According to the NYTimes: Mick Mulvaney, former Congressman (R.-SC), current head of the WH budget office, and interim head of the Consumer (unraveling) Financial Protection Bureau "... told banking
industry executives on Tuesday that they should press lawmakers hard to
pursue their agenda, and revealed that, as a congressman, he would meet
with lobbyists only if they had contributed to his campaign.
“We
had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” Mr. Mulvaney, a former
Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, told 1,300 bankers and lending
industry officials 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.”
Did that "I might talk to you," have a minimum price?
John Cassidy at The New Yorker: Among other favors Mulvaney is planning on doing for capitalism is: "restricting public access the bureau’s database of consumer complaints."
John Cassidy at The New Yorker: Among other favors Mulvaney is planning on doing for capitalism is: "restricting public access the bureau’s database of consumer complaints."
Another baby car seat scandal on the horizon? Or maybe lead in toddlers' toys. What will it be, I wonder.
AND....Mulvaney's "grandparents were originally from County Mayo, Ireland. He attended Charlotte Catholic High School and then Georgetown University, where he majored in international economics, commerce and finance. At Georgetown, he was an Honors Scholar." Would love to see the class notes from "international economics, commerce, and finance." How to squeeze the piggy banks? Lobbyists you can love?
AND....Mulvaney's "grandparents were originally from County Mayo, Ireland. He attended Charlotte Catholic High School and then Georgetown University, where he majored in international economics, commerce and finance. At Georgetown, he was an Honors Scholar." Would love to see the class notes from "international economics, commerce, and finance." How to squeeze the piggy banks? Lobbyists you can love?
One of the few campaign promises Trump made that I actually supported was his pledge to "end" lobbying. As someone who has lived in the DC area for decades, knowing many lobbyists personally as well as many Hill and federal agency staffers etc, I would have happily supported efforts to end the influence of lobbies and their money on our legislation.
ReplyDeleteSo, one of the first things Trump/WH staff did after moving into the White House was get rid of the online daily record of visitors to the White House so that the public (and press, I assume) would no longer know which rich lobbyists and CEOs and other big money types were lobbying WH staff. I don't know that the Hill has or had a similar public record of lobbyist visits. I suspect not. Many of these big money lobbies now have former staff working as WH and agency staff. Most retired Congress persons join a lobbying outfit after leaving the Hill - often disguised as law firms.
John Cassidy at the New Yorker adds to the lobby story, this about what a good investment campaign contributions can be:
ReplyDelete"Since the banking sector plunged into huge losses after the subprime-mortgage implosion, and the taxpayers bailed it out, its revenues and profits have been steadily recovering. And now, thanks to another assist from Mulvaney and his Republican colleagues, they are at record, or near record, levels.
"In recent weeks, the Big Six banks—Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo—have reported their financial results for first three months of 2018. According to a report from the Associated Press, the passage of the Republican tax bill saved them a combined total of $3.6 billion dollars in tax payments during the first quarter and boosted their net profits by an equivalent amount.....
"For a long time now, the FIRE sector, which includes the finance, insurance, and real-estate industries, has been a major source of political contributions. In the 2016 electoral cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org, a public interest watchdog, its denizens donated more than six hundred million dollars to both major parties, with about fifty-four per cent of that total going to Republicans. In the 2018 cycle, so far, people in these industries have donated $203.1 million, of which 57.3 per cent has gone to G.O.P. causes and candidates."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry! Cassidy link above in the post.
DeleteIn a series of cases culminating in Chief Justice Roberts's childlike (but unanimous) decision in McDonnell v. United States, your leading jurists have virtually established that no bribery is ever committed absent a legal notice posted by both sides at least 10 days in advance that a bribe will be offered and taken. Robert McDonnell was governor of Virginia. He and his wife got a lot of goodies from a CEO, about $175,000 in gifts and loans. The governor arranged meetings with state officials for the CEO, whose company makes nutritional supplements. He also hosted an event at the governor's mansion where the company, its CEO and its product could be "introduced" to state officials.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Roberts brightly noted that at no point did the lobbyist say, "I'll give you a Rolex if you'll call off the inspectors at my factory," to which the governor replied, "Done. I will make the phone call now." Never happened, and so there was no bribery.
The governor did get the Rolex. And the rest of the stuff.
I don't know who Roberts's law professors were, but he seems to have been most influenced by the scene in "The Producers" when Zero Mostel rushes up to the New York Times theater critic and thrusts money into his hands. "What's this?" asks the startled critic. "It's a bribe, you fool," replies Mostel. Nobody told McDonnell, "The Rolex is a bribe, you fool," ergo: It wasn't.
As a result of which people like Mulvaney and Pruitt are legally justified in hanging signs outside their government offices saying "Open for Bu$ine$$."
Looks lke Mulvaney may be cutting the Zero Mostel/John Roberts standard pretty close..."Give me enuf money, and I'll talk to you."
ReplyDeleteI hope it's not a sin to not talk to lobbyists. If a congressman doesn't talk to average citizens because he only talks to donors, that sounds like an issue. If he only talks to lobbyists who donate rather than lobbyists who don't donate, I'm not sure that scenario is morally equivalent to the average-citizen scenario. Lobbyists may not even be his constituents. What does he morally owe lobbyists?
ReplyDelete"What does he morally owe lobbyists?" Haven't the foggiest that he owes them anything. What's your take?
ReplyDeleteI took it for a gaffe at first. Then thinking about it some more, I'm not sure to what degree it's a gaffe.
DeleteCongressmen spend as much or more time raising money as making laws. They have to run for re-election every two years, and two years is just about the lifespan of a political campaign these days. Sucks but it's the system we have and doesn't seem likely to change. One way to raise money is to spend time with lobbyist donors whose policy and ideological interests run with the congressman. I imagine those lobbyists are one important category among several of people who fund congressional campaigns (others being rich constituents and bundlers, I guess).
Probably I'm being naive, but I don't think most congressmen discover their principles via shady conversations with lobbyists waving a bushel of cash under their noses. I doubt the NRA is going to persuade a congressman who ran on a gun-control platform to change his tune. Rather, the NRA helps congressmen who are likely to already agree with it, to win by funding his campaign.
Given that system, it would follow quite naturally that lobbyists whose interests don't run with the congressman and aren't likely to give him money, aren't going to get much of his time. As I mentioned, it's not clear to me that they're entitled to any of his time, any more than the telemarketer trying to cold-call me on my landline to sell me a home security system is entitled to any of my time.
One of Cassidy's points seems to be that Mulvaney is apt to say the things that are thought to be better left unsaid so as to maintain polite (and dysfunctional?) fictions.
"As I mentioned, it's not clear to me that they're entitled to any of his time, any more than the telemarketer trying to cold-call me on my landline to sell me a home security system is entitled to any of my time."
DeleteWell, maybe if the home security system salesman contributed $10,000 for my trip to the Galapagos...
Jim Pauwel's remarks on this topic are very hard to square with the notion of the role of members of Congress. They are to represent all of the people in the territory from which they have been elected. One sign of this understanding of representation is the existence of the field offices in their congressional districts. Another is the existence of staff members who are to provide constituent services.
ReplyDeleteAre generally, if elections are to be constructive for the body politic, then there ought to be reason for backers of losing candidates to believe that their voices will be given a respectful hearing by their congressman or congresswoman for the full duration of his or her term in office, especially when the issues at stake are contentious.
Mp democratic government will function well when we have a Congress that espouses a "winner-takes-all"view of election outcomes. Evidence in the U. S. Congress for this claim is in plain view today and has been for some time.
Bernard, I don't disagree with your description of a representative's duties; if they are more the ideal than the reality, it is still an ideal that we should wish our representatives to pursue.
DeleteThe distinction I'm seeking to make in these comments is between constituents and lobbyists. I'm arguing that a representative's responsibility and duty is much higher to the former than the latter. I don't think the representative owes lobbyists anything, not even any face time. That's why I'm asking, Was that really a gaffe?
When I first heard Mulvaney's words, I interpreted them to mean that he only talks to people who give him money. But that's not precisely what he said. Or so it seems to me.
Lordy, Lordy folks: exactly WHY is anyone surprised about this kind of behavior in Trumplethinskintinyhandserialadulter's Klavern Kabinet? I'm serious: why? And the fact that Mulvaney is a Catholic and a Jebbie grad ...... snore.
ReplyDeleteThere was a story once about the man that emigrated to Israel. A friend visited him there and asked what he best liked about it. The reply: it's nice to be able to be a Jewish failure or a Jewish street sweeper if you want.
Catholics can now frequently acknowledge that being baptized in Holy Mother Church and educated therein gives one the freedom to be a complete shit if you want.
Surprised...No.
ReplyDeleteBut not yet cynical enough to think it is not worth discussing.