Via OccupyWallSt:

In the most damning piece of recent evidence that Occupy Wall Street was right that it's Wall Street who runs things, not the government, the NYTimes today reports that Citigroup lobbyists wrote several bills that recently passed the House Financial Services Committee:

Bank lobbyists are not leaving it to lawmakers to draft legislation that softens financial regulations. Instead, the lobbyists are helping to write it themselves.

One bill that sailed through the House Financial Services Committee this month — over the objections of the Treasury Department — was essentially Citigroup’s, according to e-mails reviewed by The New York Times. The bill would exempt broad swathes of trades from new regulation.

In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)" As we previously reported, on May 7th, nine deregulatory bills sailed through the House Financial Services Committee. We wrote about one of them, HR 992, and this particular bill garnered only SIX "nay" votes, out of SIXTY-ONE total representatives on the Committee.

This egregious bill, which is named "Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act", but it should be called, "If Banks Get Bailed Out, We'll Get Sold Out. Again," was written in large part by Citigroup. As the NTYimes reports:

"Citigroup and other major banks used a similar approach on another derivatives bill. Under Dodd-Frank, banks must push some derivatives trading into separate units that are not backed by the government’s insurance fund. The goal was to isolate this risky trading.

The provision exempted many derivatives from the requirement, but some Republicans proposed striking the so-called push out provision altogether. After objections were raised about the Republican plan, Citigroup lobbyists sent around the bank’s own compromise proposal that simply exempted a wider array of derivatives. That recommendation, put forth in late 2011, was largely part of the bill approved by the House committee on May 7 and is now pending before both the Senate and the House."

Citigroup was responsible for the death of Glass-Steagall, which led to the free-wheeling and casino-lifestyle that caused the 2008 Financial crisis. Citigroup mismanaged their firm and loaded up to the hilt with toxic mortgage products, requiring a massive taxpayer bailout. And if that weren't enough, they also received a total of $99.5 Billion in secret loans from the Federal Reserve after the crisis to avert their own ruin. And now, they're writing our laws to tear down even the paltry protections put in place post-crisis.

America: Brought to you by Citigroup.

Bill Moyers is joined by the heads of two independent watchdog groups keeping an eye on government as well as on powerful interests seeking to influence it. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics and OpenSecrets.org, and Danielle Brian, who runs the Project on Government Oversight, talk to Bill about the importance of transparency to our democracy, and their efforts to scrutinize who’s giving money, who’s receiving it, and most importantly, what’s expected in return.

Here's a snippet:

BILL MOYERS: The cliché is that you have to pay to play. What does that mean to the two of you?

SHEILA KRUMHOLZ: It means that organizations and mostly we’re talking about corporations, understand that Washington is often standing in the way of bigger profits for them. And so they see this as a perfectly legal, entirely common way for their companies to shape policy legislation, even regulation coming out of Washington that will ameliorate the damage and ultimately enhance their ability to turn a profit.

And so private interests if they are not successful in achieving their legislative agenda in Congress have other opportunities, many bites at the apple, to try to water down regulations that they see as onerous or to otherwise tweak laws as they are actually being implemented by the agencies.

Look at this headline: “After Aa Powerful Lobbyist Intervenes, EPA Reverses Stance on Polluting Texas County's Water.” That's a story from the news organizations ProPublica reporting that a big energy company wants permission from Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, for a large-scale mining project in Texas that would pollute a pristine supply of drinking water.

So the EPA says no, can't have it. The big company hires Heather Podesta who's a big time lobbyist, a big time fundraiser for Democrats who was married at the time to another big Washington Democratic fixer named Tony Podesta, who used to be president of the liberal organization People for the American Way.

Through their connections these two have become the king and queen of influence peddling. Lo and behold, some months after the industry hires Heather Podesta, EPA reverses itself and the company gets an exemption and is allowed to pollute the aquifer. To hell with the public health. This is routine, isn't it?

A full transcript of the show follows below the fold...

Continue reading »

ProPublica

Here's our latest explainer video, on the storied history of money in politics. Lyrics follow.

Act I: Brown Paper Bags

"I made my mistakes, but in all my years of public life, I have never profited [from public service]. I've earned every cent." (Richard Nixon)

"Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "I've earned every cent." (Richard Nixon) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "I don't like all the influence of money in politics." (Mitt Romney)

When people think of Watergate they think of a break-in But they don't mention the money that Nixon was taking From wealthy donors to help him get reelected Nixon paid them back in favors just like they expected

To battle corruption Congress passed a new law Capping contributions to a candidate's haul The source of the donations had to be disclosed too And the FEC was formed to enforce the new rules

Some who felt the law went against the Constitution sued Saying limits on money limited free speech too So the courts kept the cap on how much you can donate But said spending was unlimited by an outside group or candidate

That meant no more spending limits to promote a cause Or to point out a rival campaign's flaws So while candidates once snuck around with brown paper bags From then on they raised money publicly or left it to PACs

"Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "I've earned every cent." (Richard Nixon) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "I don't like all the influence of money in politics." (Mitt Romney)

Act II: Soft Money

"We should also curb the role of big money in elections by capping the cost of campaigns…" (Bill Clinton)

In the 80s and 90s, there was a new gimmick: "Soft money" that's disclosed but had no limits It's supposed to cover each party's expenses But guys like Clinton used it to help their election chances

There was just one problem, Clinton's party was broke So he asked for more money every time he spoke And in return for the 100 million dollar cash-in He let donors use the Lincoln Bedroom to crash in

Then the "scandal and reform" cycle happened again And legislation was proposed by Feingold and McCain It capped donations to parties, ending soft funds And banned corporate/union issue ads right before elections

But with each new reform comes new loopholes Tax exempt "527s" arose Because they weren't explicit about whom they supported Many still raised money without limits to thwart them

"Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "I've earned every cent." (Richard Nixon) "Money is speech." (Jeff Greenfield) "The more speech the better." (Antonin Scalia) "The rules are what they are…" (Jay Carney)

Act III: Super PACs and Non-Profits

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests." (Barack Obama)

But the most outside money was yet to be spent Some argued spending limits broke the first amendment "Corporations and unions are entitled to free speech" They took it to court, the Supreme Court agreed.

Super PACs can raise as much money as they want They can also use union and corporate funds The only rule is they cannot coordinate With a specific party or a specific candidate

But reform opponents weren't quite done yet They found new uses for 501(c)(4) non-profits Which are a lot like Super PACs with more mystery They haven't had to disclose donors ever in history

Whether Republican or Democrat you might believe That spending limits jeopardize our freedom of speech But with each new cycle of deregulation More money is being injected into our elections

Occupy LA was out in full force this past week to mark their one year anniversary.

The group gathered at Pershing Square in downtown Los Angeles. The square has become the center of the Occupy L.A. movement since protesters were ousted from the City Hall lawn.

Occupiers say they're protesting corporate control and what they call the social, economic and political injustices that continue to affect people's everyday lives.

Los Angeles police forcibly removed the protesters last winter from the City Hall lawn that they dubbed "Solidarity Park." Occupiers say the removal from City Hall did not stop their message. Protesters say it was the Occupy movement that finally brought light to the many injustices facing people in America. They say people who criticize the movement haven't been paying attention to the results.

In fact, occupiers in Los Angeles have stopped several fraudulent foreclosures from occurring, and they've applied pressure to multiple banks to stop charging fees for basic services.

Occupy LA also remains focused on what they call the criminalization of homelessness. They say corporate influences are pushing leaders to force out the city's massive homeless population for the sake of making a profit.

The group expressed concerned that most Americans still seem unwilling to address the real problems facing the U.S.

LAPD officers were on the scene during the entire peaceful demonstration. There were no reports of arrests or altercations.

By Justin Elliott, ProPublica

A dark money nonprofit group that has run more than $1 million in ads in the Ohio race for U.S. Senate told the IRS last year it did not plan to spend any money to influence elections when it applied for recognition of its tax-exempt status. 

ProPublica first reported on the group, the Government Integrity Fund, after information from television station political ad files became available online (see our Free the Files project), showing extensive spending by the Fund.

The group's filings with the IRS  illustrate how "social welfare" nonprofits, also known as 501(c)(4)s, are playing an aggressive role in this election, pouring tens of millions of dollars into races around the country, while taking advantage of the donor anonymity their tax status provides.

The Fund applied for IRS recognition last December and received the IRS' approval less than two months later.

Question 15 on the application asks, "Has the organization spent or does it plan to spend any money attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any person to any Federal, state, or local public office or to an office in a political organization?"

Much hinges on this: Under the tax code, social welfare nonprofits may not have political campaign activity as their primary purpose, though exactly what that means is a subject of much debate.

Fund chairman Tom Norris, who signed the Fund's application, checked the "No" box on Question 15.

In a statement to ProPublica, the Fund said that "legally, the concept of ‘influencing elections' has been narrowly defined" and that "throughout its existence, [the Fund] has regularly consulted with experienced tax counsel to ensure it is in full compliance with the federal tax laws." (See the full statement.) Norris, a Columbus lobbyist, did not respond to calls.

Ads paid for by the Fund, which ran through the summer, praised Republican Josh Mandel and attacked Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. One spot features Mandel telling a veterans group, "I think this campaign is all about the past versus the future." A voiceover chimes in: "Josh Mandel served our country with two tours in Iraq. Now he's fighting for taxpayers, fighting for our future."

There are several reasons groups may prefer answering "No" to Question 15. Those answering "Yes" are instructed to explain in detail and list the amounts to be spent, which can lead to scrutiny that slows down the IRS approval process, tax experts say.

"Checking yes is a yellow flag for the IRS, which likely would cause the IRS to refer the application to an agent for consideration and follow-up questions," said Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, an expert in nonprofit tax law at the University of Notre Dame law school. "There could be donors saying, ‘I'm not comfortable giving to you until I know you are a 501(c)(4) and my identity is protected. So I want that IRS [approval] letter.'"

The Fund's IRS application did provide other clues about its intentions. In one section of the form, the Fund said its budget for 2011 was $78,000. It then projected a budget of $6.7 million for 2012, an election year, before going back down to $50,000 for 2013, a nonelection year.

Mayer said the IRS typically wouldn't scrutinize a group's spending until it files a tax return — and in the case of the Fund, the return covering 2012 could be filed as late as November 2013. If the IRS found that the Fund was improperly taking advantage of its status as a social welfare group, it could impose a fine and make the group operate as a political organization that does have to report donors.

The group's application for IRS recognition was signed under penalty of perjury, but Mayer said it was rare for the agency to pursue charges against an applicant for lying.

The IRS did not respond to a request for comment.

The Fund's application for tax-exempt status also sheds a bit more light on who is running the group. It names four men as board members, including Norris. Another of the board members, Jeffrey L. Dean, referred questions to Jonathan Petrea, who was campaign manager and district director for Mandel when he ran for the state legislature.

Petrea told ProPublica he had no official role in the Fund, but helped Norris find potential board members.

"I was just doing a guy a favor by putting him in touch with people who might be interested," Petrea said.

Norris and the Mandel campaign did not respond to questions about Petrea's relationship to the Fund or the candidate.

Petrea was also previously Ohio grassroots director for Americans for Prosperity, a conservative 501(c)(4) backed by the Koch brothers, and has recently done work for Energy Citizens, a group advocating oil and gas development. 

The Fund's ads have been off the air since Sept. 6, according to the Brown campaign. (After that date, certain types of ad spending had to be reported to the Federal Election Commission.)

The group's attorney, William Todd, said he doesn't know about its plans "for future education efforts."

The Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation, restricts the ‘debates’ to the two corporate parties and the issues that they approve. The concerns of the people such as ending corporate influence over politics, ending militarization, and creating real jobs and access to health care and education will be discussed superficially or not at all.

How will you Occupy the Debates? You can do this in many ways and if you need them, we are here to provide resources to you.

Here are ways to get involved:

Take the online survey at OccupytheDebates.org.
Read about the issues.
Organize an event in your community.
Spread the word!

Occupy Denver has taken the lead on this and is organizing a variety of events around the first presidential debate to be held there October 3rd. Events include a People’s Forum with live entertainment and opportunities to share stories and a People’s Dialogue to discuss the top issues that are chosen in the survey. And Occupy NOLA is holding a People’s Convention on Octcober 27.

The results of the Occupy the Debates survey and events will be collected nationally and shared with presidential candidates for response and posted on the OccupytheDebates.org prior to Election Day.

Continue reading »

Via Occupy Seattle:

When – Mon, September 17, 6pm – 10pm
Where – Westlake 400 Pine (map)

Occupy changed the conversation.

It placed greed front and center in the public debate. In solidarity with #OWS and Occupy’s 1 year anniversary, let’s bring it back to it’s roots.

Join us. Sept. 17th at 6PM in Westlake Park.

“Right now, with every dollar we spend, we give corporations more and more influence over our politics. Over our healthcare, our government, our society, and our future. With every dollar we give them more and more influence over our daily lives.

We think this is wrong. Money isn’t speech. And it definitely shouldn’t be a corporate megaphone with which to corrupt our system of government, bribe our politicians, and buy special treatment.

Our actions as consumers continue to fuel this problem. Without change, we will continue to live in a system that forces us to sell our voices, and in effect to buy our own silence. We must take responsibility for the part we continue to play. We must change as much as we expect change.

We’ve been taught to sell out our own voices. We’ve been taught to be consumers rather than fully alive human beings. We’ve been taught to be silenced. And that that silence is the hidden price we must all pay for being consumers.

Buying their goods shouldn’t mean selling our voices. Buying their goods shouldn’t mean selling ourselves. We feel it’s time people started drawing attention to the silencing power of money as speech. As consumers, as voters, as citizens, as a society, as people, and as human beings, we can all agree, money shouldn’t talk.

Together let us reclaim our voices with silence.”

This is a silent flash march into the shopping areas of the downtown core. Once there, we will be silently walking / flooding into several actual shopping centers & stores. We’ll also be meeting up at certain times to regroup and hold brief 1/2 hour silent vigils.

Small printed versions of the above statement for you to hand out will also be available if someone wishes to engage you in positive dialog about this action or wants a more information about the action and you do not wish to break your silence.

• 6:00pm – Meet at Westlake park. Please bring a dollar bill with you. We’ll have some tape & spirit gum on hand. If you can bring some extra to share, even better.

• 6:30pm – Silent flash march begins. Details of the exact schedule and timings for the march to follow. We will also have small cheat-sheets available with a map and the times for the silent vigils.

In keeping with the message of the dollars tapped over our mouths, a silent flash march means remaining as quiet as possible. Please no chanting, singing, talking, drums, etc. We make our point by making eye contact with as many of the people we pass as possible and holding it just a little too long. For that reason also, please do not bring signs to hold or flags to wave. If you’re planning on entering shops, you might want to leave the Occupy labeled gear at home. It may tip off some businesses that have “banned” occupy gear and prevent you from moving freely.

Not only will our silence be a powerful statement, it will hopefully also be the key to our ability to enter those spaces that we might otherwise have to avoid.

Nearly 1,000 people marched through Charlotte's business district on Sunday, two days before the start of the Democratic National Convention in that city in protest of the influence of corporate money in politics. The crowd railed against the bailouts that big businesses received in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and carried signs that read, "Banks got bailed out. We got sold out." The marchers planned to pass by Bank of America's corporate headquarters and a Wells Fargo office. Many of the activists said they were there to protest other concerns like the government's inaction on climate change and the human rights abuses. At least two people were arrested, Charlotte police said.

One protester, 23-year-old Anna Marie Wright, was arrested for violating a law by wearing a mask, according to police. Wright was arrested at 2:25 p.m. At the time of the arrest, she had a knife, police said.

Chris Stevens, 32, was also arrested for disorderly conduct, assault on a government official and resisting arrest in the 200 block of South College street. Stevens was drunk, CMPD police chief Rodney Monroe told reporter Dianne Gallagher, and was not part of the March on Wall Street South.

Another protester was transported by Medic to a local hospital, according to The Charlotte Observer. Authorities have not said why the protester was taken to the hospital.

The protest march was peaceful, but plenty of police on hand, you know, "just in case."

Report: Wall Street Lobbying Efforts Reach $4.2 Billion Since 2006, Or $1,331 A Minute.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Sheldon Aldelson. Photo: Jerome Favre/Bloomberg

Inside the Investigation of Leading Republican Money Man Sheldon Adelson

by Matt Isaacs, Lowell Bergman and Stephen Engelberg

This story was co-published with PBS' "Frontline."

A decade ago gambling magnate and leading Republican donor Sheldon Adelson looked at a desolate spit of land in Macau and imagined a glittering strip of casinos, hotels and malls.

Where competitors saw obstacles, including Macau's hostility to outsiders and historic links to Chinese organized crime, Adelson envisaged a chance to make billions.

Adelson pushed his chips to the center of the table, keeping his nerve even as his company teetered on the brink of bankruptcy in late 2008.

The Macau bet paid off, propelling Adelson into the ranks of the mega-rich and underwriting his role as the largest Republican donor in the 2012 campaign, providing tens of millions of dollars to Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and other GOP causes.

Now, some of the methods Adelson used in Macau to save his company and help build a personal fortune estimated at $25 billion have come under expanding scrutiny by federal and Nevada investigators, according to people familiar with both inquiries.

Internal email and company documents, disclosed here for the first time, show that Adelson instructed a top executive to pay about $700,000 in legal fees to Leonel Alves, a Macau legislator whose firm was serving as an outside counsel to Las Vegas Sands.

The company's general counsel and an outside law firm warned that the arrangement could violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It is unknown whether Adelson was aware of these warnings. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bars American companies from paying foreign officials to "affect or influence any act or decision" for business gain.

Federal investigators are looking at whether the payments violate the statute because of Alves' government and political roles in Macau, people familiar with the inquiry said. Investigators were also said to be separately examining whether the company made any other payments to officials. An email by Alves to a senior company official, disclosed by the Wall Street Journal, quotes him as saying "someone high ranking in Beijing" had offered to resolve two vexing issues 2014 a lawsuit by a Taiwanese businessman and Las Vegas Sands' request for permission to sell luxury apartments in Macau. Another email from Alves said the problems could be solved for a payment of $300 million. There is no evidence the offer was accepted. Both issues remain unresolved.

Continue reading »