Over and over again we've heard some variation of the old adage "so goes the financials, so goes the market" and the financials were obviously going down but how many, how far and who will go with them are all questions left unanswered. Did investors get too greedy? Did short sellers undermine the fundamentals of perfectly good investments? Did media professionals fail to investigate and report problems with the business models of these very lucrative businesses or was that failure self-preservation?
To answer the question of whether money from campaign contributions and lobbying could have contributed to the meltdown on Wall Street, you need only decide if politics affects Wall Street. If you think "yes," then the life of former lobbyist, Jack Abramoff supports the notion that no one is above suspicion when it comes to large amounts of cash or the always coveted box seats. In 2006, Abramoff pled guilty to various counts of corruption involving members of Congress and in September 2008 it was reported that he may be facing more time behind bars.1
The financial sector is the biggest source of campaign contributions to political candidates. Lobbyists are usually former elected politicians who are approached by special interests while they are in office. They are offered very lucrative contracts based on their knowledge and potential influence on those that still hold office. Because politicians were so honest before 2006, it was not until the passing of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 that lobbyists were required to file reports detailing their campaign contributions to lawmakers.
The Wall Street meltdown is partially blamed on the sub-prime housing "bubble." Even the complicated formulas for determining the valuations of housing have been called into question as a source for some blame. Since it is the role of government to provide safeguards and oversight of financial institutions, the buck still stops in Washington.
After the 1929 stock market crash, there were two important pieces of banking legislation that consumers relied on to keep their deposits safe and to provide nondiscriminatory credit opportunities. The Glass-Steagall Act (GSA) established a regulatory "firewall" between the commercial and investment banking institutions and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) required banks to provide services for lower-income customers in their service areas. In essence, the GSA protected consumers by limiting underwriting activities with consumer deposits.
The banking industry utilized lobbyists to chip away at and put pressure on politicians to "modernize" the banking industry by lifting some of those restrictions, claiming that the restrictions on their business models left them unable to compete in the worldwide markets. Legislation was reviewed and changed several times and in 1995, those changes included allowing sub-prime mortgages to be acquired, classified and offered as collateral for a third-party investment.
The partial repeal of the GSA took centuries to achieve and the legislation was eventually signed by Democratic President, "Bill" Clinton in 1999. With the repeal of the GSA, the lobbying efforts of the banking industry paid off big, but dismissing the all important law of gravity, "What goes up, must come down," revealed one important unanswered question with regard to the sub-prime housing market: "What happens to mortgage-backed securities if the housing values decline?"
In a recent interview when asked if he had any regrets about signing the bill that repealed the GSA, in light of the current market, Clinton states "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis."2 If consumer protection were not an issue, then the FDIC should have no claims and has no reason to lift its insured limits.
Several bailout proposals and scandals have erupted concerning the troubled housing market. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has found that over the course of their careers, Senate and House members that voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 received up to twice the amount of contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector than those with who had opposed the legislation.3,4 Even the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, found himself amidst controversey due to his involvement with sub-prime lenders.5
Both Barack Obama and John McCain have received 25 million plus dollars from the financial/insurance/real estate industry.6 History has proven that these businesses are in the game to make money whatever the cost to taxpayers. Recognizing that there may be some trouble ahead, you can believe that those kinds of figures are not given to candidates without expectation of return.
1. Article written by Eliza Krigman and published September 9, 2008 on the Center for Responsive Politics website at: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/abramoff-mor e-time-behind-bars.html.
2. From an interview dated September 24, 2008 entitled "President Clinton's Views: Bill Clinton on the Banking Crisis, McCain, and Hillary" by Maria Bartiromo published online at: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_40/b 4102000409948.htm.
3. Communications by the Center for Responsive Politics at:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/industries-s eeking-rescue-gave.html
4. Communications by the Center for Responsive Politics at:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/in-houses-fi nal-bailout-vote-m.html
5. Cond Nast Portfolio.com reported that Dodd and other top officials had refinanced mortgages through Countrywide Financial receiving very favorable terms their names were included on a "Friends of Angelo" list. Angelo R. Mozilo was the CEO of Countrywide.
6. Statistical information was extracted from the website for the Center for Responsive Politics at http://www.opensecrets.org