Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The administration's FinReg scorecard

As I mention in Wonkbook, my colleague Brady Dennis has a great story this morning limning lobbyist concerns that financial regulation is turning against them. He quotes Sam Geduldig, a financial lobbyist and former Republican staffer, saying, "You've got an environment, six months before an election, where politicians are acting like politicians They are viewing any vote as a potential campaign ad. And that might not be good for any of us."

The White House is pressing its perceived advantage. Dan Pfeiffer wrote a blog post this morning called "The 10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes," where he gets very specific on what the White House wants -- and doesn't want -- out of the amendment process. The White House doesn't usually make such concrete demands, in part because when you give the media metrics to use to judge whether you won or lost, it's harder to spin a loss.

As for the demands themselves, they're pretty good. For instance, Pfeiffer advises us to watch for efforts to fight exchange-trading for derivatives. "The big derivatives dealers make big profits by charging end-users extra spreads and hidden fees," he writes, "and they don’t want that to change." Pfeiffer also notes that there will be efforts "to make the resolution process so unwieldy that it can never work" (though I think you could say that about the bill as currently written) and "to take away the [consumer protection] bureau’s source of funds." It's worth reading the whole thing to see what the White House is fighting for.

It's also worth reading the whole thing to see what didn't make the cut. The big omission from the list of demands: the Volcker rule, which the president announced with Paul Volcker at his side but which the White House has seemed considerably cooler toward in recent weeks.

By Ezra Klein  |  May 4, 2010; 9:04 AM ET
Categories:  Financial Regulation  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wonkbook: Lobbyists feel FinReg going against them; Americans support racial profiling of Hispanics; Obama's corporate balancing act
Next: Looking for the FinReg amendments?


Jeez, I wish people could EngSpeak. Allow me:

FinReg AdminScor

EzKlei WonkBook, colleague BradDen LobLim FinReg AgainTur. SamQuot, FinLob and RepStaf: "ElectSix, politicians ActPol. ViewVot CampAd. NotB GoodUs."

WhitHou pressing PercAd. DanPfei BlogRot "10 MostWan LobLoops." where he SpecGets on what the WhitHou WantsNot out of the AmenProc. WhitHous UseNot ConDems, because when you give MedMet to judge WonLos, it's harder to SpinLos.

As for DemSelvs, PretGod. DanPfei advises WatEf to fight derivative ExTrad. "Big DrivDeals mkae BigProfs by charging NUse ExSprds and HidFees, and want NotCha. DanPfei notes there will also be efforts "to make ResProc UnWie WorkNot" (though SameSay CurBill) and "to take away ConProt FundBur." WorRed ThingHole WatSee WhitHou FitFor.

Also WorRed ThingHole WatSee didn't CutMak. The BigOm from DemLis: VolRul, which PresAnn with PolVol SidAt but which WhitHou seemed ConCool RecWee.

-- EzKlei

Posted by: pj_camp | May 4, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

So basically FinReg is going to become the same sort of sop to special financial interests that got us into this mess in the first place?

Awesome! Those are some smart folks in D.C. They know what side their bread is buttered on, at least.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | May 4, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Well I read Brady Dennis' strory, and I can't say I would call that a "great story" by any strecth of the imagination.

"Among the terms that lobbyists used to describe elements of the legislation: "Draconian." "Crazy." "Insanely unproductive."

Well what the heck are the elements so we can have some debate about them? Just posting annonymous adjectives does not qualify as great reporting. I got nothing out of that at all.

Posted by: truth5 | May 4, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company