A dispatch from the Dodd-Frank wars in our nation's capital: Big banks seeking to roll back financial reform have returned to lawmakers' good graces -- not just Republicans, who opposed the regulatory bill in the first place, but many Democrats, too.
The New York Times reports that a bill recently approved by the House Financial Services Committee, despite opposition from the Treasury Department, "was essentially Citigroup's (C)":
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.)
Citigroup was the megabank that received the most taxpayer assistance during the financial crisis, a fact perhaps related to the very same lobbying practices now being used to rein in regulation: According to Reuters, a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2011 found that "The more aggressively a bank lobbied before the financial crisis, the worse its loans performed during the economic downturn -- and the more bailout dollars it received." Now, despite its former status as the basket case of Wall Street, Citigroup and its hired guns are welcome on Capitol Hill, weighing in on and even drafting bills -- like one the House committee signed off on earlier this month, exempting several classes of derivatives from a rule intended to prevent government insurance from backstopping risky trades.
In addition to crafting new legislation, bank lobbyists have for the last three years been targeting the regulatory entities tasked with figuring out how to implement the exiting law. The campaign against Dodd-Frank, in other words, is a pincer movement, coordinated and methodical. Its success so far is striking: Of the 398 rules the legislation requires, only 153 have been finalized, according to the Times.
Republicans, as mentioned, never liked Dodd-Frank, but House Democrats seem to have undergone a shift on the issue. While Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, opposed the change to derivatives regulation, most other Democrats on the committee supported it. One self-evident reason why: That committee is an obvious focus for Wall Street's political operations when it comes to campaign contributions. One of its members, and a magnet for bank money, was quite open about this to the Times, offering one of the more remarkable quotes by a denizen of Congress in recent memory:
"I won't dispute for one second the problems of a system that demands immense amount of fund-raisers by its legislators," said Representative Jim Himes, a third-term Democrat of Connecticut, who supported the recent industry-backed bills and leads the party's fund-raising efforts in the House. A member of the Financial Services Committee and a former banker at Goldman Sachs, he is one of the top recipients of Wall Street donations. "It's appalling, it's disgusting, it's wasteful and it opens the possibility of conflicts of interest and corruption. It's unfortunately the world we live in."
The Occupiers and the good governance advocates will have to find new rhetoric: fatalism aside, theirs has been appropriated by an embodiment of what they denounce.
Welcome to the Club, Tea Party: A Brief History of IRS Scandals
Will the Banks' Word Be Law? Wall Street Drafts Reform Rollback Bills
In 1924, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, one of the country's wealthiest men, was feuding with Sen. James Couzens (R-Mich.), said to be the richest member of Congress. Couzens wound up being sued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, precursor to the IRS, over a tax bill of between $10 million and $11 million on a sale of Ford Motor Co. (F) stock -- an amount approximately equivalent to $140 million today. The result was a power struggle between Congress and the administration of Calvin Coolidge, which led to the creation of the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation. The Washington Post dubbed the affair "the greatest tax suit in the history of the world."
Photo: President Calvin Coolidge (Left) and Sen. James Couzens (right in glasses).
Under the Kennedy administration, the IRS targeted right-wing political groups for audits; the stated purpose was to determine whether such groups were abusing their tax-exempt status, but the bias of the effort was obvious, despite superficial attempts to disguise it. "By the end of 1964 the Ideological Organizations Project had led to recommendation of the revocation of exempt status for 15 groups (14 of them right-wing)," reports John A. Andrew in The Other Side of the Sixties. "The IRS eventually approved four of the recommendations for continued action (3 right-wing groups), rejecting the rest or sending them back for further study." The project remained secret from the public until the Church Committee hearings in the mid-1970s.
I hope you're sitting down, because it turns out that the power of the IRS was abused under President Richard Nixon. In a reverse of the Ideological Organizations Project, a White House aide named Tom Charles Huston -- who had been president of Young Americans for Freedom, one of the groups on the Kennedy administration's radar -- suggested investigating left-wing groups with tax-exempt status, and Dick could dig it. Huston also proposed using electronic surveillance and burglary against left-wing "radicals" and antiwar types, so he was Nixon's kind of guy. (Amazingly, J. Edgar Hoover objected to Huston's proposals.) Nixon pressed for the creation of something called the Special Services Staff, the purpose of which was to use the IRS against his "enemies." Unlawful applications of IRS power were part of the articles of impeachment drafted against our uncrookiest president by the House of Representatives.
Worse than Watergate, but significantly less well-known, is a 15-year FBI program directed against domestic political groups deemed "subversive." It was called COINTELPRO, and the IRS was one of its tools of attack. Members of the New Left, black activists, antiwar figures and other dissidents were targeted for audits, and the IRS handed over 200 tax returns for investigatory purposes in a manner deemed illegal in 1968.
Photo:Fred Hampton, national spokesman for the Black Panther Party, who was killed by members of the Chicago Police Department, as part of a COINTELPRO operation.
In a 2001 paper titled "The Political Economy of the IRS," researchers reported that data for 33 IRS districts from 1992 to 1997 showed significantly lower audit rates in electorally important districts, as well as those represented by members of important congressional committees. "These findings suggest that the IRS is not a rogue government agency, but rather is an effective bureaucratic agent of its political sponsors," the authors note drily. "'Reforming' the IRS by subjecting it to an independent oversight board appointed by the president would therefore seem to be redundant."
After a guest preacher denounced George W. Bush's Iraq policy in a 2004 sermon delivered at All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif., the IRS began an inquiry into the congregation's tax-exempt status the following year. The church hired Marcus Owens, a former head of the IRS tax-exempt section, to represent it. Owens said the IRS's contention that the church had implicitly intervened in the election "seems ludicrous." The church was eventually able to keep its 501(c)3 status. "I'm very interested to know whether the IRS is taking a look only at churches that are critical of the war in Iraq, or also at the churches that are supportive of the war and the president," the rector told The Washington Post. IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson (pictured above) said, "There is absolutely no place for any politics in our consideration of these things."