Wall Street doesn't have influence in Washington - they OWN Washington.

[Berkut]

It s a long article, so I am sure most of you won't actually read it, and it is certainly not particularly objective, but rather interesting nonetheless.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/wall-street-big-finance-lobbyists?page=1

A year after the biggest bailout in US history, Wall Street lobbyists don't just have influence in Washington. They own it lock, stock, and barrel.
— By Kevin Drum

THIS STORY IS NOT ABOUT THE origins of 2008's financial meltdown. You've probably read more than enough of those already. To make a long story short, it was a perfect storm. Reckless lending enabled a historic housing bubble; an overseas savings glut and an unprecedented Fed policy of easy money enabled skyrocketing debt; excessive leverage made the global banking system so fragile that it couldn't withstand a tremor, let alone the Big One; the financial system squirreled away trainloads of risk via byzantine credit derivatives and other devices; and banks grew so towering and so interconnected that they became too big to be allowed to fail. With all that in place, it took only a small nudge to bring the entire house of cards crashing to the ground.
But that's a story about finance and economics. This is a story about politics. It's about how Congress and the president and the Federal Reserve were persuaded to let all this happen in the first place. In other words, it's about the finance lobby—the people who, as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) put it last April, even after nearly destroying the world are "still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."
But it's also about something even bigger. It's about the way that lobby—with the eager support of a resurgent conservative movement and a handful of powerful backers—was able to fundamentally change the way we think about the world. Call it a virus. Call it a meme. Call it the power of a big idea. Whatever you call it, for three decades they had us convinced that the success of the financial sector should be measured not by how well it provides financial services to actual consumers and corporations, but by how effectively financial firms make money for themselves. It sounds crazy when you put it that way, but stripped to its bones, that's what they pulled off.

[Admiral Yi]

I read it in print, the only thing I found interesting was the continuation of the developing leftist theme that lobbying is a priori evidence of wrong doing.  Except, presumably, when it is their own lobbying.

[DGuller]

I read it in print, the only thing I found interesting was the continuation of the developing leftist theme that lobbying is a priori evidence of wrong doing.  Except, presumably, when it is their own lobbying.

That's actually touches upon a good point.  I imagine that a lot of times lobbyists are just making sure that politicians don't do anything stupid to their own industry. 

If some insurance lobbyists are demanding that medical underwriting should not be banned without strong personal mandates, they're just making sure that Congress doesn't accidentally destroy their entire industry by not understanding how healthcare economics work.  Of course, to a lay person, it would look like they're horse-trading at best, giving up one thing to get a windfall in return.

[Martinus]

I read it in print, the only thing I found interesting was the continuation of the developing leftist theme that lobbying is a priori evidence of wrong doing.  Except, presumably, when it is their own lobbying.

That's actually touches upon a good point.  I imagine that a lot of times lobbyists are just making sure that politicians don't do anything stupid to their own industry. 

If some insurance lobbyists are demanding that medical underwriting should not be banned without strong personal mandates, they're just making sure that Congress doesn't accidentally destroy their entire industry by not understanding how healthcare economics work.  Of course, to a lay person, it would look like they're horse-trading at best, giving up one thing to get a windfall in return.

The problem is not that voters are "lay persons" but that most politicians also are. So there is really no sensible check on whether whatever lobbyists are proposing is in their own interests or in the public interest.

The financial sector is a classic example - most politicians have only a very nebulous idea on how it functions. The system has failed spectacularly last year under the current rules and needed to be bailed out with a tax payer money - but the lobbyists are saying that if these rules are made more strict it will be even worse.

[MadImmortalMan]

The problem is not that voters are "lay persons" but that most politicians also are. So there is really no sensible check on whether whatever lobbyists are proposing is in their own interests or in the public interest.

Yes, and the people who might be highly-skilled politicians have no incentive to become politicians when they can just become investment bankers and control the politicians.

[Berkut]

I read it in print, the only thing I found interesting was the continuation of the developing leftist theme that lobbying is a priori evidence of wrong doing.  Except, presumably, when it is their own lobbying.

That is what you got out of that article? Really?

[Admiral Yi]

That is what you got out of that article? Really?

My recollection is that the rest of the article is a bunch of screed about evol Wall Street.

[Martinus]

The problem is not that voters are "lay persons" but that most politicians also are. So there is really no sensible check on whether whatever lobbyists are proposing is in their own interests or in the public interest.

Yes, and the people who might be highly-skilled politicians have no incentive to become politicians when they can just become investment bankers and control the politicians.

The problem is that, at least from my experience with them, most investment bankers do not have much of an idea how the system works either. What they know is how to work the system to maximize the profits (read: their bonuses). That is why so many of them were genuinely stunned by the credit crunch (or in the words of one of the CEOs of the investment banks, testifying before the senate commission "We didn't know the housing prices will not raise indefinitely.")

[Admiral Yi]

Saw this in Time, thought it was interesting.

Top 10 Donor Organizations, 1989-2010

1. AT&T--$44.2 million

2. American Federation of State, Country & Municipal Employees--$41.9 million

3. National Associaton of Realtors--$35.6 million

4. Goldman Sachs--$31.4 million

5. American Association for Justice (?? Tort lawyers?)--$31.4 million

6. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers--$31.4 million

7. National Education Association--$30.1 million

8. Laborers Union--$29.0 million

9. Service Employees International Union--$27.9 million

10. Carpenters & Joiners Union--$27.8 million

I Googled #5 and my guess was right.  Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

[jimmy olsen]

Why AT&T?

[Neil]

Why AT&T?

Buying protection from antitrust laws would be my guess.

[Fate]

I don't understand Goldman. Over the past decade they've given the lion share of their cash to Democrats (even when they're out of power). Yet one of the organization's major lobbying goals is the privatization of social security. Why don't they get in bed with the GOP?

[alfred russel]

The problem is that, at least from my experience with them, most investment bankers do not have much of an idea how the system works either. What they know is how to work the system to maximize the profits (read: their bonuses). That is why so many of them were genuinely stunned by the credit crunch (or in the words of one of the CEOs of the investment banks, testifying before the senate commission "We didn't know the housing prices will not raise indefinitely.")

I doubt anyone has a handle on how to meet consumer demand in NYC. Everyone does what they need to do to make some cash, and voila, you can get almost any product you want, when you want it.

[alfred russel]

I don't understand Goldman. Over the past decade they've given the lion share of their cash to Democrats (even when they're out of power). Yet one of the organization's major lobbying goals is the privatization of social security. Why don't they get in bed with the GOP?

If I wanted to be cynical, I'd ask why would you want to buy off a party that is ideologically committed to supporting you?

[Fate]

 

Indeed!