Mick Mulvaney to bankers: Give Republicans money and we'll gut consumer protections

[TheFlyingBoat 906]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/us/mulvaney-consumer-financial-protection-bureau.html?

Quote

WASHINGTON — Mick Mulvaney, the interim director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, told banking industry executives and lobbyists on Tuesday that they should increase their campaign donations to influence lawmakers, revealing that he would meet only with lobbyists who contributed to his campaign when he served in the House.

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, told 1,300 bankers and lobbyists at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington. “If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”

Mr. Mulvaney, who also runs the White House budget office, is a longtime critic of the Obama-era consumer bureau, including while serving in Congress. He was tapped by President Trump in November to temporarily run the bureau, in part because of his promise to sharply curtail its enforcement actions.

Since then, he has frozen all new investigations and slowed down existing inquiries by requiring career employees to produce detailed justifications for their work and by sharply restricting the bureau’s access to bank data, arguing that its investigations created unnecessary online security risks. And he has scaled back the agency’s efforts to go after payday lenders, auto lenders and other financial services companies accused of preying on vulnerable consumers.

But he wants Congress to go further and has urged it to wrest funding of the independent watchdog from the Federal Reserve, a move that would give lawmakers — and those with access to them — more influence on the bureau’s actions. On Tuesday, he implored the financial services industry to help support the legislative changes he has requested to diminish the bureau’s power by increasing campaign donations.

Mr. Mulvaney said that trying to sway legislators that way was one of the “fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy. And you have to continue to do it.”

“If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talked to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions,” said Mr. Mulvaney, who received nearly $63,000 from payday lenders for his congressional campaigns.

Asked about the comments, John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Mr. Mulvaney, said: “He was making the point that hearing from people back home is vital to our democratic process and the most important thing our representatives can do. It’s more important than lobbyists and it’s more important than money. In his remarks, Mr. Mulvaney also announced a series of moves intended to reduce the bureau’s power. The agency was championed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democratic of Massachusetts, and Richard Cordray, who served as the bureau’s director from its inception until last year.

Such moves include shutting off public access to the bureau’s online database of consumer complaints, which the agency had used to help guide its investigations and enforcement actions.

“I don’t see anything in here that says I have to run a Yelp for financial services sponsored by the federal government,” he said, suggesting the posting of suspected misdeeds by lenders was comparable to bad reviews on the popular online review site.

Mr. Mulvaney also said he would begin calling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by its official statutory name, the more obscure Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Administration officials said the rebranding was an attempt to diminish the agency’s public profile.

Mr. Mulvaney’s political appointees at the agency have asked The Associated Press, which sets the style standard for many publications and broadcasters, to change how it refers to the bureau.

“I’m trying to get in the habit of now saying the ‘B.C.F.P.’ It’s really, really hard to do that when you’ve said the C.F.P.B. for so long,” Mr. Mulvaney told the bankers.

The consumer bureau was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Law as a way to prevent banks and other financial companies from preying on vulnerable consumers. But the bureau has become a target of Republican lawmakers, who complain that it has unchecked power and is too aggressive in trying to punish financial firms.

 

[NoRagrets 1125]

Helping coal miners by letting them get f'd by sleazy lenders.

MAGA

Tired of winning

drain the swamp

[David Dennison 18652]

They aren't even pretending anymore.

[Anastasis 23393]

31 minutes ago, TheFlyingBoat said:

ohn Czwartacki, a spokesman for Mr. Mulvaney, said: “He was making the point that hearing from people back home is vital to our democratic process and the most important thing our representatives can do. It’s more important than lobbyists and it’s more important than money. 

[Jack Burton 35]

Both sides

[In10se 175]

Guess the nice lesson that 2008 gave us about what happens when you let these greedy fucks police themselves is easily erased by more piles of money. 

As with every other grave mistake this administration is making with regards to the country's financial wellbeing this will also end very badly. We have a day of financial reckoning coming. 

[Chad Fuck 17557]

Mulvaney needs to get fucked sideways with a rusty chainsaw.  

What an asshole.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

The reason he's saying this is because he can.  Not one voter among the 85% of Republicans who support Trump right now is going to stay home on election day, much less vote D, because of this, so why not be up front about it and get the cash? 

Parties are about serving wealthy donors while placating the voting masses.  The hard part is that the economic interests of the donors are often at odds with those of the masses, and the party usually has to throw some bones to the people.  But the GOP has figured out how to get its masses to openly vote against their own economic interests by exploiting their racial and cultural fears.   With a big assist from right-wing radio and FoxNews and the internet. History has proven time and time again that you don't need to actually implement economic solutions when you point the blame at groups of people and say that they're the problem. 

Not only does the GOP no longer need to throw out any bones to its voters, it can poke them in the eye and the response is "thank you sir, may I have another."  It's no wonder the rank-and-file have started projecting their cognitive dissonance with the "cuck" and "snowflake" stuff.  The GOP voter has been completely cucked by the guys Mulvaney is talking to.  And they love it because it perversely gives them a feeling of power over "the libs" to live vicariously through guys like Trump.  Like an aggy who thinks he's sticking it to Texas by being fodder for another SEC team's national championship. 

Add in a heavy dose of tribalism and the GOP has these voters on lock.  Pedophilia and rape wouldn't shake most Penn State and Baylor fans; the same things is at play with lifelong Republicans for whom their party is part of their identity.   That's how the Republican base gets led by the nose back and forth on policy.   Any doubt about whether they actually opposed Obama on policy grounds, like the deficit, should be laughably erased now.  Emoryoid and Swam are the poster boys for this style of "Go fetch!" politics.  They'll chase any issue on behalf of their owner and then drop it when they're told.

But the real MVPs for the GOP are the "independent" both-siders who normalize this situation and make it palatable to the swing voters who have handed the government to Republicans. Sure, the Trump administration is openly demanding bribes for policy, but Dems reward their donors too, so they're the same!    All sense of scale and relativity is lost by making the choice binary:  either a party or politician is perfect or not.  Since nobody can be perfect, everyone has to be the same, no matter what they do.  When the only categories are "criminal" or "not criminal", a serial killer and a petty thief are the same.  And that effect is supercharged by the right-wing fake news machine that generates phony scandals by the left in order to justify literally the exact same behavior, only for real, on the right. 

The situation only changes when the both-siders get some intellectual courage and start voting in shades of gray.   But that takes more thought than "they all suck!" so we'll probably need a real disaster to move them. 

[Newdoc 3429]

Is this the "draining the swamp" that we heard about?  I guess I misunderstood the meaning of "drain" and "swamp".

[Brisketexan 104559]

8 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

Is this the "draining the swamp" that we heard about?  I guess I misunderstood the meaning of "drain" and "swamp".

Well, being that those words translate into them telling you to "get" and "fucked," yeah, you had a misunderstanding.

[Anastasis 23393]

11 hours ago, Jack Burton said:

Both sides

Good point.

The influence of money on our politics is the cancer at our political core. 

 

Lobbyists: Money to Congress

     All cycles         201820162014201220102008200620042002200019981996199419921990      Summary     Top 20 Members     All Senators     All Members of the House     All Senate Candidates     All House Candidates 

Party Split:	Dems:  Repubs:  Others:  $6,105,470  $7,595,530  $42,942
All Candidates:	$13,743,942
Incumbents Only:	$12,589,694

House	# of Members	Average Contribution	Total Contributions
The US House of Representatives has 435 members and 5 non-voting delegates.  Totals may exceed 440 due to mid-term replacements.
Democrats	183	$10,947	$2,003,398
Republicans	234	$22,185	$5,191,380
Independents	0	$0	$0
TOTAL	417	$17,254	$7,194,778

Senate	# of Members	Average Contribution	Total Contributions
The US Senate has 100 members.  Totals may exceed 100 due to mid-term replacements.
Democrats	46	$74,240	$3,415,040
Republicans	48	$40,280	$1,933,484
Independents	2	$20,121	$40,242
TOTAL	96	$56,133	$5,388,766

Industries in this Sector:                       Lawyers/Law Firms                                     Lobbyists                  Pick another Sector: Agribusiness Communications/Electronics Construction Defense Energy/Natural Resources Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Health Lawyers & Lobbyists Transportation Misc Business Labor Ideology/Single-Issue Other            Search for an industry:

 

The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.

All donations took place during the 2017-2018 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, April 16, 2018.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info@crp.org

[babysdaddy 2718]

that's really interesting.  Clearly a better chance for Ds to flip the House vs. Senate yet they're donating much more money to Senate. Both impeachment process and revenue raising process starts in House yet still they are focused on raising money in the Senate.  

[joe dillon 11]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Good point.

The influence of money on our politics is the cancer at our political core. 

 

Lobbyists: Money to Congress

     All cycles         201820162014201220102008200620042002200019981996199419921990      Summary     Top 20 Members     All Senators     All Members of the House     All Senate Candidates     All House Candidates 

Party Split:	Dems:  Repubs:  Others:  $6,105,470  $7,595,530  $42,942
All Candidates:	$13,743,942
Incumbents Only:	$12,589,694

House	# of Members	Average Contribution	Total Contributions
The US House of Representatives has 435 members and 5 non-voting delegates.  Totals may exceed 440 due to mid-term replacements.
Democrats	183	$10,947	$2,003,398
Republicans	234	$22,185	$5,191,380
Independents	0	$0	$0
TOTAL	417	$17,254	$7,194,778

Senate	# of Members	Average Contribution	Total Contributions
The US Senate has 100 members.  Totals may exceed 100 due to mid-term replacements.
Democrats	46	$74,240	$3,415,040
Republicans	48	$40,280	$1,933,484
Independents	2	$20,121	$40,242
TOTAL	96	$56,133	$5,388,766

Industries in this Sector:                       Lawyers/Law Firms                                     Lobbyists                  Pick another Sector: Agribusiness Communications/Electronics Construction Defense Energy/Natural Resources Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Health Lawyers & Lobbyists Transportation Misc Business Labor Ideology/Single-Issue Other            Search for an industry:

 

The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.

All donations took place during the 2017-2018 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, April 16, 2018.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info@crp.org

whata load of stats !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  200.00 limit  ????????????//

[Anastasis 23393]

14 minutes ago, joe dillon said:

whata load of stats !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  200.00 limit  ????????????//

[wildcat09 29225]

49 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

that's really interesting.  Clearly a better chance for Ds to flip the House vs. Senate yet they're donating much more money to Senate. Both impeachment process and revenue raising process starts in House yet still they are focused on raising money in the Senate.  

Reps are easier to buy than senators.

[Bateshorn 9898]

$200 limit is the reporting threshold.  As long as I don't exceed that as a registered lobbyist, I don't have to report it.

[RomaVicta 29775]

2 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

Not only does the GOP no longer need to throw out any bones to its voters, it can poke them in the eye and the response is "thank you sir, may I have another."  It's no wonder the rank-and-file have started projecting their cognitive dissonance with the "cuck" and "snowflake" stuff.  The GOP voter has been completely cucked by the guys Mulvaney is talking to.  And they love it because it perversely gives them a feeling of power over "the libs" to live vicariously through guys like Trump.  Like an aggy who thinks he's sticking it to Texas by being fodder for another SEC team's national championship. 

Great post.

The ruling GOP's relationship with their base is the sad-masochistic equivalent of A&M playing the gimp to Alabama's Zed.

[High Plains Drifter 10970]

Lawdogs and political junkies,

Is that not an admission to a crime?

[wildcat09 29225]

6 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Lawdogs and political junkies,

Is that not an admission to a crime?

Maybe before Citizens United. Now so long as there isn't an express agreement to exchange money for a specific political favor (e.g. "to vote yes on Bill X") it's perfectly legal. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19146]

11 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Lawdogs and political junkies,

Is that not an admission to a crime?

You got a problem with legalized bribery, errrrr “free speech”?

[FWD 297]

How far back do you have to go to find an administration this corrupt? Harding?

[David Dennison 18652]

3 minutes ago, FWD said:

How far back do you have to go to find an administration this corrupt? Harding?

We need a Department of Irony for this administration.

[Brisketexan 104559]

52 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Maybe before Citizens United. Now so long as there isn't an express agreement to exchange money for a specific political favor (e.g. "to vote yes on Bill X") it's perfectly legal. 

Correct.  What it amounted to was NOT saying "donate money to me, and I'll vote your way."  What he said was "donate money to me, and I won't even LISTEN to your ideological opponents....unless they donate money, too."

[Ragnarok 103]

Well, it's unusual for a Congressman to speak the obvious truth so plainly, but this shouldn't surprise anybody. It's the way both parties operate.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I seem to remember someone being persecuted for not releasing her speeches to Goldman Sachs.

Then the Russians released them and there turned out to be jack shit in them about pay for play.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[AUinHsv 576]

3 hours ago, FWD said:

How far back do you have to go to find an administration this corrupt? Harding?

Research Nixon - especially the last days before a form of donation reporting became required. IIRC they had safes full of cash just lying around. Separate from that they had criminals operating break ins from offices in the White House

[David Dennison 18652]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Good point.

The influence of money on our politics is the cancer at our political core. 

 

Lobbyists: Money to Congress

     All cycles         201820162014201220102008200620042002200019981996199419921990      Summary     Top 20 Members     All Senators     All Members of the House     All Senate Candidates     All House Candidates 

Party Split:	Dems:  Repubs:  Others:  $6,105,470  $7,595,530  $42,942
All Candidates:	$13,743,942
Incumbents Only:	$12,589,694

House	# of Members	Average Contribution	Total Contributions
The US House of Representatives has 435 members and 5 non-voting delegates.  Totals may exceed 440 due to mid-term replacements.
Democrats	183	$10,947	$2,003,398
Republicans	234	$22,185	$5,191,380
Independents	0	$0	$0
TOTAL	417	$17,254	$7,194,778

Senate	# of Members	Average Contribution	Total Contributions
The US Senate has 100 members.  Totals may exceed 100 due to mid-term replacements.
Democrats	46	$74,240	$3,415,040
Republicans	48	$40,280	$1,933,484
Independents	2	$20,121	$40,242
TOTAL	96	$56,133	$5,388,766

Industries in this Sector:                       Lawyers/Law Firms                                     Lobbyists                  Pick another Sector: Agribusiness Communications/Electronics Construction Defense Energy/Natural Resources Finance/Insurance/Real Estate Health Lawyers & Lobbyists Transportation Misc Business Labor Ideology/Single-Issue Other            Search for an industry:

 

The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.

All donations took place during the 2017-2018 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, April 16, 2018.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info@crp.org

Thanks a lot, SCOTUS.

[NIUHuskies 504]

8 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

that's really interesting.  Clearly a better chance for Ds to flip the House vs. Senate yet they're donating much more money to Senate. Both impeachment process and revenue raising process starts in House yet still they are focused on raising money in the Senate.  

Senate races cost way more..

[WhatTheBuck 28705]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Thanks a lot, SCOTUS.

Too bad there's no Hell for Scalia to burn in. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Thanks a lot, SCOTUS.

Both sides!  (Just don't pay attention to who appointed the justices). 

[TwiceHorn 31263]

Not defending Citizens United, but there was no law on the books prior to it that would have prevented what Mulvaney is talking about.  The law it invalidated was pretty narrow and pertained to spending on electioneering ads 60 days prior to a general election and 30 days prior to primaries.

Of course, Citizens United essentially made it impossible to impose limits on corporate campaign spending, so it aint getting better.  But Citizens United didn't have that drastic an effect on the status quo ante, which was  and remains a complete shit show.

But of course the Catch-22 in all of it is that Citizens United rendered unconstitutional laws that those dirtfucks (yes, both sides!) would never pass anyway.

Edited April 25, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[XYZ 2154]

21 hours ago, David Dennison said:

They aren't even pretending anymore.

I started paying attention to this lack of even attempting to pretend that their purpose is to govern when the fucking Bush admin (aka the Cheney admin) gave Halliburton a billion dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. Another data point was not only the refusal to prosecute the banksters after the financial debacle of 2007-8, but to bail them out!