing votes as necessary."

Crapo says he hopes the Senate will take up the bill shortly after lawmakers return after Presidents Day.

For the bill's supporters, the focus is on maintaining the core group that has helped make it one of the only successful examples of bipartisan compromise during this Congress.

"We have enough votes right now to pass it," Heitkamp said. "I know there are people who would like to see 70-75 votes. Maybe we can't get there, but we'll continue to have the discussion."

"Why is it a bad bill? Why is it dangerous?" Tester said in an interview, when asked about the opposition to the proposal. "We give relief to community banks. This should have been done years ago... This is going to allow for access to capital in rural areas like Montana," he said. "I don't get it."

The problem with winning over more Democrats is that there is little room to negotiate among the coalition of supporters when it comes to making changes that newcomers might seek. That's why the biggest threat to the bill's passage is the House, where Republicans want to do much more to dismantle Dodd-Frank. For now, it's unclear what they will try to add to the bill and whether Senate Democrats would go along with it.

"There is a rule, and this goes to working with the House as well: You don't get to amend this thing unless we all agree," Heitkamp said.

You can bet yer britches that top Wall Street whore Chuck Schumer isn't leaning on any of the Bailout Caucus to maintain party solidarity on this one. Schumer, after all, has taken more cash from Wall Street than any non-presidential politician in history-- $26,735,303 at last count, compared to "just" $12,276,007 for McConnell and a measly $11,909,105 for Speaker Ryan. Schumer wants to be seen by voters as being on the side on the people against the banksters... while delivering for the banksters-- who have financed his rise to power-- when it really counts.

Without Help From Corrupt Democrats The Republicans Couldn't Pass Their Kissy-Kissy Wall Street Legislation

Tonight I want to talk about the SIFI Threshold, That';s because I had lunch with my old friend Roberto Rodriguez-- former congressional candidate and later special assistant for legislative affairs to the Secretary of the Treasury (Geithner at the time). So what's SIFI? Don't worry, I didn't know either til Roberto explained it over a bowl of pasta. Basically SIFI stands for "systemically important financial institution," like a too big to fail bank (or other institution, like an insurance company). The idea is that if one of these things fail, it leads to a series of events that can crash the economy. So... as part of Dodd Frank, Congress passed legislation that defined a SIFI as any financial institution with $50 billion or more in consolidated assets. There are 38 such banks and the compliance costs are seen by the crooked banksters as pretty high. So the banksters have been kvetching like rabid dogs ever since asking for the threshold to be raised. The Trump Regime, the entire Republican Party and every Democrat who takes bribes from Wall Street agrees. The idea is to raise the threshold to a quarter trillion which means only 12 institutions would be covered-- so 26 would be able to go back to irresponsible behavior with alacrity.

In fact, speaking about bribes from Wall Street, Barney Frank-- the Frank in Dodd-Frank-- is now a banking lobbyist and the American Banking Association trotted him out to endorse their larcency. He's now calling $50 billion "a mistake," although the articles don't mention how much he was paid to say that. "That’s too low," he said."That was a mistake. We should have made it much higher," tossing out $125 billion as an alternative, noting that he also regretted not indexing the threshold to inflation. Does this sound like a Republican or what? "“When it comes to lending and job creation, the regional banks are obviously very, very important. I hope that if we get some regulatory changes, we give some regulatory relaxation to those banks." The Fed has already been giving plenty of "regulatory relaxation" to those banks.

Let's go back to my pal Roberto for a second. He works at PriceWaterhouseCoopers Financial Services as an analyst now and he sent me this a couple weeks ago:

Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, released a bill to tweak Dodd-Frank and other financial services laws. The key proposal under the bill would raise the threshold for a bank holding company to be considered a systemically important financial institution (SIFI). The baseline SIFI trigger would be immediately raised from $50b to $100b in total consolidated assets and then to $250b 18 months after the effective date, which would lower the number of banks considered SIFIs from 38 to 12. Bank holding companies with between $100b and $250b would still have to conduct periodic stress tests, and the Federal Reserve (Fed) may apply any enhanced prudential standards to prevent systemic risk or promote safety and soundness.

...Nine Democrats, including six who are up for re-election in 2018, have already signed on to support the legislation. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, dropped his support last week. The Senate Banking Committee will mark up the bill on December 5th.

Having nine Democrats on board bodes well for the bill’s passage because it can clear the 60 vote filibuster-proof threshold in the Senate. Although banks under $250b have already seen a reduction in their regulatory burden, including exemption from the qualitative objection under the Fed’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review, a formal threshold increase for enhanced oversight will provide much more certainty.

The 10 Democrats Michael Bennet just joined the 9 other shills)-- and how much each has taken from the Financial Sector since 1990:

• Mark Warner (VA)- $7,953,499
• Michael Bennet (CO)- $6,634,646
• John Tester (MT)- $4,484,873
• Tim Kaine (VA)- $3,716,155
• Claire McCaskill (MO)- $3,588,019
• Gary Peters (MI)- $3,470,941
• Joe Donnelly (IN)- $2,502,087
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)- $1,812,830
• Joe Manchin (WV)- $1,561,310
• Angus King (I-ME)- $672,950

And, naturally, Elizabeth Warren is leading the opposition to the bill. David Dayen: "Bipartisanship, long left for dead in Washington, has struck again. And Wall Street looks to be the winner... "Using a moment the Democratic base is busy fighting the corporate giveaways in Trump’s tax scam to push through a gift-wrapped present for bank lobbyists is as cynical as Washington gets," said Kurt Walters, campaign director for Rootstrikers, a grassroots progressive group. The bill returns Washington to its longtime tradition of joining hands to reward Wall Street. Former presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all hacked away at banking rules to varying degrees. After the worst financial crisis in nearly a century got in the way of this cross-party teamwork, banks had to lay low and were even forced to swallow Dodd-Frank-- although former President Barack Obama did eliminate an entire section of the bill involving derivative regulations in a year-end spending bill in 2014... Because the House has already passed a deregulatory financial bill called the CHOICE Act, Senate passage of this legislation could set up a conference committee. And with nine Democrats on board, the bill offers a path through the filibuster, the main barrier to getting initiatives through Congress."

Our go-to expert in this policy area is Orange County professor and congressional candidate (CA-45), Katie Porter, who told us that "The chances that Congress repeals key protections for our economy illustrates the risks that come when candidates work for banks, rather than families. The incumbent in my race, Mimi Walters (R CA-45), voted for the House's CHOICE Act and will give Wall Street anything it wants. In fact, her only non-political job ever was working for Drexel, Burnham & Lambert, a posterchild for banking's lawlessness, as its executives faced indictments and the firm went bankrupt. In my campaign to replace Mimi Walters, I am not taking money from anyone who works for Wall Street or big banks--and I am the only candidate that I know of in the country with this strong position. I believe that the big banks have outsized influence, and that we should not let history repeat itself. Allowing banks to escape from protections puts our entire economy at risk. People can trust that I'll take my lifelong commitment to whistleblowing on bank misconduct straight to the House Financial Services Committee when I am elected to Congress."


UPDATE: The 2nd Gilded Age: Economic Concentration

Austin Frerick, the progressive running for the Des Moines-based congressional seat in Iowa, got to this a little late this morning but he had some clear ideas about the essence of what's wrong here: "The fundamental problem here is that we didn't address the key issue underlying the Great Recession and this 2nd Gilded Age: Economic Concentration. We should have broken up these too big too fail banks. Their economic power gives them political power to corrupt our system with things like manipulating the SIFI Threshold."

There's A Serious Culture Of Corruption At The Intersection of Wall Street And The House Financial Services Committee

Republicans and "Democrats" from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party are drawn to the House Financiall Services Committee like flies to shit. It's the congressional honeypot through which millions and millions of dollars in bribes moves from Wall Street into the political system every year. The banksters and their lobbyists pay big money to the members of the committee for their... cooperation. Most of it goes to the corrupt Republicans but some of it goes to the corrupt Democrats who beg to be on the committee as well. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) is the chair and the only member of the House who has taken more in direct bribes from Wall Street than ole Jeb-- $7,851,498-- is Speaker and former Banking Committee Chair Paul Ryan ($12,130,498). The other biggest criminals on Financial Services are Ed Royce (R-CA-$7,335,907), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY- $5,802,677), Jim Himes (New Dem-CT- $5,798,121), Steve Stivers (R-OH- $4,596,677), Patrick McHenry (R-NC- $4,476,742), Ed Perlmutter (New Dem- CO- $3,591,708), Brad Sherman (D-CA- $3,544,653) and Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY- $3,233,288). That's since 1990. Last cycle the biggest bribes to committee members went to this dozen gaggle of arch-criminals:

• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $1,407,949
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $1,381,400
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)- $1,285,895
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $1,166,020
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $1,059,132
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- $1,003,940
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $980,035
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $935,569
• Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)- $929,124
• Lee Zeldin (R-NY)- $919,241
• Sean Duffy (R-WI)- $878,176
• French Hill (R-AR)- $862,962

And which committee members have put their asses up for rent the most so far this cycle? The half dozen worst on the committee, at least so far (they're just getting started):

• Ann Wagner (R-MO)- $694,400
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- $555,056
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)- $475,358
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)- $471,096
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $457,850
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)- $442,558

Should every single one of them be thrown in prison? Yes. Key thrown away? I'll hold the keys. Are there any honest members of the Financial Services Committee, people drawn to it to actually do good? Yes, like 3. The most recent Dems to grease there way on are as crooked as the Republicans, starting with "ex"-Republican (now Blue Dog) Charlie Crist as well as Blue Dog Vicente Gonzalez (TX).

When the Democrats win back Congress in 2018, Maxine Waters, the banksters worst nightmare, will take over as chair. How will she be as chair of the committee? Well... she just introduced a new bill to break up big banks that abuse their customers. Think of Wells Fargo as a perfect example. There's no way Señor Drain the Swamp would ever sign it if it-- the Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act-- ever got out of committee and onto the floor and through the House and Senate, but, in never-never-land, her bill would give federal banking regulators the power to break up big banks that have records of customer abuse. Waters has her eyes on Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank and Bank of America as the potential targets. "Rampant violations of consumer protections by megabanks," she said, "are just as consequential to a megabank’s safety and soundness as capital levels or other indicators of bank health. My bill ... will require federal prudential banking regulators to fully exercise their authorities and shut down megabanks that repeatedly show indifference toward consumer protection. It’s time to hold these financial institutions accountable and put people over profits."

The only Dems on the committee to co-sponsor were Keith Ellison (MN), Al Green (TX) and Mike Capuano (MA). No Kyrsten Sinema? No Jim Himes? No Charlie Crist? No Josh Gottheimer? Well, you can knock me over with a feather! Other co-sponsors (not on the greed and selfishness committee) include Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), John Sarbanes (D-MD), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). I reached out to Pramila to get her always -valuable perspective:

We need to protect American consumers from predatory megabanks. By selling working families bad deals, these banks have been preying on innocent families for far too long. Operating a bank and serving the public is a privilege, not a right. When banks like Wells Fargo consistently flout the law, inflicting serious pain on the American people, there must be consequences. The Megabank Accountability and Consequences Act will allow us to bring accountability to megabanks that repeatedly ignore consumer protection. Supporting this bill is about standing with the people whose credit scores have been ruined, whose cars have been repossessed and whose homes have been foreclosed on because of predatory behavior from megabanks.

Since one of the megacrooks for the megabanks is Ed Royce of Orange County, I asked the progressive Democrat running against him, Sam Jammal, how he would differ from Royce when it comes to bank regulation. "I would start by actually doing the job on behalf of families in the 39th district,"he told us today, "not Wall Street. Ed has a long career of being a yes man for whatever the big banks want. He was an advocate for bailing out Wall Street and opposes any new regulations aimed to stop another financial crises. In many ways, he has made a career in the aftermath of Dodd-Frank to undercut enforcement and rules meant to prevent another crisis. That doesn't work for families who lost their homes in the Great Recession, seniors who lost their 401(k)s or small businesses who don't otherwise have a voice in DC when pitted against the big banks. Ed has a long career of sounding reasonable, but consistently voting to consolidate the power of the largest interests. This doesn't work for our families. We need to vote him out and have someone focus on helping families, not the big banks."

South of Royce's district, but still in Orange County, Mimi Walters represents, but doesn't live in, CA-45. Kia Hamadanchy, who worked on banking issues in the Senate at one time, is running for the seat Walters is occupying. He's aware she functions as a rubber-stamp for Trump and Ryan. "Mimi Walters has shown time and time again," he told us, "that she doesn't care about the interests of consumers and if she had it her way they would be deprived their day in court when they are ripped off by institutions like Wells Fargo. She's also for removing every rule we have in place to protect from the unchecked greed and worst impulses of Wall Street. That would take us right back to the Wild West environment with out banking system that was the cause of the financial. I believe that it is critical that not only do we need to keep these rules in place, but that we need to take additional steps to protect the safety and soundness of financial system and further protect consumers."

Future Financial Services Committee bribe takers?

The Trump-Ryan GOP Repays The Predatory Banksters-- The Dismantling Of Consumer Protections

I wouldn't call Comey's testimony yesterday "a distraction," but it sure did distract a lot of people from watching the Dodd-Frank repeal debate in the House that was going on roughly at the same time. The Republicans passed it 233-186. Every Republican voted for it except Walter Jones (R-NC) and all the Democrats who voted, voted NO. (It's worth noting that notorious Wall Street shill, Carolyn Maloney was voting earlier in the day but managed to absent herself when this vote went down.) This is a big one for Wall Street whores like Paul Ryan and Jeb Hensarling. Before we go any further, these are the 10 worst whores currently servicing Wall Street from inside the House of Representatives. The bribe amounts account for all reported contributions since 1990:

• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $9,781,835
• Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)- $7,468,190
• Ed Royce (R-CA)- $7,116,597
• Pat Tiberi (R-OH)- $6,521,045
• Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY)- $6,238,679
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $6,083,117
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $5,983,548
• Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)- $5,595,452
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $5,590,002
• Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $5,481,670

So yesterday while Comey was digging Trump's grave, Alan Rappeport was reporting in the NY Times that Ryan and Hensarling were passing legislation to gut multiple Dodd-Frank consumer protections. Written by bank lobbyists under Hensarling's name-- and deceptively titled the Financial CHOICE Act-- it rolls back fundamental consumer and market protections painstakingly established by Dodd-Frank, including eliminating the Volcker Rule that stops banks from gambling with taxpayer money; repealing the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s (FSOC) ability to detect signs of another potential financial crisis; and destroying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) authority to hold credit card companies, banks, payday lenders, debt collectors, and other predatory financial industries accountable. Not surprisingly, Ryan and Hensarling took the opportunity to use the legislation to roll back important protections that pre-date the 2008 financial crisis-- a gigantic gift to Wall Street banksters and predatory lenders from the slimy politicians whose careers they have financed. It targets consumers, investors and real economy businesses and increases the likelihood of both another devastating financial crisis and another big bank bailout. Karl Frisch, spokesman for Allied Progress laid out a case that I see as why voters in their districts should end the careers of Ryan, Hensarling and everyone-- regardless of party-- who voted for this monstrosity:

This legislation destroys the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as an effective consumer regulator, making it impossible for it to act forcefully against unlawful practices in consumer markets. As a result, it would make it easier for predatory lenders, big banks, and other financial companies to rip people off.

• CFPB has obtained $11.8 billion in relief from financial companies that broke the law for 29 million consumers. It is putting in place rules to stop tricks and traps that cost billions of dollars a year.
• The legislation takes away key tools the CFPB needs to fulfill its mission, including its authority to supervise and bring enforcement actions against big banks; to prevent unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices; to regulate and enforce against lawbreaking by payday and car title lenders that charge sky-high interest rates; to maintain a public database of consumer complaints about financial firms; and much more.
• The bill would destroy the independence that has made it possible for the CFPB to serve the public interest. It would take away the Bureau’s dedicated funding, allowing industry lobbyists to push Congress to defund any actions they don’t like. It would also permit the President to fire the Director at any time without cause, instead of the Director serving for a fixed term like other bank regulators.

Wall Street’s CHOICE Act would tie the hands of bank regulators and make it easier for banks to again take risks that endanger our economy.

• The bill would repeal the Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from acting like hedge funds by gambling with customer money.
• The legislation sharply limits the ability of regulators to ensure that banks are managed in a safe and sound manner, and have adequate funds available to absorb potential losses without turning to the taxpayer for a bailout.

          The bill exacerbates the “Too Big To Fail” problem by stripping agencies of the power to wind down megabanks without bailouts.

• It would eliminate the new authorities put in place to liquidate a bank without bailing it out or letting its failure crash the economy.
• The bankruptcy process proposed as a replacement for government liquidation authority is fundamentally unworkable, and could also immunize senior executives from responsibility for a failure, instead of holding them accountable.
• The legislation would gravely weaken the mechanisms for regulators to address emerging threats, eliminating their power to designate large non-bank financial institutions for greater supervision. A large non-bank, AIG, received the largest bailout in U.S. history.

The bill gives Wall Street a slew of new tools to overturn rules and make it harder for regulators to enforce the rules that remain.

• It requires every major rule to be approved by Congress. Political gridlock would stop regulators from ever keeping up with Wall Street shenanigans.
• It imposes dozens of additional requirements on agencies before they can take any new action, and vastly increases Wall Street’s power to stop any regulatory action in court.

The Wall Street’s CHOICE Act reduces protections for ordinary investors and the public in capital markets, and makes it easier for insiders to manipulate the system.

• The bill contains numerous provisions that weaken or eliminate laws designed to prevent fraud and abuse in capital markets. For example, it would prevent regulators from banning bad actors from financial markets and make it much more difficult to use regulatory enforcement powers when companies broke the rules.
• The bill would eliminate Dodd-Frank reforms permitting greater regulatory oversight of large private equity and hedge funds, which has thus far uncovered rampant abuse.

The bill would repeal a rule that requires retirement investment advisers to act in the best interest of their clients.

• It repeals the fiduciary rule, which could prevent Wall Street from siphoning more than $17 billion a year out of the savings of American workers and retirees.

This legislation would free up banks to charge more to use a debit card, costing more than $6 billion per year.

• The bill would repeal the Durbin Amendment, allowing big banks to rake in higher fees while doing nothing for community banks that are not covered by the provision.

South Florida progressive Democrat Tim Canova is primarying Wall Street ally and New Dem Debbie Wasserman Schultz (AKA, "Debt-Trap Debbie, darling of the payday lenders). He was predictably appalled at what Ryan and Hensarling were up to yesterday. "As an activist law professor, I have spent my entire career opposing the deregulation of Wall Street banks and their lending standards, and the gutting of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act firewalls that have separated commercial banking from investment banking and risky securities markets for decades. And I have long supported breaking up these huge financial institutions that have become Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Manage, Too Big to Regulate, and Too Big to Jail... For far too long, families and communities still carry the devastating scars of the 2008 financial crisis-- when millions of people lost their homes to foreclosures, lost their jobs, and lost their life savings, while Wall Street banks have enjoyed trillions of dollars in government support, with no strings attached. Now is not the time to repeal major protections of the Dodd-Frank Act by letting Wall Street run wild again!"

Ryan and Mimi

In his Times article yesterday, Rappeport referred to this as the Republicans' "mission." And as far as Trump's promise to implement a "21st Century version of Glass-Steagall," that's just another in his long list of campaign lies for the rubes who voted for him. Hensarling laughed at the idea-- which was also in the GOP platform last year-- yesterday. He said Trump and Mnuchin don't even know what they mean by that and indicated he isn't taking them seriously about it. Katie Porter, a consumer advocate, UC Irvine professor and progressive Democrat running for an Orange County congressional seat currently held by Trump-Ryan rubber stamp Mimi Walters, co-authored a book with Elizabeth Warren in this area reacted immediately after the outrageous vote yesterday.

"I've seen this from my own work fighting the banks on behalf of families," she told us yesterday after the vote, "Wall Street has far too much power in Washington. And there are too many politicians like Congresswoman Walters who take Wall Streets' money and vote whichever way the banks want-- all at our families' expense. And the bill she voted for today is the biggest legislative giveaway to Wall Street since the bailouts. Walters' bill she puts our entire economy at risk once more by allowing banks to take on excessive risk, the same type of deregulation that led to the 2008 collapse. It unleashes predatory lenders that prey upon servicemembers, seniors and consumers. And Walters' bill erases key protections for consumers and guts the independent government watchdog tasked with policing Wall Street. Wall Street wrecked our economy once already. Now, Congresswoman Walters is making it easier for the big banks to destroy families' livelihoods once again."

In a note to Orange County voters, Porter wrote that "Walters voted for the Financial CHOICE Act, a bill that will effectively dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and deregulate Wall Street. I’m not just disappointed, I’m angry... I saw firsthand what happens when our leaders in Washington fail to protect consumers. The big banks put in place their cronies who looked the other way, as Wall Street banks broke the law and preyed on families-- all to boost their billion-dollar bottom lines."