tagged w/ Morgan Stanley
-
Perhaps these banks are finally realizing that the more you decimate the middle class, the fewer customers you’re going to have who have need of your more than dubious “services.” That 1% is a pretty small group and you can only cannibalize it for so long before it starts to eat away at itself. It’s like inbreeding. Do it enough times, and pretty soon you’re going to have a child with an arm growing out of its forehead.
http://veracitystew.com/2011/12/06/tax-the-rich-even-morgan-stanley-agrees/Perhaps these banks are finally realizing that the more you decimate the middle class,... more
-
-
Il titolo Terna, guidata da Flavio Cattaneo, vola a Piazza Affari. Morgan Stanley avvia “la copertura con giudizio overweight”
Terna in denaro: Morgan Stanley avvia la copertura con overweight
Terna in rialzo: il titolo guadagna il 2,13% e si porta a quota 2,68 euro dopo aver toccato un massimo di seduta a quota 2,69 euro.
Financial Trend Analysis. Terna in rialzo: il titolo guadagna il 2,13% e si porta a quota 2,68 euro dopo aver toccato un massimo di seduta a quota 2,69 euro. L’azione approfitta dunque dei recuperi del mercato e della decisione di Morgan Stanley di avviare la copertura con overweight.Il titolo Terna, guidata da Flavio Cattaneo, vola a Piazza Affari. Morgan Stanley... more
-
-
-
Bank of America has little patience for homeowners who have fallen on hard times and behind on their mortgages. The lending giant is in the midst of foreclosure battles in every state as well as defending against allegations that they engaged in fraud and misrepresentation during the foreclosure process.
Given all the increased scrutiny you would think the bank would be extra diligent before pursuing homeowners in court. Think again.
First the mega-bank wrongfully foreclosed on a couple who had paid cash for their house (and thus not only did not have a mortgage with Bank of America but owned title to their property free and clear). Then, when the couple fought the mistaken foreclosure, Bank of America refused to back down, insisting they owned the home.
When Bank of America lost the foreclosure action they were ordered to pay the couple's attorney and court fees, since it was Bank of America's error that brought the action in the first place.
Instead of paying those fees promptly, Bank of America let the bill sit for over five months. Tired of banks getting away with actions that can throw an average citizen in jail these days, the couple and their attorney had a stroke of genius. They foreclosed upon the bank.
The action got the attention of the bank. After an hour of being locked out by bailiffs while their furniture, computers, and cash in the till was seized, the branch manager was able to get the couple and their attorney a check for the fees owed.
The actions of Bank of America says everything about the attitude permeating lending institutions in this country. They abuse customers and non-customers without so much as a second thought and ignore the rule of law at will. And while the "little guy" turned the tables here, you have to wonder just how many more stories like this are out there, only the homeowners were too scared, confused or just plain beat down to fight back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBuCSTFJffY
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/bank-of-america-gets-foreclosed-on/239951/Bank of America has little patience for homeowners who have fallen on hard times and... more
-
-
Even if you find the average recycling innovation story boringly predictable, this one, as it gathers momentum with one ludicrously lucky sustainability discovery after another, will have you cheering along with the audienceEven if you find the average recycling innovation story boringly predictable, this... more
-
-
America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial. The official budget is public record and hotly debated: Money comes in as taxes and goes out as jet fighters, DEA agents, wheat subsidies and Medicare, plus pensions and bennies for that great untamed socialist menace called a unionized public-sector workforce that Republicans are always complaining about. According to popular legend, we're broke and in so much debt that 40 years from now our granddaughters will still be hooking on weekends to pay the medical bills of this year's retirees from the IRS, the SEC and the Department of Energy.
Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail?
Most Americans know about that budget. What they don't know is that there is another budget of roughly equal heft, traditionally maintained in complete secrecy. After the financial crash of 2008, it grew to monstrous dimensions, as the government attempted to unfreeze the credit markets by handing out trillions to banks and hedge funds. And thanks to a whole galaxy of obscure, acronym-laden bailout programs, it eventually rivaled the "official" budget in size — a huge roaring river of cash flowing out of the Federal Reserve to destinations neither chosen by the president nor reviewed by Congress, but instead handed out by fiat by unelected Fed officials using a seemingly nonsensical and apparently unknowable methodology.
This article appears in the April 28, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue will be available on newsstands and in the online archive April 15.
Now, following an act of Congress that has forced the Fed to open its books from the bailout era, this unofficial budget is for the first time becoming at least partially a matter of public record. Staffers in the Senate and the House, whose queries about Fed spending have been rebuffed for nearly a century, are now poring over 21,000 transactions and discovering a host of outrages and lunacies in the "other" budget. It is as though someone sat down and made a list of every individual on earth who actually did not need emergency financial assistance from the United States government, and then handed them the keys to the public treasure. The Fed sent billions in bailout aid to banks in places like Mexico, Bahrain and Bavaria, billions more to a spate of Japanese car companies, more than $2 trillion in loans each to Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, and billions more to a string of lesser millionaires and billionaires with Cayman Islands addresses. "Our jaws are literally dropping as we're reading this," says Warren Gunnels, an aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "Every one of these transactions is outrageous."
Wall Street's Big Win
But if you want to get a true sense of what the "shadow budget" is all about, all you have to do is look closely at the taxpayer money handed over to a single company that goes by a seemingly innocuous name: Waterfall TALF Opportunity. At first glance, Waterfall's haul doesn't seem all that huge — just nine loans totaling some $220 million, made through a Fed bailout program. That doesn't seem like a whole lot, considering that Goldman Sachs alone received roughly $800 billion in loans from the Fed. But upon closer inspection, Waterfall TALF Opportunity boasts a couple of interesting names among its chief investors: Christy Mack and Susan Karches.
Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley's investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.
RS Politics Daily: Political news and commentary from Rolling Stone writers and editors
The technical name of the program that Mack and Karches took advantage of is TALF, short for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. But the federal aid they received actually falls under a broader category of bailout initiatives, designed and perfected by Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, called "giving already stinking rich people gobs of money for no fucking reason at all." If you want to learn how the shadow budget works, follow along. This is what welfare for the rich looks like.
In August 2009, John Mack, at the time still the CEO of Morgan Stanley, made an interesting life decision. Despite the fact that he was earning the comparatively low salary of just $800,000, and had refused to give himself a bonus in the midst of the financial crisis, Mack decided to buy himself a gorgeous piece of property — a 107-year-old limestone carriage house on the Upper East Side of New York, complete with an indoor 12-car garage, that had just been sold by the prestigious Mellon family for $13.5 million. Either Mack had plenty of cash on hand to close the deal, or he got some help from his wife, Christy, who apparently bought the house with him.
The Macks make for an interesting couple. John, a Lebanese-American nicknamed "Mack the Knife" for his legendary passion for firing people, has one of the most recognizable faces on Wall Street, physically resembling a crumpled, half-burned baked potato with a pair of overturned furry horseshoes for eyebrows. Christy is thin, blond and rich — a sort of still-awake Sunny von Bulow with hobbies. Her major philanthropic passion is endowments for alternative medicine, and she has attained the level of master at Reiki, the Japanese practice of "palm healing." The only other notable fact on her public résumé is that her sister was married to Charlie Rose.
It's hard to imagine a pair of people you would less want to hand a giant welfare check to — yet that's exactly what the Fed did. Just two months before the Macks bought their fancy carriage house in Manhattan, Christy and her pal Susan launched their investment initiative called Waterfall TALF. Neither seems to have any experience whatsoever in finance, beyond Susan's penchant for dabbling in thoroughbred racehorses. But with an upfront investment of $15 million, they quickly received $220 million in cash from the Fed, most of which they used to purchase student loans and commercial mortgages. The loans were set up so that Christy and Susan would keep 100 percent of any gains on the deals, while the Fed and the Treasury (read: the taxpayer) would eat 90 percent of the losses. Given out as part of a bailout program ostensibly designed to help ordinary people by kick-starting consumer lending, the deals were a classic heads-I-win, tails-you-lose investment.
So how did the government come to address a financial crisis caused by the collapse of a residential-mortgage bubble by giving the wives of a couple of Morgan Stanley bigwigs free money to make essentially risk-free investments in student loans and commercial real estate? The answer is: by degrees. The history of the bailout era reads like one of those awful stories about what happens when a long-dormant criminal compulsion goes unchecked. The Peeping Tom next door stares through a few bathroom windows, doesn't get caught, and decides to break in and steal a pair of panties. Next thing you know, he's upgraded to homemade dungeons, tri-state serial rampages and throwing cheerleaders into a panel truck.
more at http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411?page=2America has two national budgets, one official, one unofficial. The official budget is... more
-
-
Let's here it for the sisters!
By Richard Blackden 6:00AM BST 04 Apr 2011
The proposal will be put forward at the Wall Street bank’s annual general meeting next month by the orders, who own shares in Goldman, the bank revealed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Sisters of Saint Joseph of Boston, the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, the Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia and the Benedictine Sisters of Mt. Angel want Goldman’s compensation committee to report back by the beginning of October.
The bank’s pay practices have faced criticism from religious orders in the past, but this call comes as Goldman revealed last week that its five most senior executives were awarded $69.5m in pay last year despite a drop in the bank’s profits.
Mr Blankfein, who famously said in an interview in 2009 that the bank was doing “God’s work”, received a cash bonus of $5.4m as part of a total pay package of $14.1m for last year.
The Benedictine nuns, along with the US charity, The Nathan Cummings Foundation, also asked Goldman’s committee to explore “how sizeable layoffs and the level of pay of our lowest paid workers impact senior executive pay.”
Goldman has been a lightning rod for public anger at Wall Street since the crisis erupted, even though that outcry is now not as loud as in Britain. Late last year the bank changed how it reported its results to show how much it made from trading and its own investments.
In the SEC filing, the bank said that shareholders already have enough information to assess how Goldman rewards its executives and a further report would “entail an unjustified cost to our firm and would not provide shareholders with any meaningful information.”
Last year, Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank were sued by a group of Irish nuns for allegedly failing to redeem an investment for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8425222/Nuns-ask-Goldman-Sachs-bosses-whether-theyre-really-worth-69.5m.htmlLet's here it for the sisters!
By Richard Blackden 6:00AM BST 04 Apr 2011... more
-
-
In an industrial section of Oakland, California, former Morgan Stanley investment banker Derek Peterson hops into a trailer being outfitted with shower drains, lights and humidifiers, all used for growing marijuana.
“This is one we’re finishing up, what we call our bloom room,” he said. Peterson, 36, sells the trailers for $30,000 to $80,000 as “plug-and-play” facilities for cultivating pot. Customers don’t need to buy hydroponic equipment or even stay on-site -- lighting, temperature, nutrients, water and humidity can be operated remotely via an iPhone app.
The legalization of medical marijuana -- permitted in at least 15 states -- has kicked off a booming economy in ancillary goods. Startups such as Peterson’s GrowOp Technology Ltd. and General Cannabis Inc. compare the phenomenon to the California gold rush, when the people making the real money were the ones selling pick axes and shovels. Both companies are planning initial public offerings, part of an effort to remove the stigma from what’s seen as a multibillion-dollar industry.
“We’re better off by being in the public arena and showing a face of professionalism,” said Jim Pakulis, chief executive officer of General Cannabis, who says medical marijuana could be a $60 billion industry nationwide. “The market will just continue to expand.”
Growing marijuana violates federal law, and recreational use of the drug remains illegal at the state level. That puts related businesses at risk of getting shut down by law enforcement. By focusing on equipment, services and technology, Pakulis and Peterson aim to sidestep the legal pitfalls of the trade while reaping the benefits of its expansion.
Dispensary Map
General Cannabis operates several businesses, including WeedMaps.com, which directs users to more than 800 pot dispensaries nationally; a company that handles administrative tasks for more than a dozen medical marijuana clinics in California; and a payment-processing service for dispensaries.
“We are a technology company with an affinity toward medicinal cannabis,” Pakulis said in an interview.
General Cannabis, based in Costa Mesa, California, seeks to raise $10.5 million in an IPO, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1. The company posted net income of $1.2 million in 2010 on revenue of $7.7 million, according to the filing.
Pakulis, 47, has been involved with managing and consulting startups in various industries for more than 15 years. The company also brought on a former Silicon Valley Bank executive in January to lead General Cannabis’s strategic efforts.
Morgan Stanley
GrowOp’s Peterson spent almost a decade managing investment portfolios before starting his current company. After stints at Wachovia and Morgan Stanley, where he managed a $100 million fund, he went out on his own, taking some clients with him. In addition to GrowOp, he oversees a $48 million portfolio with a partner.
GrowOp sold its first trailer in May, and by the end of the year posted $800,000 in revenue, Peterson said. It made $250,000 more in January alone, he said.
The business has mainly grown from word of mouth. Peterson is rolling out a catalog, which he expects to generate 90 percent of sales. It will offer hundreds of products for cultivating pot -- everything from special light bulbs and nutrients to something called “hydroponic grow medium.”
Pillow Stuffing
“It’s pillow stuffing,” Peterson said, as he digs his hand through a box of chunky blocks of white foam material. “But apparently plants grow phenomenal in it.”
Peterson wants to undercut distributors of these products to the retail hydroponic shops, where growers buy materials for cultivating plants. Distributors typically mark up their goods 100 percent, he said.
“We can operate a thriving business and do so with 60 to 70 percent margins,” Peterson said.
His goal is sales of $2.5 million this year, then $5 million to $8 million next year. While GrowOp hasn’t filed paperwork to go public -- and its revenue is smaller than General Cannabis’s -- it plans to have an IPO in 2011. GrowOp is currently in the audit stage of its offering plan and working with Network 1 Financial Securities Inc., Peterson said.
Peterson always wanted to take a company public, though he never found the right specialty. That changed when he learned how much medical marijuana growers were making, he said.
“The few dispensaries in my neighborhood -- I started talking to them and found out they were doing $10 million to $14 million in business a year,” Peterson said. “I just started to see the economics.”
Medical Uses
Marijuana, produced from the cannabis plant, can be smoked or ingested. Advocates of medical use say marijuana can ease cancer patients’ nausea from chemotherapy, help treat glaucoma, stimulate AIDS patients’ appetites and ease pain for multiple sclerosis sufferers.
While law enforcement has taken a hands-off approach to General Cannabis and GrowOp, the federal marijuana ban could mean the companies are targeted for aiding and abetting a crime.
“Under United States federal law, the possession, use, cultivation and transfer of cannabis is illegal,” General Cannabis said in the “risk factors” portion of its filing. “We provide services to customers that are engaged in those businesses. As a result, law enforcement authorities may seek to bring an action or actions against us.”
California Initiative
California voters approved a ballot initiative in 1996 permitting people with a doctor’s recommendation to possess the drug, though they rejected a proposition last year that would have legalized it for recreational purposes. Other states have followed California’s lead with their own medical-pot laws.
Not everyone thinks the industry is poised for growth. Dale Gieringer, who runs the California office for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML, said the value of medical pot has started to contract as more growers add supply to the market and reduce prices.
“There’s a glut on the market, a general retrenchment and it’s not clear to me how much the market can expand unless laws change,” Gieringer said.
In the past few years, prices have dropped by half to $1,800 a pound for marijuana grown outdoors, he said. Pot grown indoors fetches a higher price -- $3,000 a pound -- though it’s seeing a pullback as well, Gieringer said.
Peterson says customers are interested in his trailers and products for various reasons. One buyer in Colorado uses his to grow mushrooms for culinary use. Another wanted to get into the business because making a profit in his other profession as a porn-film director was getting difficult.
“They see the green rush -- and like the gold rush back in the day -- are getting picks and shovels,” Peterson said.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/marijuana-leaf.jpg
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-10/marijuana-ipos-provide-investors-with-gateway-to-cannabis-boom.htmlIn an industrial section of Oakland, California, former Morgan Stanley investment... more
-
-
Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s chairman and chief executive officer, warned against raising base salaries on Wall Street under eight months before his own more than tripled to $2 million.
Goldman Sachs prefers paying compensation in bonuses that are contingent on the firm’s performance, rather than offering guarantees or high salaries, Blankfein said inside a June 16 interview with staff from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a recording of which was made public this month. On Jan. 28, the New York-based firm disclosed it had raised salaries for Blankfein and four other top executives that had been $600,000.Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s chairman and chief executive... more
-
-
By Gerard Ange'
THE SCAM OF AUSTERITY:
As we look around us today... we see a war zone. A war against the Middle Class ! A covert war that has been going on for years! A war with a battle plan. A plan to finance politicians like (Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin ) to take over our Government and with an agenda to give the final death blow against Labor and the Middle Class.
WHAT WE SEE IS... A war to steal the money out of the hands and pockets of hard working families'. A war that takes food from children's mouths. A war that sucks the heat from our furnaces on the coldest winter's days.
THIS IS OUR REALITY.... THIS IS WHAT IS GOING... HERE & NOW!
I ASK THEN... Where is all that money going? Money doesn't disappear nor does it dematerialize. it had to go somewhere.
It went into the huge bank vaults of the bankers and, The 2% of the population who intentionally sucked all the money from our country and created all the job loss and the home foreclosures in the first place.
The same bankers and, the 2% of the population who were bailed-out by the US Tax Payers with over $700 Billion dollars.., from hard working people.
These same 2% and same Wall Street Bankers who took our Bail-Out money and didn't re-invest it in the people to create jobs as they had promised. But, they kept the money and continued to foreclose against families and then rewarded themselves with lavish million dollar bonuses as "job well done".
~ Proving again that: "TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS" was a Scam.!
These Bankers and, the 2% who now sit comfortably on piles money, now have all the time in the world to wait... Wait and watch as the citizens, families and workers squirm in pain and misery fighting poverty just for the basics in life... as they continue to lose their homes and jobs.
> IT IS TIME WE ALL ~ FOLLOW THE MONEY!
What we are seeing is a process leading this country down the same economic path as Turkey, Mexico, Greece. "A country with NO middle class!" A country with only the VERY RICH and The VERY POOR. What we are witnessing is the Resurgence Economic Principals dating back to the "PRE-INDUSTRIAL ERA"!
~ HENERY FORD CREATED THE MIDDLE CLASS IN AMERICA ~
Henry Ford in 1914 Set an Example for all of us to follow. Breaking with the long on-going "Industrial Era" Mentality ... When He Broke the Greedy On-Going Practice of Rich Industrialists: of paying their workers (a pittance!) ~ as little as possible...
Henry Ford made a bold deliberate move to "think outside the box" ! To pay twice the going labor rate to his workers. With an Idea so that this workers could then afford to buy his automobiles... His workers bought automobiles and more... houses and refrigerators and life got better for everyone... It was then...The Middle Class was born.
**Henry Ford's one bold act changed the world forever... And today has proven one very important economic principal for all us to follow into the future.
BUT TODAY:
We see that there is a plan in the works to turn back the clock! To reverted back again to those old failed economic principals of the Industrial Age ~ Once again paying people as little as possible... (a pittance!) While "The New Industrialists" once again horde huge profits on the backs of poor exploited labor. These are greedy people, this slash and burn industrial age thinking is destructive to the global economy as it is to our families our neighbors and to the fabric of our society.
** The Future is before us: **
But before we can move forward... We must learn from the past.
We must act,,, to plant the seeds of the future and stimulate growth to grow a strong "global economy" an economy that gives "all workers" a fair "World Wage" And basic global worker's rights. Rights, that regulate and protect the global work force. We need to level the playing field world-wide for long-term global growth and stability. To put and end to the Greedy Destructive Short-Term Profits and Exploitation of Labor that is destroying the world around us.
THE LESSON LEARNED:
Henry Ford's proved by example that in order for a populous to contribute to the economy they must be paid a fair living wage. It is in everyones best interest! A fair " Wage" globally expands the market place for all goods stimulates all commerce allows all people to be better their lives and contribute to a healthy economy and future for all of us everywhere.
~In a Democracy it is important that we.. FLOAT ALL BOATS ~
More about Henry Ford & Trickle UP Economics
http://www.newamerica.net/node/8628By Gerard Ange'
THE SCAM OF AUSTERITY:
As we look around us today... we see a... more
-
-
Los inversores oscilarán en la jornada de hoy entre el temor a un recalentamiento de la economía en el gigante asiático y las noticias de los resultados de las empresas en los EE.UU.Los inversores oscilarán en la jornada de hoy entre el temor a un... more
-
-
Según los analistas de Research for Traders, los papeles del banco estadounidense podrían caer y alcanzar niveles cercanos a los 26,80 dólares cada uno.Según los analistas de Research for Traders, los papeles del banco... more
-
-
This week in randomness: sexy Santas, Christmas light bondage, sperm-filled watches, WikiLeaks yogurt, woman rips off daughter in-law's nipple, the Snowman Murders, lesbo TV ads nixed, 2400-year old soup, Danica Patrick signing man-boobs, 30 people posing with snow dicks, drunken John Boehner, Lady Gaga rips off Santa's head, and the best of Japan and robot news.This week in randomness: sexy Santas, Christmas light bondage, sperm-filled watches,... more
-
-
On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street society gather in Midtown Manhattan.
The men share a common goal: to protect the interests of big banks in the vast market for derivatives, one of the most profitable — and controversial — fields in finance. They also share a common secret: The details of their meetings, even their identities, have been strictly confidential.
Drawn from giants like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the bankers form a powerful committee that helps oversee trading in derivatives, instruments which, like insurance, are used to hedge risk.
In theory, this group exists to safeguard the integrity of the multitrillion-dollar market. In practice, it also defends the dominance of the big banks.
The banks in this group, which is affiliated with a new derivatives clearinghouse, have fought to block other banks from entering the market, and they are also trying to thwart efforts to make full information on prices and fees freely available.
more at link....
They rule more than derivatives, but if speak out about it, you're called "crazy" by the media propagandists they control. The Creature from Jeckyll Island rules your life!On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street... more
-
-
Wanna know who made hundreds of millions destroying our country?
The "Inside Job" an excellent movie that exposes a good portion of what was happening and who was responsible for our current economic state.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/
I'll say this in President Obama's defense, we elected him to go swim in a fishbowl full of sharks with more money and more power than him. The more we support him, the more he can do for us, plain and simple.Wanna know who made hundreds of millions destroying our country?
The "Inside... more
-
-
Ed. Note: This blog is available for any organization or outlet to republish or excerpt. Please feel free to share it widely!
by Zach Carter, Media Consortium blogger
Undue corporate influence over U.S. elections has been a serious problem in American politics for decades, but this year’s Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission made things worse. Worst of all, we may never know the extent of the damage.
Citizens United freed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money backing specific political candidates, and without congressional action, those expenditures can be completely anonymous. Major corporations are already capitalizing on the new legal landscape by the millions, and the public doesn’t really know who is buying what influence or why.
That’s why The Media Consortium will be carefully watching the effects of this ruling in the run up to this year’s midterm elections. Every day through Nov. 4, we’ll bring you some of the best independent reporting on the effects of corporate spending in an attempt to measure just how widespread the effect of Citizens United will be on this—and the next—election. Keep your eye on “Campaign Cash” as we follow this issue in the coming weeks. If you want to tweet about it, use the hashtag #campaigncash.
The impact of Citizens United
As Harvard University Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig explains in an interview with The Nation’s Christopher Hayes, the Citizens United v. FEC decision represents one of many ways that corporations buy political favors.
Prior to the ruling, companies couldn’t spend money to directly advocate the election of a particular political candidate during election season. They could form Political Action Committees (PACs) to support or attack specific candidates, but those PACs had to be funded by individuals who worked for the company and couldn’t be funded from the corporation’s treasury directly. The executives of Goldman Sachs, for instance, could band together to form GoldmanPAC and spend their money on whatever candidates they wished—and many corporate employees exercised that right and spent freely on elections through their corporate PACs.
Now corporations can spend as much as they want and actual corporate funds—not just organized individuals—can also be deployed, making massive amounts of corporate cash eligible for political purchasing.
But the scariest part of Citizens United, as Lessig emphasizes, is the money that isn’t spent. That is, if a firm makes it known that they are willing spend millions of dollars to fight any politician who opposes them on a particular policy issue, representatives and senators might begin changing their voting behavior in Congress before the company actually has to put up the cash.
And ultimately, Citizens United didn’t just legalize unlimited corporate expenses on elections. It also allows those expenses to be anonymous. If companies launder their political cash through a front group, that third-party spender doesn’t have to disclose who its donors are.
This isn’t your local Chamber of Commerce
As Harry Hanbury details for GRITtv, this laundering scheme is essentially the business model for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce– a lobbying powerhouse in the nation’s capital. Don’t be fooled by its name—the U.S. Chamber has almost nothing to do with the local small business coalitions who help strengthen local economies.
As Hanbury notes, 40 percent of the U.S. Chamber’s 2008 funding came from just 26 corporations. The group represents many of the nation’s largest and most irresponsible corporations, from those responsible for the financial meltdown on Wall Street to BP, the company that spilled millions of barrels worth of oil in the Gulf this summer. The Chamber’s branding allows them to disguise their political as a coalition of local businesses while it does dirty work for corporate titans.
When BP was publicly promising to do everything in its power to fix the massive oil disaster it created in the Gulf of Mexico, it was also funneling money to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And what was the Chamber up to? It was lobbying furiously to protect BP from new rules that would force the company to pay for oil disaster clean-up. The Wall Street banks did the same thing as financial reform legislation moved through Congress, and companies never have to disclose these expenditures to the public.
So it’s no surprise that the Chamber responded to Citizens United by immediately announcing a 40 percent boost in its political spending operations. So much corporate money then flowed into the Chamber that the group chose to boost this budget again by 50 percent, allocating $75 million for its 2010 war chest. So far, the Chamber’s ads have favored Republican’s 93 percent of the time. No entity spends more on politics than the Chamber—not even the political parties themselves.
Corporations top the list of big election spenders
But while the future of corporate spending in campaigns looks bleak after Citizens United, corporations are still barred from contributing directly to political campaigns. A company might take out a television ad attacking Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), but it can’t make unlimited contributions directly to Grayson’s challenger, Republican Dan Webster.
Nevertheless, corporate employees and company PACs have already been spending lavishly on elections for decades. In a feature for Mother Jones, Dave Gilson compiles the 75 biggest political spenders, both companies and trade groups, from 1989 through 2010, and breaks them down by industry. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley are all among the top 20 most extravagant political spenders—but the American Bankers Association, a trade group that all four belong to, is also in the top 10. If you’re wondering how Wall Street was able to secure its massive taxpayer bailout in the face of widespread voter outrage, this is your answer.
To soften the Citizens United blow, Congress has been debating the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, which would require companies to disclose all of their political expenditures as well as requiring front-groups like the Chamber to list the identities and amounts of its donors. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-MD) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), cleared the House this summer but was stymied by a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
Undoing the damage dealt by Citizens United through something like the DISCLOSE Act will help, but it won’t make our democracy totally safe from corporate abuse. As Lessig notes, the day before the decision was handed down, U.S. election financing was already encouraging rampant corruption and in need of serious reform.
Lessig suggests banning political expenditures by corporations altogether, and placing a hard cap on the amount that individuals can contribute. By limiting individual donations to $100, the ability of corporate PACs to funnel cash into the political process would be thwarted.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the mid-term elections and campaign financing by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit The Media Consortium for more articles on these issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.Ed. Note: This blog is available for any organization or outlet to republish or... more
-
-
Burning Flags and Tearing Down Walls
On March 20, 2010, on the seventh anniversary of the United States invasion of Iraq, at a rally across the street from the White House, before an anti-war march, veterans Robyn Murray, Matthis Chiroux, and mother of a Marine Elaine Brower burned an American Flag in protest of the violent, aggressive United States Government. As a combat wounded veteran and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, I fully support, endorse, and encourage this symbolic protest. It is important for the general public to see veterans committing non-violent acts of dissent and I hope to see more of it in the future.
This has sparked a controversy among people with more fascistic sympathies. Matthis has received threats of violence, rape, and death. Such threats truly show the character of people loyal to the American flag and the American government. Very few things are more quintessentially American than "Fall in line or we will beat you, rape you, or kill you." Just ask native americans, or african americans, immigrants, women, or the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Haiti, etc. Violence, dominance, rape, and murder are the American way and when Matthis Chiroux, Robyn Murray, and Elaine Brower lit that flag, it is exactly that type of ethos that they were challenging. If people are more upset over the burning of a piece of cloth than the death and destruction of people, then certainly their priorities are out of order. With this type of repression of radicalism, it is no surprise that this movement has been only marginally successful thus far.
The image of two veterans and the mother of a Marine burning the flag of the American empire is a powerful and striking one. It causes people to ask questions. It causes people to look beyond the lies told by the media and the administration. It is a call to arms and needs to be heeded.
Some have called this action "divisive" or "alienating." This is a clear attempt to universalize their own misguided allegiances and to push their own agenda masked in the thin veil of "propriety." Fortunately most people are capable of deeper thought than these petulant patriots. It is not always in the moment that we see the results of an action. We do ourselves and others no justice if we posit that our knee jerk reaction is necessarily the best one, and the most accurate indication of the long term affects of an action. Most of us are capable of performing a deeper analysis of things that may initially shock us long after the fact. We turn things over in the heads and ponder and analyze them. People are less often changed and moved by things that are commonplace, or everyday, but are most moved and changed by things that jar them out of their comfort zone for a moment. It is impossible to know what will inspire and what will alienate different people, as not all people are the same. What repulses one may inspire many others.
One can not help but note how appropriate it is that those who support the burning of the flag are pushing for an illumination of consciousness, a stepping into the light, while those who favor repression and suppression would wish to extinguish the flames of burning flags and the fires that burn in our hearts, driving us to seek peace and justice. To anyone with a complete and accurate analysis, the burning of an American flag symbolizes the destruction of walls built between people. It symbolizes love for all people, regardless of national origin, and is indicative of international solidarity.
Patriotism and nationalism are no different in principle than racism and they need to be challenged and combated accordingly. Let us all step into the light of a million burning flags, putting behind childish allegiances that have kept us divided. Let us burn all flags, cross all borders, and take down all walls that divide us. Let us destroy that which destroys us. Let us unite for peace and justice. Let us create a new world.
Peace, Love, and (A)narchy,
Bobby Whittenberg
To read Bobby Whittenberg's blog go to:
http://veteranarchy.blogspot.com/Burning Flags and Tearing Down Walls
On March 20, 2010, on the seventh anniversary... more
-
-
The Associated Press reports that President Obama's latest effort to reel in big banks may have more bark than bite. Obama has proposed a tax on banks to get back billions in bailout money that was handed out at the height of the financial crisis in 2008.
But analysts say that Obama's plan to limit banks' size and risky trading would have only a marginal effect on institutions like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup — and would be hard to enforce. And it's not clear the rules would reduce taxpayers' risk of having to bail out another big bank.The Associated Press reports that President Obama's latest effort to reel in big... more
-
-
following is a transcript of an interview with Robert Johnson by Amy Goodman for Democracy Now! about Move Your Money, a project to help people transfer their money from bigger banks into smaller, community-oriented financial institutions that generally avoided the reckless investments and schemes that helped cause the financial crisis. Robert Johnson is former economist at the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Budget Committee. He’s now the director of the Economic Policy Initiative at the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.
Amy Goodman: So, Move Your Money, how did it come about?
Robert Johnson: Came about at a dinner. Eugene Jarecki, my wife Alexis and Arianna and I were talking about how frustrated people were that there was no legislative reform and there was no -- well, you might call “remorse” from the big bankers. So we started to just, how we say, bat the fat about what could be done. And we talked about how in past episodes people had sold stock, and in this episode, you could get people to move their money.
Why would they move their money when they’re happy with their services? Because they can get comparable services locally. Everything is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, up to $250,000. And they could stop this toxic side effect of derivatives lobbying and “too big to fail” lobbying that’s going on by the top five or six banks that --
Goodman: So, name names. Who are you saying people should -- which banks should they pull their money out of? And what banks should they put them into? Tell us what community banks are, but name the ones they should pull out.
Johnson: Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and, to the extent that it’s asset management, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. Those are the six that have 97 percent of the derivatives markets. Those are the “too big to fail” institutions, or at least the large subset of the “too big to fail” institutions. But mostly, they’re the ones who are working very hard right now to stop Congress in the Senate from adequately reforming our financial system, which basically means they want to keep playing and making profit and have the taxpayer pick up the bill in the event of another—they hit another banana peel.
Goodman: And explain what community banks are.
Johnson: Community banks are small, regional or very much local institutions. Most of their activities, their lending activities and so forth, relate to the local region or community around which they collect their deposits.
Goodman: And how do know if you’re moving your money into a bank that’s not owned by one of the entities you just talked about?
Johnson: Well, that requires a little bit of research, but we do have friends at Institutional Risk Analytics that’s on this website, moveyourmoney.info, and they have rated all the FDIC call report banks, and they’ve separated out the big banks from the small, or what you might call the behind-the-scenes ownership, and given you a menu. If you plug in your zip code, it gives you a menu of the banks that they rate A or B, which is safe. And like I say, above and beyond that, you have deposit insurance. But those are the local banks that are independently owned, not owned by the big four to six.
More at link above:following is a transcript of an interview with Robert Johnson by Amy Goodman for... more
-
-
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Morgan Stanley Chief Executive John Mack is forgoing a year-end bonus for the third straight year, he said in a memo obtained by Reuters.
Mack is the second bank chief executive not to receive a bonus -- Kenneth Lewis, CEO of Bank of America Corp , is not receiving a salary or bonus for 2009. Both Mack and Lewis plan to retire at year-end.
Mack last received a bonus in 2006, when he was given restricted shares that at the time were worth about $36.2 million.
Wall Street bonuses are broadly expected to rise about 40 percent in 2009, according to recruiting firm Options Group, as trading revenues approach record levels.
Rising bonuses have drawn criticism from politicians and others, who complain that Wall Street's losses seem to be socialized while its profits are privatized.
Mack seemed to acknowledge that criticism in his memo: "Given this unprecedented environment and the extraordinary financial support governments provided to our industry ... I recommended to the Compensation Committee of the Board last week that I receive no year-end bonus," the memo said.
CNBC reported that Morgan Stanley's board had wanted to give him a bonus.
Mack's announcement that he is forgoing a bonus comes after Goldman Sachs Group Inc said it planned to pay top managers their bonuses in stock rather than cash.NEW YORK (Reuters) - Morgan Stanley Chief Executive John Mack is forgoing a year-end... more
-
