McCain Campaign Manager/Freddie Mac todays news!

My opinion, bunk

In 2005, McCain introduced legislation to reform Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. In the legislation, McCain explicitly mentioned the lack of adequate accounting & internal controls plus both were exploding their balance sheets to dangerous levels. He warned that their failure could have very dire effects on the economy.

So why was this legislation not taken seriously? I have 2 main players for you and I am sure there were others.

Christopher Dodd

Barney Frank

I'll leave it up to you identify which party these two gentlemen affiliate themselves with.

Another name for you that drove Fannie Mae to the ground while pocketing $90 million in the process, Franklin Raines. Head of the OMB during the Clinton Administration and later became Fannie Mae's CEO. You might recall the congressional hearings (accounting scandal) where this chap managed to pay himself and his buddies ridiculous bonuses by artificially inflating the company's profits.

There is plenty of blame to go around on this so please, enough with the partisan BS.

This one is nothing, who cares if a campaign manager was paid by fannie and freddie. Obama received a campaign contribution from Raines and he's his advisor.

Blame everything that happened during hte 8 years of the Republicans watch on every one else - Clinton, the illegals, the gays! Nothing is the fault of the party of accountability especially things that are a direct result of their policies - deregulation!

what exactly are you suggesting, that everyone who did business with fanny, freddie, bear, lehman or aig over the past several years is culpable? ridiculous per usual.

Seriosuly...we can sit here and copy and paste all day....have fun seeing who the top 5 donors to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are...

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Democrats
Published by Lindsay Renick Mayer on July 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)
(For an updated chart that includes contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae's PACs and employees to ALL lawmakers back to 1989, including to their leadership PACs, go here.) and data The federal government recently announced that it will come to the rescue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two embattled mortgage buyers that for years have pursued a lobbying strategy to get lawmakers on their side. Both companies have poured money into lobbying and campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties and committees as a general tactic, but they've also directed those contributions strategically. In the 2006 election cycle, Fannie Mae was giving 53 percent of its total $1.3 million in contributions to Republicans, who controlled Congress at that time. This cycle, with Democrats in control, they've reversed course, giving the party 56 percent of their total $1.1 million in contributions. Similarly, Freddie Mac has given 53 percent of its $555,700 in contributions to Democrats this cycle, compared to the 44 percent it gave during 2006.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have also strategically given more contributions to lawmakers currently sitting on committees that primarily regulate their industry. Fifteen of the 25 lawmakers who have received the most from the two companies combined since the 1990 election sit on either the House Financial Services Committee; the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee; or the Senate Finance Committee. The others have seats on the powerful Appropriations or Ways & Means committees, are members of the congressional leadership or have run for president. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, has received the most from Fannie and Freddie's PACs and employees ($133,900 since 1989). Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) has received $65,500. Kanjorski chairs the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs.

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name
Office
Party/State
Total

1. Dodd, Christopher J
S
D-CT
$133,900

2. Kerry, John
S
D-MA
$111,000

3. Obama, Barack
S
D-IL
$105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary
S
D-NY
$75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E
H
D-PA
$65,500

6. Bennett, Robert F
S
R-UT
$61,499

7. Johnson, Tim
S
D-SD
$61,000

8. Conrad, Kent
S
D-ND
$58,991

9. Davis, Tom
H
R-VA
$55,499

10. Bond, Christopher S 'Kit'
S
R-MO
$55,400

11. Bachus, Spencer
H
R-AL
$55,300

12. Shelby, Richard C
S
R-AL
$55,000

13. Emanuel, Rahm
H
D-IL
$51,750

14. Reed, Jack
S
D-RI
$50,750

15. Carper, Tom
S
D-DE
$44,389

16. Frank, Barney
H
D-MA
$40,100

17. Maloney, Carolyn B
H
D-NY
$38,750

18. Bean, Melissa
H
D-IL
$37,249

19. Blunt, Roy
H
R-MO
$36,500

20. Pryce, Deborah
H
R-OH
$34,750

21. Miller, Gary
H
R-CA
$33,000

22. Pelosi, Nancy
H
D-CA
$32,750

23. Reynolds, Tom
H
R-NY
$32,700

24. Hoyer, Steny H
H
D-MD
$30,500

25. Hooley, Darlene
H
D-OR
$28,750

Deregulation you ask?

Glass-Steagall Act, repealed by Bill Clinton in 1999.

serge - you mean the ACt written by Phil Gramm - McCains economic advisor, and voted through congress by the republican controlled congress?

Also - Obama had the good judgement to fire Johnson at the first sign of impropriety. Will McCain show good judgement and fire Davis? I bet he wont. He would rather have a crook work for him than lose an election.

McCain would also rather place the security of the USA in jeopardy by naming Palin VP than lose and election.

the more you prove perfitz wrong, the more he yells...

serge07, julia & garelj, you're all right on the $$ (so to speak).

serge07, your comment re: the repeal of Glass=Steagall as 'deregulation' is misleading. GS repeal has nothing to do with the current panic. It changed the laws but not HOW financial institutions should be regulated. Financial institutions have remained subject to the same oversight, which, as we've recently seen, has some flaws.

A little history: GS was a Depression-era-knee-jerk-reaction law passed that seemed to make sense of the time but in hindsight didn't address the key issues and was poorly written, provided little guidance.

Over time, as markets and the industry changed GS became an impediment to the industry; for example, US banks couldn't compete w their European counterparts. To address this the Fed found a loophole in GS and allowed for limited investment banking activity by commercial banks, but in a separate entity - this meant that the oversight had to be completely separate. Which led to ineffective risk management b/c one hand didn't know what the other was doing. But that was the law.

There was talk of repealing GS for years and replacing it with a more effective, modern law, but this was stymied in Congress by then-head of Senate Banking Commitee Sen. Al D'Amato (memba him?), who received backing from Wall St. It was only until he left the Senate that Gramm enabled the new law.

"McCain would also rather place the security of the USA in jeopardy by naming Palin VP"

Please explain how and if you believe that then wouldn't Obama pose the same challenge?

Obama is really looking bad with the financial crisis. He criticizes the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which had nothing to do with the current situation. That act allowed commercial banks and investment banks/securities firms to merge, which is actually helping things right now. Obama decries deregulation, but when McCain introduced legislation to reform Fannie and Freddie, Obama voted against it. He is turning into quite a hypocrite.

turning? He made that turn months ago.

petrfitz, the Glass-Steagall Act was enacted after the 1929 crash and separated the banking and broker functions. It is this combination, that destroyed the economy after the '29 fiasco & had been in place for 70 years. Using cheap Federally insured deposits to speculate is a bad idea & the reason we have the disaster today.

As to Sarah, if I could hire her, I would do so in a second. The woman can manage and has an approval rating as Governor that's unheard of. I can't say the same for Biden. Governors do not have foreign policy experience but they do how to manage the reason most of our presidents have been governors. Do you think Bill Clinton had foreign policy experience being Gov of a small state, Arkansas? As any talented persons do, they recognize their limitations & surround themselves with the best talent available and they learn. The key is management ability.

Biden made a great statement about relating this to the depression...he said something like F.D.R. got on television to speak about the crash in '29. Oops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTBZHf6WyG0

Both candidates are creatures of a corrupt system. EVERY senator is a creature of the system. At least they both know it, and they both seem committed to changing it. Which one would be more successful? I have no idea. Obama seems to have a more sophisticated understanding of the problem; McCain has the longer track record of seeking reform, though it's a mixed record and includes many compromises, some forgivable hypocrisy and a lot of symbolic tilting at windmills.

I like them both. That's why this campaign is so disappointing.

serge07, the use of "cheap Federally insured deposits" was enacted under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and has nothing to do w Glass-Steagall.

The issue today is liquidity, and banks use deposits to fund their loans, but they are also subject to stricter regulatory oversight. Goldman & Morgan Stanley are becoming bank holding companies, because they need the money.

Places like Bear, Lehman & AIG didn't have bank charters that would have permitted them to accept deposits. Their actions were not funded by consumer deposits.

The issue w the '29 crash, as I understand, is overleverage and resulting inability for people to meet margin calls. Had little to do with separating banks from brokerage.

uptowngal, thanks for the clarification. I should have just left it at separation between banking & brokerage functions.

I do know is when the act was repealed in 1999, it led to a merger mania between financial institutions....banks to brokers and brokers to banks. The reason was not only to become a financial services super market but also for the brokerage operations to have access (through the bank holding company) to the significant pool of liquidity mainly, insured deposits.

I'm aware that stand alone brokerage firms do not have access to federally insured deposits which is the reason the 2 remaining IB are converting to the bank model. As you stated, with the bank model does come far stricter regulatory oversight/regulations, significantly reduced leverage in addition increased competition.

serge, you're correct in that the repeal of GS did lead to more M&A activity in the finanicial sector. In a way, though, this wasn't a bad thing, as it enabled many institutions to obtain nec. capital. And the industry had already been fragmented, a result of antiquated laws.

The issue is HOW these institusions have been regulated. The Gramm-Leach-Riley Act did little to enhance to overall regulatory framework that would have been based on what an institution DOES (i.e. issue cds'), not what TYPE it is, i.e. bank, thrift, IB, insurance company.

There had been much talk about change in this regard, but nothing happened because nobody felt it would be necessary until now.