Do People Where You Are Care That Much About Clean Water? Enough To Make Them Vote One Way Or The Other?

EPA Failure by Nancy Ohanian

Where are there voters who would get enthusiastic about rolling back a regulation that limits the amount of pollution and chemicals in our nation’s rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands? Where? Well, not in states, but at Republican Party meetings... they always go for abolishing regulations. All through American history, every step forward has meant a fight with conservatives and vested interests. Clean water might be good for the whole country, but rich, selfish special interests... they buy bottled water anyway. Progressives had to fight for years to pass and implement anti-Trust laws and conservatives just keep-- and still keep-- fighting against the public interest, pouring immense sums of money into persuading people that their own interests are somehow tied to the interest of the very rich. It works sometimes too. Labor rights took many decades and much blood spilled. And then came worker protection laws, child labor laws, consumer protections, environmental protections... they all seem like no brainers. But none were, partial because so many voters actually have no-- or non-functional-- brains. They don't see that conservatives, by their very nature, are their enemies.

On Thursday, the Trumpist regime "announced the repeal of one of the Obama era's most sweeping environmental rules-- a set of pollution protections for small streams and wetlands that had riled up opposition from coal miners, home developers, farmers and oil and gas drillers." Politico reporter Annie Snider wrote that "The action creates instant doubts about the legal status of myriad seasonal or isolated wetlands and thousands of miles of waterways, including vast swaths of the arid West. And it clears the way for the Environmental Protection Agency to finish a follow-up regulation in the coming months that could leave most of the nation's wetlands without any federal safeguards."

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the repeal at the D.C. headquarters of the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the industry groups that had opposed the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule. That 2015 regulation, also known as the Clean Water Rule, had cemented federal protections for headwater streams, Western rivers and nearby wetlands, in an effort to resolve questions raised by two muddled Supreme Court decisions.

Trump EPA Administrator Scott Wheeler by Nancy Ohanian

The repeal "removes an egregious power grab" by the Obama Administration, Wheeler said.

"When President Trump took office he immediately set into motion a process to remove and replace regulations that were stifling economic development," he said. "This climate of regulatory certainty is breathing new life into local economies around the country and today’s action is a perfect example.”

Environmental groups and state attorneys general vowed to challenge the rollback, arguing that it jeopardizes drinking water supplies for 117 million Americans.

"California won't stand for this latest environmental attack by the Trump Administration, which could threaten federal protections for the majority of our waters," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

Jon Devine, director of federal water policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, defended the Obama administration rule in a statement, saying it "represented solid science and smart public policy."

"The Trump administration's wild-eyed attempts to reward polluters, however, knows no bounds, so it is repealing these important protections without regard for the law or sound science," he said. "This unsubstantiated action is illegal and will certainly be challenged in court."

...In repealing Obama's rule, Wheeler's action restores earlier regulations that had governed Clean Water Act permitting before 2015. Both environmentalists and industry groups have complained that the pre-2015 rules are laborious and lead to inconsistent decisions.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is crafting a subsequent regulation that it hopes to finish before the end of the year to replace those rules with a much narrower definition of the types of streams and wetlands that are subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements. By one early estimate from federal regulators, more than half the wetlands now protected would fall out of jurisdiction under the Trump administration's approach, which would eliminate nearly all federal protections for waterways in arid states like Arizona.

Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi, asked a series of rhetorical questions when he saw what Trump was doing: "What can be more basic than protecting water? The water we drink? The waters that support marine life? The water that supports all living things? How can base politicians support monied interests over the essence of life?" And then made a strong and important suggestion: "We must fight back."

Jon Hoadley is a respected and effective state legislator in Michigan, running for the congressional seat occupied by Trump enabler Fred Upton. "We're suffering from a drinking water crisis in Michigan, a state surrounded by over 20% of the world's fresh water," he told me today. "There are people in Flint still without clean drinking water. There are people across Southwest Michigan worried about PFAS in their water. We need to be holding polluters accountable, not let people off the hook who poison our water to save a buck."

Jason Butler, a Wake County, North Carolina pastor and community organizer, isn't in Congress-- but he's running for a suburban/rural congressional seat occupied by Trump rubber stamp, George Holding. Unlike Tom, Jason had just two questions: "Are we living in the Twilight Zone? I mean, in what universe is this a good idea? Water is literally the building block of life and every single person in this country depend upon clean drinking water. In fact, our whole economy depends upon clean water. To roll these back these protections in the exact moment that we face a global climate crisis that threatens life itself, is not only bad policy, it’s a threat to our lives. If we allow corporations to dump whatever toxic mess they like into our water systems then our ecosystems will be sick, our wildlife will die, and those that depend directly upon clean water will suffer. I feel like this President think that he’s playing a board game where there are no real consequences-- but unfortunately that’s not the case. This is real life and there are real consequences for real people. We need to be putting more protections into place for our water systems instead of destabilizing them. We need to be cleaning up our water systems and designating more areas as protected watersheds. But here’s the crazy thing-- nobody actually thinks this is a good idea. Many big corporations have also come out against this. The only explanation for this move, to me, is that, once again, this President is willing to sacrifice the future of the American people for another Trump ego trip."


 

Josh Gottheimer-- The Worst Democrat In Congress... And So Far He Has No Primary Opponent

There are a lot of bad Democrats in Congress. It's fair to say Josh Gottheimer is the worst non-freshman in the House. By the numbers, he has the lowest score of any Democrat for 2019-- 20.83. Even the garbage pile of freshmen Democrats the party would be better off without have voting records that aren't as bad as Gottheimer's:

• Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)- 37.50
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)- 37.50
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog- UT)- 33.33
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)- 29.17
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)- 25.00
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)- 25.00
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)- 25.00

ProgressivePunch rates them all F, but Gottheimer's F is the worst. He's the new Kyrsten Sinema. A member for the House Financial Service's Committee, he's also stunningly corrupt. Donald Shaw, reporting Monday for Sludge, noted that "at the behest of a big-bank trade group, Gottheimer rallied 16 of his fellow Democrats to join him in urging financial regulators to gut a provision of Dodd-Frank that protects insured depository institutions from risky trading." Voters get confiused when they read that Democrats are up to the same tactics as Republicans when it comes to this kind of thing. Gottheimer muddies the meaning of the Democratic Party. He's in desperate need of a primary.

This is the letter from Gottheimer's office that would allow banksters who gamble with their depositors money to forego posting collateral when making internal derivatives transactions among their affiliates and subsidiaries. He rallied 16 Democrats to join him and the Republicans on this including Haley Stevens (New Dem-MI), Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN), Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA), Tom Suozzi (New Democratic-NY), Tony Cardenas (New Dem-CA), Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK) and Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), Bill Foster (New Dem, IL), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY) and David Scott (Blue Dog-GA).

Shaniyat Chowdhury is running for the southeast Queens congressional seat held by one of the worst of these culprits, Gregory Meeks, the county machine boss. Chowdhury may be best known as a local and international rugby star but he's a Marine Corps vet and was a state legislative aide in Albany. "We the American people, cannot trust Wall Street to defend everyday Americans from predatory lending and families losing their homes and businesses," he told me early this morning. "We all witnessed what happened in 2008 that changed so many lives forever. Our country faced the greatest economical crash since the Great Depression. It’s a shame my opponent’s paychecks are paid by corporate executives and is implicit in profiteering off the back of taxpayers. This is exactly why I will not accept a single penny, nickel, or dime from corporate PAC’s. The people of NY-05 deserve a champion who will stand by them and fight against corporate greed. I stand by my pledge to represent the people of NY-05 and not Wall Street executives who have no interest in helping anyone but themselves." 

Gottheimer’s letter is the result of a lobbying campaign by the Financial Services Forum, a trade group comprised of the CEOs of eight of the largest U.S. banks, according to a report from Bloomberg. Gottheimer’s staff did not respond when asked by Sludge to confirm that the letter originated in their office. Gottheimer’s signature appears first in the list of 17 total signatories.

The provision requires financial institutions to set aside a cash cushion when making derivatives transactions among their affiliates in order to protect government-insured consumer bank arms from losses stemming from the activities of their riskier affiliates. Derivatives, which are financial instruments whose values are derived from underlying assets, played a major role in the 2008 financial crisis by simultaneously obscuring and distributing risks associated with the home mortgage market. At the end of 2018, U.S. financial institutions had nearly $40 billion set aside because of the inter-affiliate collateral requirement, according to a study by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association.

In the letter, sent to the heads of the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Gottheimer and his colleagues argue that inter-affiliate swaps do not raise systemic risk concerns because “they do not create additional counterparty exposure outside of the corporate group and do not increase interconnectedness between third parties.”

Some consumer advocates, however, disagree. “Loosening this regulation is a straight-up giveaway to the biggest Wall Street banks whose high-risk trading activities got us all into deep trouble in 2008,” Carter Dougherty, a spokesperson for Americans for Financial Reform, told Sludge. “This rule is critical for protecting bank affiliates that handle customer deposits.”

As Gottheimer urges the regulators to gut the rule, he and his spouse own as much as $315,000 in finance industry stock, including stakes in several banks whose CEOs are among the eight members of the Financial Service Forum, according to Sludge’s review of his financial disclosures.

Gottheimer’s financial industry stock holdings includes Financial Service Forum members Goldman Sachs (worth between $1,001 and $15,000), JP Morgan Chase ($1,001-$15,000), Wells Fargo ($15,001-$50,000), and Morgan Stanley ($1,001-$15,000). He also has between $15,001 and $50,000 invested in iShares U.S. Financial ETF, an exchange-traded fund that holds shares in Bank of America and Citigroup, both Financial Services Forum members, among other American financial institutions.

Gottheimer’s congressional campaigns have been heavily funded by finance industry interests. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Gottheimer received more campaign money from PACs and individuals in the finance/insurance/real estate sector during the 2018 election cycle than any other House Democrat. Over the course of his congressional career, Gottheimer’s top donor organization has been Blackstone Group, whose employees have given him $116,050 in campaign contributions since his first House campaign in 2015. Goldman Sachs is Gottheimer’s second largest career donor, with its PAC and employees contributing $80,150. Morgan Stanley’s PAC and employees have given Gottheimer $49,100, while JPMorgan Chase’s PAC and employees have given him $44,999.

The letter is not Gottheimer’s only recent expression of deference towards the big banks. At an April Financial Services Committee hearing on “Holding Megabanks Accountable” and featuring testimony from the eight CEOs that comprise the Financial Services Forum, Gottheimer praised the bankers and criticized his Democratic colleagues for not showing slides that reflect positively on the banks.

Other Democrats signing Gottheimer’s letter include top recipients of campaign contributions from PACs and employees of commercial banks such as Rep. David Scott (D-GA), Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL), and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY). In total, seven Financial Service Committee members signed the letter, including Gottheimer, Meeks, Scott, Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL), Rep. Michael San Nicolas (D-Guam), Ben McAdams (D-UT), and Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN). Phillips, a freshman, owns up to $290,000 worth of stock in all eight of the banks comprising the Financial Services Forum, including up to $65,000 in both Bank of America and Citigroup.

Democratic activists is Gottheimer's district have become aware about what a bullshitter he is. Here he is lying to his constituents about his role in funding Trump's concentration camps last week at a town hall:

Can More Trump Enablers In The House Be Beaten In 2020? Oh Yes

An Associated Press story on Friday, Trump's Presidency has Changed Washington, Defied Convention, sounds kind of good-- but is kind of horrible. The ignoramus Putin left, like a stinking pile of manure, on the White House steps, has blundered his way through 2 years of chaos and dysfunction. Jonathan Lemire wrote that he "has rewritten the rules of the presidency and the norms of the nation’s capital, casting aside codes of conduct and traditions that have held for generations." Trump has written or rewritten anything. A Republican-controlled Congress enabled him to behave in a way that should have resulted in impeachment and removal after a month in office. Trump is a TV clown. The Republican Congress wanted a pawn to sign their tax cuts and nominate their unqualified neo-fascist judges and remove regulatory safeguards that keep Big Business from exploiting--and even killing-- the rest of us, for the sake of profits, from which politicians get a cut.

Yesterday Reuters reported that Trump's EPA has decided that limits on coal plant mercury emissions are too expensive and "unnecessary" anyway. That's what Republicans like Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell wanted-- and were willing to trade for tolerating-- and enabling a farting, windup Destructo Robot in the Oval Office.

Under the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, enacted under former President Barack Obama, coal-burning power plants were required to install expensive equipment to cut output of mercury, which can harm pregnant women and put infants and children at risk of developmental problems. The Environmental Protection Agency left the 2011 emission standards in place but proposed using a different cost analysis to evaluate whether the regulation is needed, a move that paves the way for looser rules going forward. Its statement was issued on Friday during a partial government shutdown.

Since August, the Environmental Protection Agency has been reconsidering the justification for the rule. A coalition of electric utilities had said the looser rules were not needed since they have already invested billions of dollars in technology to cut emissions of the pollutant and comply.

EPA said it was “proposing that it is not ‘appropriate and necessary’ to regulate HAP (Hazardous Air Pollution) emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants... because the costs of such regulation grossly outweigh the quantified HAP benefits.”

It said its reassessment showed the cost of compliance with MATS was between $7.4 billion to $9.6 billion annually, while the monetized benefits were between $4 million to $6 million.

It also said the identification of unquantified benefits was not enough to support the standards. Among such benefits, environmentalists say are reduced healthcare costs, breathing cleaner air and drinking cleaner water.

“The policy (Acting EPA Administrator) Andrew Wheeler and Donald Trump proposed today means more pregnant women, young children, and the elderly will be exposed to deadly neurotoxins and poisons, just so wealthy coal and oil barons can make a few extra bucks,” Sierra Club Beyond Coal Campaign Director Mary Anne Hitt said in a statement. Wheeler is a former coal industry lobbyist.

“Virtually every coal plant in the U.S. has already met this lifesaving standard, and now Trump is recklessly trying to roll it back,” she said.

A study published this month by Harvard University’s School of Public Health said coal-fired power plants are the top source of mercury in the United States, accounting for nearly half of mercury emissions in 2015. It said the standards have markedly reduced mercury in the environment and improved public health.

...In July, electric utilities and utility groups favoring the rule asked the administration to keep it in place. They noted that billions of dollars in investments for anti-pollution equipment have already been made, and costs are being recovered from electricity customers through regulated pricing.

“This is like when your four-year-old kid tries to clean up your kitchen-- it actually makes things worse. Please stop helping,” said a utility industry lobbyist based in Washington, who asked not to be named. “The rule itself forced coal plant shutdowns, but they aren’t coming back.”

As Lemire emphasized, "In Trump’s Washington, facts are less relevant. Insults and highly personal attacks are increasingly employed by members of both parties... Taking a wrecking ball to decorum and institutions, Trump has changed, in ways both subtle and profound, how Washington works and how it is viewed by the rest of the nation and world.

“He’s dynamited the institution of the presidency,” said Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian at Rice University. “He doesn’t see himself as being part of a long litany of presidents who will hand a baton to a successor. Instead, he uses the presidency as an extension of his own personality.”

Is this a one-president aberration? Or has the White House forever changed? Whether the trends will outlast Trump’s presidency is a question that won’t be answered until there is a new occupant in the Oval Office, but Brinkley predicts “no future president will model themselves on him.”

...Trump brought to the White House the same fact-challenged, convention-defying style that got him elected. From his first days in office, Trump pushed falsehoods about the size of the inaugural crowd and unfounded allegations about millions of illegal voters. He has not let up since.

The inaccuracies have been big and small: Trump repeatedly claimed in 2018 that he passed the biggest tax cut in history (he didn’t), that the U.S. economy is the best in history (it’s not) and that his Supreme Court choice Brett Kavanaugh finished atop his class at Yale Law School (the school doesn’t rank students). Just last week, after making an abrupt, unilateral decision to pull U.S. troops from Syria, Trump tweeted that Russia was “not happy” about the decision. Hours earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin had cheered the move.

The cumulative effect has been to diminish the authority with which White House pronouncements are received.

...He has eschewed sweeping diplomacy in favor of transactional relationships. He has strained longtime alliances-- including with Canada, of all places-- and befriended global strongmen. He has skipped summits, including a gathering in Asia in November, that have long been fixtures on presidential itineraries. And world leaders have taken to heart that flattery, pageantry, golf and maybe some business at a Trump-owned hotel are the pathway to a good relationship with the president.

“He is a sui generis president,” said Brinkley, using the Latin for “unique.” ″Trump doesn’t know history and doesn’t model himself on any president ... but he’s all we can talk about.”

Voters sensed that in November and registered their displeasure with the biggest pounding a Republican president has received in generations. The GOP saw a net of 40 House seats flip-- and 2 red Senate seats, one each in Nevada and Arizona, are now blue. Are congressional Republicans going to continue enabling him? 2020 is coming. This is a list of Republicans still in the House who have voted most ardenty in lockstep with Trump-- between 98.9% and 100% of the time. Next to each of their names is the win percentage from November. I might add, that had they not been forced into retirement or defeated last month, Peter Sessions (R-TX), David Valadao (R-CA), Mike Bishop (R-MI), John Culberson (R-TX), Jeff Denham (R-CA), Ed Royce (R-CA), Karen Handel (R-GA), David Trott (R-MI), Mimi Walters (R-CA), Stephen Knight (R-CA) and David Young (R-IA) would all be on the list of congressmen whose voting records are most closely tied to Trump.

• Troy Balderson (R-OH)- 51.4%
• Steve Scalise (R-LA)- 71.5%
• Michael McCaul (R-TX)- 51.1%
• Susan Brooks (R-IN)- 56.8%
• Ken Calvert (R-CA)- 56.5%
• Tim Walberg (R-MI)- 53.8%
• Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)- 59.1%
• Greg Walden (R-OR)- 56.3%
• John Moolenaar (R-MI)- 62.6%
• Glenn Thompson (R-PA)- 67.8%
• Austin Scott (R-GA)- unoppoded
• Steve Womack (R-AR)- 64.8%
• Michael Conaway (R-TX)- 80.1%
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- 73.9%
• Kevin Brady (R-TX)- 73.4%
• Brett Guthrie (R-KY)- 66.7%
• Mike Bost (R-IL)- 51.6%
• Bill Flores (R-TX)- 56.8%
• Bill Johnson (R-OH)- 69.3%
• Neal Dunn (R-FL)- 67.4%
• Mark Amodei (R-NV)- 58.2%
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- 63.7%
• Chris Collins (R-NY)- 49.1%
• Patrick McHenry (R-NC)- 59.3%
• Tom Cole (R-OK)- 63.1%
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- 70.9%
• Devin Nunes (R-CA)- 52.7%
• Steve Stivers (R-OH)- 58.3%
• Michael Simpson (R-ID)- 60.7%
• John Rutherford (R-FL)- 65.2%
• Harold Rogers (R-KY)- 78.9%
• Don Bacon (R-NE)- 51.0%
• Rob Woodall (R-GA)- 50.1%
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)- 54.8%

The Republicans in the list above whose names are in bold, are some of the obvious targets for 2020. Kara Eastman is running for the Omaha congressional seat again-- and against one of them-- Don Bacon-- and she's the first candidate Blue America endorsed for the 2020 cycle. Today she told us that "Congressman Bacon’s voting record has remained lock-step with Trump and Paul Ryan. Considering the make-up of NE-02 being split almost evenly between Republicans and Democrats, with a quarter being registered Independents, he is out of step and out of touch with the district. Bacon does not represent working class Nebraskans, but rather monied interests and corporations who have reaped the benefits of his votes that have actually harmed the rest of us." Please consider giving her an end of the year contribution by tapping on the Blue America thermometer on the right. We hope to have it filled up more progressive like her soon. For now... it's just Kara.

We're hoping Mike Siegel will be one of the next couple of candidates we endorse. I'm betting he's just days or weeks away from announcing his 2020 candidacy. Remember, McCaul (TX-10) was considered "safe" until 2018, when Mike's strong and compelling grassroots campaign narrowed an R+19 congressional seat to an R+4. McCaul's voting record has him at a "99% Trump Score" and makes him increasingly vulnerable in a diverse, well-informed and educated district.

"McCaul hitched himself to the Trump wagon all the way," Siegel told us this morning. "He chaired Homeland Security and did nothing to stop family separation and inhumane 'icebox' detention centers. Now he backs the government shutdown, denying paychecks to federal workers during Christmas holidays, even though in 2016 he said a Border Wall will not improve border security. As much as anyone, McCaul sold his soul to stay relevant in a Trump America. As Trump falls, so will McCaul and many like him."

Lobbyists Have Convinced Trump To Allow Industry To Poison Our Water-- Just Like In The Bad Old Days

Yesterday and today, 13 more members of Congress signed onto the #GreenNewDeal proposal, bringing the total in the House to 35. The latest backers:

• Barbara Lee (D-CA)
• Judy Chu (D-CA)
• Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
• Mike Quigley (D-IL)
• Jim McGovern (D-MA)
• Joe Kennedy III (D-MA)
• Chris Pappas (D-NH)
• Ann Kuster (D-NH)
• David Cicilline (D-RI)
• Steve Cohen (D-TN)
• Peter Welch (D-VT)
• Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)
• Mark Pocan (D-WI)

Pocan and Jayapal are the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and there are hopes that the proposal-- which includes just about every progressive priority anyone is talking about-- will lead to even greater support in that caucus. But, while progressives were celebrating their progress on the GreenNewDeal, Republicans and K Street lobbyists were popping champaign corks all over DC. Trump kept another promise: to poison our water. Annie Snider had the story at Politico, "Trump Proposes To Roll Back Decades Of Water Protections." The massive rollback of Clean Water Act protections would "remove federal pollution safeguards for tens of thousands of miles of streams and millions of acres of wetlands."

The EPA’s proposed rule would overwrite a stricter Obama-era regulation, in yet another attack on the legacy of President Donald Trump’s predecessor. But the rollback would go much further than just erasing Barack Obama's work.

The Trump proposal represents the latest front in a decades-long battle over the scope of the landmark environmental law, whose requirements can impose major costs on energy companies, farmers, ranchers and real estate developers. Reversing Obama’s water regulation was one of Trump’s top environmental priorities-- he signed an executive order directing the new rule barely a month after taking office, even as he repeatedly said he wanted "crystal clear water."

Geoff Gisler, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, called the proposal a “sledgehammer to the Clean Water Act.”

“Out of all the anti-environmental attacks we have seen from this administration, this may be the most far-reaching and destructive,” he said in a statement.

The new proposal embraces a view that industry groups have pushed for years: that the law should cover only major rivers, their primary tributaries and wetlands along their banks. Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said this will save regulatory costs for industries such as mining and homebuilding, while arguing it will have little impact on the health of the country’s waters.

At a ceremony unveiling the proposal, Wheeler criticized the Obama administration for contending that its version of the rule was about water quality. “It was really about power-- power in the hands of the federal government over farmers, developers and landowners," he said.

...A cavalcade of Republican lawmakers also attended the ceremony at EPA headquarters to praise the rule. Among them were Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)-- who noted that her state's wetlands are larger than all of Texas-- as well as Senate Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS), House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) and House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT).

The scale of the proposal‘s changes could be felt acutely across the country.

In the arid West, where the majority of streams flow only after rainfall or for part of the year, entire watersheds would be left unprotected from pollution. In Arizona, for instance, as much as 94 percent of its waters could lose federal protection under the new definition, depending on the how the agencies interpret key terms. Meanwhile, Arizona state law also prevents it from regulating waterways more stringently than the federal government requires.

...But environmentalists say a narrower federal regulation will create a race to the bottom and leave downstream states to bear the brunt of the harm.

Thirty-six states have laws on the books like Arizona’s, which prevent them from implementing stricter regulations than the federal government’s, according to a 2013 report by the Environmental Law Institute, meaning any waterways denied federal protection under the Trump administration proposal would be exempt from state regulation as well, unless state legislatures amend their laws.

State lawmakers have been trending in the opposite direction, though. In Wisconsin, one of a handful of states with more stringent wetland protections than the federal government’s, Gov. Scott Walker signed a law this spring dramatically reining in the additional protections.

Today, most of the country’s waterways are overburdened by pollution from farm fields, city streets and industrial facilities. More than two-thirds of the country’s lakes and ponds and more than half of the country’s rivers and streams are impaired, according to EPA’s latest figures. That includes roughly 1 in 4 of the rivers that serve as drinking water sources.

The new proposal to retract protections faces months of public comment and interagency review before it can be finalized, at which point it would likely face numerous lawsuits.

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) is about to take over as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. I can't imagine he's going to allow the Trumpist Regime and its corporate allies to get away with this outrage without doing everything in his power to stop it. This morning he told me that "Clean water is a basic necessity for us all. It’s not just a treat you get to enjoy if you know the right people. Unfortunately the Trump administration thinks everything is for sale, including public health and environmental quality. And the only way to prevent the selloff is to get active and stop them. The alternative might be drinking oil-tainted water."

You'd Think Democrats Would Have Learned-- People/Voters Don't Like A Rigged System, But... Meet The Bailout Caucus

Almost a month ago, Alan Rapaport did a piece for the NY Times, Democrats Add Momentum to G.O.P. Push to Loosen Banking Rules about how conservative Wall Street-friendly Democrats in the Senate are helping Republicans "loosen rules imposed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis."

Buoyed by their success in rewriting the tax code, the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have now set their sights on helping the financial industry, which has been engaged in a quiet but concerted push to relax many post-crisis rules and regulatory obligations, particularly for thousands of small- and medium-sized banks.

But unlike the $1.5 trillion tax overhaul, which passed along party lines, the effort to loosen the post-crisis rules is somewhat bipartisan. A group of Senate Democrats has joined Republicans to support legislation that would mark the first major revision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, a signature accomplishment of President Barack Obama that has been deemed “a disaster” by President Trump.

The bill would allow hundreds of smaller banks to avoid certain elements of federal oversight, including stress tests, which measure a bank’s ability to withstand a severe economic downturn. Under current law, banks with assets of $50 billion or more are considered “systemically important financial institutions” and therefore governed by stricter rules. The bill would raise that threshold to institutions with assets of $250 billion or more, leaving fewer than 10 big banks in the United States subject to the stricter oversight.

Banks with assets of $50 billion to $100 billion would be immediately freed from those requirements. Financial institutions with $100 billion to $250 billion in assets, such as BB&T and American Express, would no longer be subject to tougher rules after 18 months, although the Federal Reserve would retain the authority to periodically conduct stress tests on those firms.

Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader and Kentucky Republican, is expected to bring the bill to the Senate floor within the next month.

Hurdles remain. The House has already passed its own far more sweeping deregulatory effort. And progressive Democrats who warn that the legislation would return Wall Street to its more reckless past are mobilizing in hopes of derailing the legislation-- even if that means attacking fellow Democrats who support it.

“This bill increases the risk of another taxpayer bailout, and I will continue to challenge supporters of this bill-- from both parties-- to explain why they stand on the side of big banks instead of working families,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat.

Still, lobbyists, lawmakers and administration officials say this is the make or break year for overhauling Dodd-Frank.

Rob Nichols, president of the American Bankers Association, said the legislation would correct what banks view as regulatory overreach borne of a hasty legislative effort to shore up a cratering financial system after the 2008 crisis. “What I do think is significant here is that you have a recognition that’s been building for several years that parts of the policy response were misguided, ill-conceived and missed the mark,” Mr. Nichols said.

The Senate Dems helping Mike Crapo (R-ID) pull this bankster legislation through are anti-populist conservaDems 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).

Despite the bipartisan support for legislative action, it will not happen without a fight, especially when Wall Street is generating record profits and after companies just received large tax cuts. Moderate Democrats who sign on to a bill to help community banks can expect to hear from the party’s progressive wing that they have defanged Dodd-Frank.

The dissension among Democrats was evident as the banking committee considered the bill last year. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, and Ms. Warren were especially vocal in their opposition to a bill that they viewed as a dangerous giveaway.

“This major move to deregulate the big banks is a major move to undermining Dodd-Frank,” said Adam Green, a founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “Especially in these Red States where economic populism is the key to Democrats winning re-election in 2018, the folks in the most competitive elections should realize that doing the bidding of the banks is not especially helpful to them.”

Ms. Warren is expected to mobilize her network of progressive activists to oppose the changes to Dodd-Frank. She is even prepared to make her Democratic colleagues cast difficult votes during the amendment process to drive home the point that banks that received bailout money should not be deregulated.

Jeremy Kress of the University of Michigan was formerly an attorney in the Banking Regulation & Policy Group of the Federal Reserve Board’s Legal Division. On Wednesday he penned an OpEd for The Hill about how Crapo's bill has turned into a Trojan Horse. He wrote that "on its face, Senate Bill 2155-- dubbed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act-- contains some sensible reforms. The bill exempts smaller banks from complicated risk-based capital requirements, subjecting them instead to a simple leverage ratio... Like the Greeks’ gift to Troy, however, what is hidden inside S.2155 is what’s dangerous. Three troubling provisions in the bill could presage the next financial crisis."

First, S.2155 rolls back the most significant post-crisis reforms for the United States’ biggest banks. The Dodd-Frank Act mandated enhanced oversight of banks with $50 billion or more in assets to prevent them from becoming too big to fail...The bill would raise the enhanced oversight threshold to $250 billion, effectively deregulating 25 of the 38 biggest banks in the United States, accounting for nearly one-sixth of the assets in the banking sector. Freed from enhanced oversight, these institutions would go back to operating under many of the same rules that failed to prevent the financial crisis.

...S.2155’s second hidden threat is that it deregulates the U.S. operations of Deutsche Bank, Barclays and other systemically important foreign banks-- firms whose failure could inflict harm on the U.S. economy.

After foreign megabanks experienced destabilizing funding runs during the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve implemented rules requiring large foreign banks to keep capital in the United States and rules preventing those banks from moving assets to their home country when the next crisis hits.

S.2155 removes these important protections and leaves the U.S. economy vulnerable to foreign banks’ misconduct and excessive risk-taking.

Finally, and most troublingly, S.2155 makes it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to regulate the biggest U.S. banks, including Wells Fargo and Goldman Sachs. The bill requires the Fed to tailor its enhanced oversight of the largest banks, taking into account “appropriate risk-related factors.”

While tailoring is a laudable goal, “appropriate risk-related factors" is a legal landmine. Indeed, that is the exact statutory language that MetLife cited last year when it won a court order overturning its designation as a systemically important firm.

He urges the Democratic co-sponsors "to to drop their support or demand significant revisions before S.2155 comes to the Senate floor. Lowering the enhanced oversight threshold, ensuring that the bill covers foreign banks and modifying the tailoring provision would be an appropriate place to start... [and] stop this Trojan Horse before it enters the city gates."

Schumer, who's taken more in bribes form the Financial Sector than anyone in history other than presidential candidates ($26,735,303)-- more than McConnell ($12,276,007) and Ryan ($11,909,105) combined-- isn't on the list. Instead he handed the banksters a fabulous gift-- the ultimate House sleazebag as his handpicked candidate for the Senate, Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ). Sinema serves on the corrupt House Financial Services Committee, where she works assiduously to help the banksters rig the system against working families. There's no Democrat on the committee more in Wall Street's pocket and they've rewarded her handsomely. In the 2016 cycle she was the recipient of more legalistic bribes than any Democrat on the committee ($1,013,540) and among Democrats in the House, only notorious scumbags Patrick Murphy ($2,536,038) and Joe Crowley ($1,086,673) took more than she did. So far this cycle, the banksters have given Sinema $717,887, more than any House Democrat other than fully-owned Wall Street subsidiary Josh Gottheimer ($803,824). The banksters have given her more than any other 2018 non-incumbent Senate candidate-- including Republicans! The runner up is Indiana crook Luke Messer ($591,776).

Pyramid Schemes, Congress And Deregulation

Even the phrase "multilevel marketing" sounds a lot better than "pyramid scheme," let alone "Ponzi scheme." Even "multilevel marketing scheme" sounds vaguely better than "pyramid scheme." But pyramid schemes are often illegal and, somehow multilevel marketing schemes are usually not. The Federal Trade Commission differentiates between legitimate multi-level marketing (MLM) companies and pyramid schemes claiming that MLM "have a real product to sell" while pyramid schemes don't. "If the money you make is based on your sales to the public, it may be a legitimate multilevel marketing plan. If the money you make is based on the number of people you recruit and your sales to them, it’s probably not. It could be a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes however "may purport to sell a product, but they often simply use the product to hide their pyramid structure." According the the FBI, "Pyramid schemes—also referred to as franchise fraud or chain referral schemes-- are marketing and investment frauds in which an individual is offered a distributorship or franchise to market a particular product. The real profit is earned, not by the sale of the product, but by the sale of new distributorships. Emphasis on selling franchises rather than the product eventually leads to a point where the supply of potential investors is exhausted and the pyramid collapses."

Late in 2016 John Oliver's Last Week Tonight video up top tackled the problem-- the annual 36 billion dollar problem-- and specifically called out Mary Kay, Ronan + Fields, Nu Skin, Amway, Herbalife, Vemma, Advacare, and Max International. So how do they get away with it? Congress, of course. These pyramid scams by fealty from lots of members of Congress-- and not just most the notorious crook of all (Orrin Hatch, who might as well be on the board of Herbalife) but loads of congressmembers from both parties. Conservative Democrat Raul Ruiz (Palm Springs), for example, took $12,700 in bribes from Herbalife in 2014 and another $6,400 in 2016. Just in those two cycles, every shady member of Congress was on the Herbalife gravy train for thousands of dollars, from Tony Cardenas (D-CA), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) and Juan Vargas (D-CA) to Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mimi Waters (R-CA) and Virginia Foxx (R-NC). In 2016 Mary Kay showed big cash onto Hillary Clinton and a shit-load of Texas crooked congressmembers:

• Pete Sessions (R)- $11,100
• Will Hurd (R)- $9,100
• Michael Burgess (R)- $7,700
• Marc Veasey (D)- $7,250
• Kevin Brady (R)- $5,400
• Randy Weber (R)- $5,000

In the 2016 cycle alone, Mary Kay gave Republicans $192,119 and gave Democrats $40,896. Amway gave even more-- in 2016 $792,653 tp Republicans and $14,893 (following $638,000 to Republicans and $1,500 to Democrats in 2014). Who got the big bucks from Amway, one of the worst of the pyramid scams? The 10 worst still in the House (just in 2016):

• Tim Walberg (R-MI)- $34,400
• Justin Amash (R-MI)- $22,655
• Mike Bishop (R-MI)- $22,200
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)- $21,600
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $21,400
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)- $10,400
• Fred Upton (R-MI)- $10,400
• Martha McSally (R-AZ)- $10,100
• Liz Cheney (R-WY)- $8,100
• John Moolenaar, (R-MI)- $8,000

Amway gives mostly to Senators and Senate candidates though. Their biggest investments in 2016 were for Todd Young (R-IN-- $83,000), Marco Rubio (R-FL-- $61,400) and Joe Heck (R-NV)-- $37,100). And they gave widely to presidential candidates: Jeb Bush ($18,900), Scott Walker ($13,500), Hillary Clinton ($9,047), Carly Fiorina ($8,100), Señor Trumpanzee ($7,242) and John Kasich ($5,400).

They pay off everybody... but especially Republicans. That's the reason why strong regulations protecting consumers are so crucial and-- of course-- that's the reason why Republicans (and crooked conservative Democrats-- primarily Blue Dogs and New Dems) are so eager to abolish regulations that protect consumers and protect society. It's not that complicated. Did you send that John Oliver video to 10 friends? Go ahead.

Why Didn't The Democrats Move To Break Up The Too Big To Fail Banks? Too Many Conservative Dems Eager to Work With The GOP

I feel like Austin Frerick, the former Treasury Department economist running for Congress in the Des Moines-based Iowa seat (IA-03), has become a friend aside from just one of the Blue America-endorsed candidates. I feel like I learn something every time I talk with him. Looking at the corrupt-conservative push top deregulate Wall Street and give the bankster predators a green light to go back to ripping off their customers, Frerick told me that "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."

I got into the old argument today with a Democrat hoping to sell me on a candidate he really believes in. I asked if she's progressive and gathered that she's "progressive for her district" but not really progressive the way Bernie has been redefining progressive. I promised to talk with her and keep an open mind. But the argument can have no actual conclusion. My friend believes electing any Democrat is essential, no matter how conservative or corrupt or whatever, in order top put Trump in check and because they will vote for some good things. And he's right. Even Blue Dog Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)-- the single worst Democrat in the House (and, thanks soley to Upcheck Schumer, on her way to the Senate-- votes for progressive legislation... what is it now? Oh she's up to 37.56% of the time. That's better than any Republican except one endangered freshman in Pennsylvania (Brian Fitzpatrick). So he's for anyone with a "D" next to their name. And you know how I feel: I'm a strictly better Democrats kind of guy. I know not ever Democrat can be as good as Ro Khanna (100%-CA) and Jamie Raskin (100%-MD). I see even Pramila (97.06%-WA) has slipped. But its worth aspiring-- especially in primary season-- towards electing men and women like Mark Pocan (98.42%-WI), Nanette Barragán (98.51-CA), Jan Schakowsky (96.44%-IL) and Barbara Lee (95.08%-CA). There are even people with overall "A" rankings from ProgressivePunch who represent tough districts that Trump won, like Matt Cartwright, who is being heavily targeted by the GOP because of his strong progressive voting record and his stellar leadership on our issues. Anyway, my friend and I are never going to agree on this, but it doesn't mean we can't work together on candidates on whom we both do agree. And I'll keep reminding him that there are solid, solid progressive leaders running for Congress in districts as red or redder than the one his candidate is running in-- just look at Dan Canon (IN-09), Tom Guild (OK-05), Derrick Crowe (TX-21), Jenny Marshall (NC-05), Austin Frerick (IA-03), James Thompson (KS-04), Dayna Steele (TX-36)... these men and women are communicating with voters along the lines of cutting edge policy.

I should send him David Dayen's essay at The Intercept from Monday, Republicans Now Turning Their Attention To Deregulating Wall Street. Why? Because Dayen explains that, unlike the tax and Obamacare battles, the GOP "can count on Democratic help in this fight." And in 2018 that's one of the fault-lines that divides progressives from... not progressives. Dayen reminded his readers that "During the debate over whether to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren, not yet a senator, famously said at a crucial moment that her first choice was a strong agency, and her second was 'no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.'" I have a feeling my friend would find that wrong-headed but Senator Warren has written "23 different amendments [primarily attacking the new regulatory exemptions for banks above $50 billion in assets] for a markup on S.2155, the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.” The Orwellian-named bill would actually deregulate several parts of the financial sector and unravel consumer protections in a corrupt alliance between Republicans and pro-Wall Street Democrats." These are the Wall Street Democrats working with the Republicans on this, all co-sponsors, basically, all the usual suspects:

• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Jon Tester (MT)
• Mark Warner (VA)
• Claire McCaskill (MO)
• Joe Manchin (WV)
• Tim Kaine (VA)
• Gary Peters (MI)
• Michael Bennet (CO)
• Angus King (I-ME)

Donnelly, Heitkamp and Tester are all on the Banking Committee and all up for reelection in red states Trump won. Warner, a notorious corporate whore, is also on the Banking Committee, but not up for reelection this cycle.

Democratic staffers on the Banking Committee cite three major problem areas for S.2155. First, despite being pitched as relief for community banks and small lenders who played no role in the financial crisis and got caught up in the regulatory undertow, the bill extends that aid to the big boys. It eliminates automatic enhanced standards, like higher capital requirements and “living wills” that lay out how to unwind the firm in case of trouble, for banks with between $50 and $250 billion in assets. This includes large regional and national players like American Express, SunTrust, and BB&T, and foreign megabanks like Barclays and Deutsche Bank, whose holdings in the United States fall within that threshold. These international lenders have been notorious “repeat offenders,” paying tens of billions of dollars in fraud penalties for actions like repossessing the cars of servicemembers while they fought overseas.

In all, the bill removes enhanced supervision from 25 banks that control $3.5 trillion in assets and received $48 billion in taxpayer bailouts, according to an analysis from Public Citizen.

S.2155 also changes stress tests-- which check if banks can manage hazardous scenarios-- for all banks, making them “periodic” (which could mean whatever regulators want it to mean, staffers say) instead of annual. So JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, along with literally every big bank in the country, recipients of hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts, get assistance in this “small bank” relief bill. The stress test itself would change-- at the discretion of Trump’s deregulatory army-- for large regional firms.

Next, the bill rolls back protections on the mortgage market, by tweaking “safe harbor” and “qualified mortgage” provisions in ways that would allow small lenders to sell high-cost adjustable-rate mortgages and avoid accountability in court for wrongful foreclosures. Just because a no-documentation or interest-only mortgage comes from a community bank doesn’t make it a safe financial product.

The bill also eliminates the need for appraisals in certain rural areas, creating incentives to cheat homebuyers; exempts sellers of manufactured homes like trailers from mortgage rules, which benefits the dominant player in that space, Warren Buffett’s conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway; and restricts data collection about mortgage lending that could help regulators spot the next crisis.

Finally, there’s no “consumer protection” worthy of the name in the bill. The tentpole consumer piece is a watered-down version of a recent bill from Warren that would offer consumers stung by data breaches at credit reporting agencies like Equifax one free credit freeze and unfreeze every year. Warren’s bill would have made all credit freezes free. Even Equifax eventually offered a lifetime credit freeze, more than the authors of S.2155. And the measure pre-empts states from giving more generous terms to its citizens.

...[Warren has created] politically tough amendments for Democrats like Heitkamp, Tester, Donnelly, and Warner to oppose, especially after spending the last week railing against Republicans for waging class warfare on low-income Americans in the tax bill. Republicans may defeat these on their own, but the goal is to name and shame Democrats who support this giveaway to big banks without bringing along anything for the public like more jobs, higher wages, labor protections, and safeguards against bank deceptions.

While pro-bank Democrats like Tester have used high-profile hearings to insist that S.2155 does not put the financial system at risk, they haven’t had to specifically defend lowering regulations on banks that took TARP bailout funds and paid enormous fines for wrongdoing, and they haven’t enumerated what ordinary people get out of the deal instead of bank executives. Warren’s amendments will force some kind of answer on that score.

When we covered this last week we spoke with Elizabeth Warren collaborator, 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."

Trump And Ryan-- The Destroyers Of Regulations That Protect Americans From Greed And Avarice

Did anyone ever really believe Trump's idiotic campaign promises to drain the swamp that he personifies or hold Wall Street-- which now runs his regime-- accountable? If so... how tragic! Late Tuesday evening Trump had Mike Pence break the 50-50 tie in the Senate that will now allow banks more leeway to prey on their customers without fear of sanctions. That it even got to a point where the GOP-controlled Senate needed a tie-breaking vote from Pence was strange. And it wasn't because McCain, Flake or Corker, who had spent the day warning about the existential threat of Trumpism to America had decided to stop rubber-stamping his agenda-- they all voted with him as usual-- or because "the moderates" like Murkowski and Collins had decided to represent their incumbents back in Alaska and Maine instead of their campaign donors on Wall Street. No it was because ex-Democrat John Neely Kennedy (R-LA) and flitty Lindsey Graham (R-SC) crossed the aisle and voted with all the Democrats against the GOP proposal.

Maddow's blogger, Steve Benen, pointed out that "it’s easy to forget that there were voters last year who helped elect Donald Trump and a Republican Congress because they were concerned that Hillary Clinton might not be tough enough on Wall Street. As regular readers may recall, Trump swore up and down for months that it was Clinton who’d do Wall Street’s bidding, while Americans could expect his administration to stand up to the finance industry and its lobbyists. Though millions of voters actually believed all of this, the claims appear quite ridiculous now." It appeared quote ridiculous then as well. A new poll from Morning Consult shows that 53% of voters say Trump is not trustworthy; only 33% of voters think he is. 51% say he's dishonest and only 35% disagree. Yesterday Ipsos released a new poll through Reuters indicating that less than a third of Americans agree with the Trump-Ryan tax proposals.

As the 2018 midterm congressional election campaigns grow nearer, the poll found that more than two-thirds of registered voters said reducing the U.S. federal budget deficit is more important than cutting taxes for the wealthy or for corporations.

Trump’s plan would balloon the deficit and add to the $20 trillion national debt, according to critics and independent analysts, but Republicans say the tax cuts proposed in the plan would be offset by economic growth that would generate new tax revenue.

Among Republicans surveyed, 63 percent said deficit reduction should take priority over tax cuts for corporations, while 75 percent said deficit reduction should take priority over tax cuts for the wealthy.

But Trump and his rubber-stamp Republican Congress is moving ahead in reshaping the financial environment anyway, part of which was the successful vote Tuesday night neutering the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Benen summed up the vote by writing that he had "naively thought Republicans would want to avoid being seen doing Equifax’s bidding so soon after last month’s controversy. Evidently, the party doesn’t care."

Ian Millhiser put it like this: "Tuesday night, as many Americans were preparing to go to bed, an evenly divided Senate voted to give broad lawsuit immunity to credit card companies, auto lenders, credit reporting companies like Equifax, and many other financial firms. The 50-50 tie in the Senate was broken by Vice President Mike Pence (R), and the House approved the lawsuit immunity measure. President Trump is expected to sign it. The resolution passed by the Senate overrides a rule created by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which prevents many financial firms from engaging in two abusive practices. The rule prohibited much of the financial industry from using “forced arbitration” agreements-- a common tactic where a company refuses to do business with consumers who will not sign away their right to sue the company in a real court. Consumers who sign away their right to sue must resolve any disputes with the company in a privatized arbitration system that favors corporate parties. Additionally, the CFPB rule prohibited credit card companies and many other financial firms from requiring consumers to sign away their right to bring class action lawsuits, a form of litigation that ensures that companies that charge certain illegal fees to consumers face a consequence for their actions."

The progressive Blue America-endorsed Democrat running in Indiana's flippable 9th district, Dan Canon, is an attorney who fights against this kind of regulatory capture that puts consumers at legal disadvantage and at the mercy of DC-connected corporate power. "This is yet another transparent sellout of the working class to the financial industry," he told us this morning. "There is simply no such thing as frivolous class-action litigation of consumer claims. The courts are the only place where citizens can be an even remotely equal footing with big business. Congressional Republicans and their donors know that, so they've been working to restrict meaningful access to the courts for American consumers for decades. This is just another step toward the Trump/GOP agenda of total corporate supremacy."

I was discussing the vote with the progressive Democrat running for the Maine second district seat held by Wall Street puppet Bruce Poliquin-- who takes bankster bribery bucks while sitting on the House Financial Services Committee-- and he pointed me to something he had written last month when the Republican plan was just being debated in the committee. "Earlier this month," he wrote, "the Credit reporting company Equifax announced a data breach that exposed the credit information for 143 million Americans, including Social Security numbers, birthdates and home addresses." And then he went after Poliquin and his cronies in Washington:

Equifax discovered the hack in July but waited more than a month to make news of the breach public. In response the company offered free credit monitoring services for one year, but the offer came with fine print that would have resulted in consumers who accepted the services giving away their ancient right to a trial in court by a jury of peers.

This term buried in the fine print is called an arbitration clause. Usually when we click a box to agree to terms of service, we are agreeing that any disputes will be taken to an arbitrator instead of a court on an individual basis, and we cannot band together with other victims to bring in a class action. But it can cost thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer to bring a claim to arbitration, so it never makes sense when a corporation rips us off by a few dollars here or there.

Without the threat that they will have to face a jury, corporations have every profit-making incentive to cut corners and take risks. Why invest in data security if nobody is going to hold you accountable for a breach? Only when corporations know that consumers can band together to enforce their rights, will they act as responsible stewards or our information.

We need to ban compulsory arbitration in these form contracts, but Bruce Poliquin is doing everything he can to protect the corporations. In June of this year, Bruce Poliquin voted for HR 10, which would block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from finalizing a rule to prohibit credit card, bank account, and other financial contracts from having fine print forced arbitration clauses with class action bans.

On the day that the Equifax data breach was made public, the House Financial Services Committee, on which Bruce Poliquin serves, considered a bill to cap statutory damages in lawsuits against credit-reporting companies at $500,000, and entirely prohibit punitive damages.

Bruce Poliquin’s support of the financial sector at the expense of his constituents is yet another example of how he continues to fail to represent the people of Maine’s Second Congressional District... He should be working to protect everyday people from data breaches and ensure they are fairly compensated when they fall victim. Instead, he’s working to limit the damages and fall out for the institutions that allow the breaches to happen. That’s unacceptable to me and in Congress I promise to protect people’s right to a day in court against banks and corporations like Equifax that fail to protect consumers’ sensitive information.

And he's been fighting with Poliquin about it ever since. The Sun Journal has called it a "hot campaign issue." While Poliquin puts all his energy into collecting bribes from Wall Street and smearing Jared as "a liberal," Jared was explaining to the media how Poliquin puts the desires of the country’s financial sector ahead of his constituents including the vote "to allow financial firms to force their customers into arbitration instead of allowing them to file lawsuits against firms such as Equifax... Golden, who is the assistant majority leader in the state House, said Poliquin'should be working to protect everyday people from data breaches and ensure they are fairly compensated when they fall victim. Instead, he’s working to limit the damages and fallout for the institutions that allow the breaches to happen.'"