Thursday, March 16, 2017

Banksters Who Want To Run For Office Are Being Schooled In The Fine Art Of Corruption By The Bankster Lobbying Organization


2 of the banksters most profitable investments in Congress-- Emanuel and Himes

If you think Trump has gone overboard in draining the swamp and what DC needs is more banksters in public office, good news: banksters and lobbyists are launching an effort to train banksters who want to run for state or federal office. I'll get into it in a moment but first let's take a quick look at the fount of congressional corruption-- the House Financial Services Committee, the single most corrupt committee in Congress, the one the banksters count on to do their bidding... and spend millions of dollars on to make sure they get what they want. Six of the most corrupt members of the House Financial Services Committee, among the most bribed members of Congress, are ex-banksters already serving on the committee-- and a 7th, David Trott, was an attorney for banks who specialized in foreclosures. We'll call him an "honorary bankster." So here's the human equivalent of what you would get if you escalated and dredged a century-old cesspool (+ the amount each has taken in bribes from other banksters since being elected to Congress)-- in order of most corrupt to slightly less corrupt:
Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)- $5,547,712
Steve Stivers (R-OH)- $4,192,037
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)- $2,378,065
John Delaney (New Dem-MD)- $2,100,202
French Hill (R-AR)- $1,348,010
David Trott (R-MI)- $461,965
Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)- n.a.
This is just one committee. There are former banksters taking bribes on lots of committees. But this is one of the ones that deals directly with the day-to-day of bank regulating. So... as CNN reported last night, a slimeball lobbying outfit, "the American Bankers Association started taking applications on Tuesday for its first-ever 'candidate school.' The pilot program is open to any banker who wants to run for state or federal office. The biggest bank lobbying group described it as a 'comprehensive two-day program' that will take place, naturally, in Washington, D.C."
The ABA promised the candidate school will help bankers-turned-politicians learn how to "get out the vote," conduct research, fill out paperwork and, of course, raise money.

But not just anybody can apply. This political training camp is only open to bankers and bank directors who have "concrete plans" to run for state or federal office in the next two election cycles. Candidates for school boards and town council need not apply.

So why is the ABA trying to recruit politicians from within its own ranks? To help shape banking legislation of course.

The ABA described it as part of its efforts to "promote a pro-growth policy environment."

"When it's time to set banking and economic policy, we strongly believe nothing beats real-world banking experience," ABA President and CEO Rob Nichols said in a statement.

In other words, bankers elected to Congress could help efforts to dial back regulation that the industry finds burdensome, such as parts of Dodd-Frank and others.

The ABA, which represents small, regional and large banks, is already the most prolific campaign contributor in the financial industry. The lobbying group gave $9.8 million to political causes last year, according to OpenSecrets. That was twice as much as the next closest bank lobby group and well ahead of big banks like Citigroup and Wells Fargo.

The ABA noted that only 18 of the 535 members of Congress have a banking background.

It may also help that the current occupant of the White House went directly from the business world to the highest office in the land.

"It surely is a follow-on to Mr. Trump's electoral success," said NYU Stern School of Business professor Lawrence White.

Putin owns Wilbur
President Trump also hasn't been shy about surrounding himself with bankers, especially ones from Goldman Sachs. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was a longtime Goldman banker, while top economic aide Gary Cohn was most recently the Number Two exec of the big Wall Street firm. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross also had to step down as vice chairman of the Bank of Cyprus once he took office.

Democrats also named bankers to their administrations. For instance, former President Obama tapped ex-JPMorgan exec William Daley as his chief of staff, while former President Clinton selected longtime Goldman Sachs senior exec Robert Rubin as his treasury secretary.

Asked about concerns of a revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, Rubin acknowledged to CNNMoney that there's been a "tremendous loss of confidence in institutions in America."

"I may be wrong, but I don't think that's because bankers went into government. I think it's because the system hasn't worked for most Americans," Rubin said.

But does that mean voters are ready to elect more bankers to Congress? It wasn't long ago that many Americans seemed to blame Wall Street and the financial industry in general for the 2008 financial meltdown. And there have been several more recent black eyes for the industry, including the fake account scandal at Wells Fargo and improper hiring tactics at JPMorgan Chase.

But White, the NYU professor, said he doesn't think "being a banker is a barrier to being elected-- even given the trauma of 2008."

He said a bigger problem will be whether bankers are willing to "expose themselves to the level of public scrutiny" that comes with running for office.

"Mr. Trump was able to withstand it. But he seems exceptional in this regard. Can others?" White asks.

Labels: , ,


At 5:22 AM, Anonymous Jeffrey Hearn said...

I've always found a piece by William Greider on the House Financial Services Committee to be instructive.

"The Money Man’s Best Friend," The Nation, 11 November 2009.

" ... Money also explains why the committee is top-heavy with Blue Dogs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put them there, along with other freshmen and sophomores, knowing it can help them win re-election. She was encouraged by Representative Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, who was then chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In 2006 and again in 2008, Emanuel had a lot to do with electing Blue Dogs to House seats the Democratic Party was not supposed to win–suburban and rural districts normally represented by Republicans. Emanuel recruited candidates, coached them and financed them. They helped Democrats win control of the House and helped Pelosi become Speaker. Many of them face tough re-election fights in 2010 and need to raise a lot of money to survive. Naturally, party leaders worry about keeping them.

These more conservative junior members, one might say, are the tail wagging the committee’s older, more liberal dogs. The Democratic Party is stuck with the consequences. It is a reform party that wants to have it both ways–serving the public interest without overly discomforting the bankers. The dilemma poses a test for Pelosi: will she stand with her favored Blue Dogs or go with the progressive/liberal majority of Democrats who want to solve the problem? "

At 7:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Jeffrey, Well we got our answer didn't we. Pelosi went with the donors (Yooooge surprise), shafted the 99.99%ers who were victims of the $20trillion fraud, and lost the house forever in 2010.

I disagreed with the 2009 characterization of Pelosi's "dilemma". There was never any question. She exposed her fidelity to the donors several years earlier when she said "impeachment is off the table" and ordered her (and donors') bitch, john conyers, to spike Kucinich's articles of impeachment against cheney and even gonzalez. Not that we could not have surmised decades prior, but at that point she declared, in no uncertain terms, that she put the bribe money above her oath of office (to support the constitution).

At her "off the table" utterance, SHE should have been impeached or recalled or whatever the process for a house whore is.

Sadly, instead, she's been re-elected ... what... 6 times since?

When American voters always affirm such antidemocratic, anticonstitutional horseshit... well our government cannot be any good now can it!?!?

As to bank fraudsters running (and winning given the $upport from both "parties"), well, that would make gummint a tad more honest would it not? Voters could no longer claim ignorance (stupidity) as an excuse for the gawdawful results could they?


Post a Comment

<< Home