Bailouts and political connections go hand in hand according to a just released academic study. The study, which was conducted by the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan researchers, shows concretely that lobbying, campaign contributions, and the finance/federal government revolving door has helped the most damaging banks despite the dangers they pose to our economy.
In the age of the bailout, blaming the revolving door between corporate lobbying and politics is so obvious that it has become almost cliche. But the reason why it is one of the greatest handicaps to our political system is critically important. The revolving door turns "survival of the fittest" on its head by masking failure, propping up underperforming companies, and hiding inefficiencies in the markets. The new study shows the extent to which political connections influenced how TARP bailout funds were paid out.
But the research hits just the tip of the iceberg. Zach Carter at The Nation recently reported on a much deeper case of how the revolving door shapes U.S. policy. Our" major conflict of interest with the banks he is supposed to regulate, Carter reports. John Dugan is now chief regulator of the largest US banks at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. In one of his former positions at the Treasury, he was a chief architect of the three most influential pillars of banking deregulation that have been blamed for causing the financial meltdown last year (hat tip The Big Picture). In 1991, Dugan published a 750-page book where he successfully pushed for policies allowing banks to operate in multiple states without additional regulatory oversight, to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act allowing safe commercial banks to merge with risky investment and insurance companies, and to allow corporations like General Electric and Sears to own banks.
"[Dugan's book] was unquestionably the blueprint for the major Clinton-era deregulation," says Arthur Wilmarth Jr., a longtime banking scholar at George Washington University Law School. "It was the first real recipe for too big to fail."
A few years after publishing his book, Dugan was out of government and in a new job as a lobbyist with the American Bankers Association working his political connections to help pass the financial deregulatations he described in his book. From his earlier years in government, he had enough pals in Congress and the Clinton administration to get many of his policies enacted. Now he’s back playing the game from the government side as one of the country’s chief regulators. Same guy, same mind, same mission; just working from the inside at the moment. Indeed, "as head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Dugan played a leading role in gutting the consumer protection system, allowing big banks to take outrageous risks on the predatory mortgages that led to millions of foreclosures," Carter reports.
The revolving door actively hurts our economy because it puts our country on a path of survival of the richest, most connected lobbyists with cover-ups of market inefficiencies and bad consumer products. Dugan helped dangerous-for-the-consumer, highly-profitable-for-the-bank consumer products pop up throughout the 90′s as subprime and adjusted rate loans. The Ross researchers agree that "the effects of political ties on federal capital investment are strongest for companies with weaker fundamentals, lower liquidity and poorer performance — which suggests that political ties shift capital allocation towards underperforming institutions." When money determines political power, the political system itself encourages corporations to put profit and lobbying above developing consumer products people actually need.
Dugan’s role in aiding the creation of too-big-to-fail banks was born out of industry. Because Dugan has a highly influential political position, his weaving of politics and private interests which has spanned a career is problematic: "Over the course of nearly a quarter-century, Dugan has proved himself a staunch ally of the American financial elite as a Senate staffer (1985-89), a Treasury official (1989-93) and a lobbyist (1993-2005), building a career that culminated in 2005 when George W. Bush appointed him comptroller of the currency. When the financial system finally succumbed to its own excesses in September 2008, Dugan’s fingerprints were all over the economic wreckage, but almost nobody noticed." Dugan’s work is exemplary of the phenomena of policy being determined by webs of influence.
To be fair, lobbying presents opportunities for busy politicians to learn about issues. But, unfortunately the weaving of long tentacles in private and public sectors is a prerequisite to effective lobbying. Last week in DC, I met young career politicos who saw Capitol Hill jobs as a first stop on the road to high-paying lobbying jobs later on. Their political connections are golden resume nuggets. This complicated climb to the top is bearing down on policies we see today – President Obama made a campaign promise to keep out the lobbyists in his administration and failed, but the disheartening part is the bottom to top entrenchment of Citigroup executives and lobbyists and their work on financial reform policy.
At its inception, corporations were allowed to exist when they served the public’s interest; the Supreme court ended that in the 1800-1900′s . No longer bound by public duty, shareholders’ returns have become a singular goal in the free market and politics race to the top - Congress seems to have understood less and less the impact these policies have on the economy at large. The money and secret inner circle of influence in DC is unfair because it creates a snowball effect of making the powerful more powerful and policy less about policy. Thus lobbying and its powerful cousin, the revolving door serve to prop up companies that may be weak or have bad products, leading to an economy that is more likely than not to become fractured or in other words, too big to fail.



18 Comments




Thanks so much Tiffiniy, this is great.
For those who don’t know, Tiffiniy is one of the main organizers behind A New Way Forward, a group that has been doing really solid work fighting the banks:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090420/wiretap3
She’s young, really smart, and very much worth supporting.
Recommended; spells out one of the basic problems facing the dreams of the founders.
“To be fair, lobbying presents opportunities for busy politicians to learn about issues. “; yes, to a certain extent but they do have funded staffs that are supposed to be researching issues for them. And they do have a responsibility to learn about issues themselves,rather than have someone tell them what to think/do.
And when there is the situation where there are 4 lobbyists for each congress critter on just one issue, the situation reflects insanity.
And just what are the ‘busy’ politicians doing? Well, soliciting funds for re-election, NOT learning about issues.
Two basic themes are the ‘foundation’ for this travesty of representation; that money equals free speech and that corporations have the same rights as a living,breathing person.
And we all are still waiting for the SCOTUS ruling (wonder why it’s been delayed?) regards the ‘Citizen’s United’ case.
Great post. Delaware Senator Tom Carper had a COS who went directly into lobbying once the DEMs took control in 2006. I remember Carper bragging ‘now it’s our turn’. The DLC Third Way money grubbing SOBs…
As Tom Carper’s staffer, Jonathon Jones ‘hatched’ the K Street outreach Monday morning meetings and was hired by a (natch) GOP-related Lobby firm whose web site brags: Politico, K Street Gets a Hill Democrat With a Business Bent -March 28, 2007 “For years, J. Jonathon Jones operated behind the scenes in the Senate as the business community’s go-to Democrat. Now, he’s arguing the case for business in a Senate controlled by Democrats, including his old boss, Tom Carper (Del.). The key to Jones’s success on the outside is his close relationship with Carper and his knowledge of which Democrats are inclined to support business interests.”
And just this year, ~
Then, on September 25 2009, insurer WellPoint hired Jones’ firm to lobby in the issue areas of health care, insurance, and Medicare/Medicaid, according to the lobbying registration filed last week, which lists the anticipated “specific lobbying issues” as “Healthcare reform legislation, specifically proposals affecting health insurance providers.”
Jones’ other health-sector clients include drugmakers Astra-Zeneca and Amgen, the trade groups Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Industry Organization, as well as the American Insurance Association.
In his brief 22 months as a lobbyist, Jones has given $46,800 to Democrats, including White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Jones has also given to Majority Leader Harry Reid, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, health-care waffler Evan Bayh, as well as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/11/18/tom-carpers-chief-of-staff-now-lobbies-for-wellpoint/
Welcome – recommended
Thanks a lot — it was good to get down in writing. It’s hard to break through the cliche and understand more deeply how lobbying changes the whole game. Looking forward to other thoughts too.
Yes, welcome.
Tiffiniy, thanks for this! Hope you come back often.
The Dems. are crooks no better then the Gopers. Throw the bums out all of them. Nobody speaks for us anymore. They should take down the Stars and Stripes over the Capitol and put up the Jolly Roger. The country is wholly owned now by the Fortune 500.
Thanks for this post and I like this idea of the Jolly Roger because it accords so well with the view of our current government as a kleptocracy.
Understanding who Dugan is important. We need to know who the players are and their historis to have a real grasp of how deep the rot goes.
This post is absolutely outstanding and I hope that you continue in this vein.
I don’t have any data or inside knowledge, just a ‘gut’ sense that people are starting to wonder why, if companies like Citigroup are so almighty efficient, they need to spend so much time lobbying.
I think that people don’t fully grasp the relationship that you describe:
I think that people need examples and ‘stories’ of why this is true; they feel it in their guts, but until the Wall Street meltdown they didn’t have specific companies or examples. In the 1980s, 90s, and up to about 2006 the private sector was so lionized that corporations were almost viewed as sacrosanct. But as fewer and fewer people work for corporations (at least, in the US), the luster has worn off, and Sept 2008 was tarnish that won’t soon fade.
On one point, I disagree a bit:
IMVHO, this is the corporate line of bullshit that too many people buy into; however, it is no longer true and it has not been true for at least 20 years now.
The most brilliant analysis and explanation of this that I have ever encountered is Nomi Prins’ “Other People’s Money”, where she breaks down how much money managers have extracted from corporations (which should have been putting that money into shareholder dividends or R&I). Her information is extremely well documented.
I’d argue that if the shareholders are actually the owners of a company, the managerial class has been looting the companies in a very big way. Worse still, the hedge funds and banksters have been buying up companies and loading them with debt obligations too heavy to bear (see newspaper industry, just for starters…). So the people charged with protecting the investments of the owners (shareholders) have been looting the corporate carcasses, using all manner of accounting methods to make it all appear legit.
For a briefer, less-well-documented (but clearly ‘first person’) explication of the phenomena that Prins’ explains, the best thing that I have ever read on the topic is Howie Klein’s brilliant post: “Who’s Going to Save Capitalism This Time?” Here’s a bit that I would argue helps explain why too many corporations have gone rotten:
Here is another of Howie’s early posts on capitalism, greed, and systemic failure that results from those who ‘invest’ in willing politicos (see Bush I, Bush II) to design systems (see Enron) tailor made for extracting the wealth of Americans and siphoning it offshore.
I think you’re mining a very, very rich lode and one that needs better examination. I don’t trust Congress (certainly not Barney Frank) to make the changes to corporate governance that it’s clear are badly needed at this point. The GOP are economic zombies, as near as I can tell.
The old Main Street Republicans that I grew up among no longer exist, because the economic model they represented was eradicated by the Texas-spawned Enron model of buying politicians in order to convert public property (utilities, transmission wires, dams, etc) into privately held assets that were then basically hedged via the device of ‘futures’ (in the case of Enron, ‘energy futures’).
There’s no actual productivity in that economic model.
It’s pure price manipulation and predation.
In order to get away with that and hawk it as an economic model, you have to “invest” heavily in social capital: lobbying, revolving doors, consultants, regulatory positions…
The linkages between underperforming corporations, lobbying, and what Prins and Howie Klein write about (my term is ‘managerial capitalism’) is hugely important and I hope that you continue to enlighten.
The moment is ripe.
And Enron remains the epitome of the revolving door (Gramm, Phil; Gramm, Wendy). There’s no conceivable way that Enron could have managed its heist without regulatory changes under Bush I, ineptitude under Clinton, and the determination of Dick Cheney to guarantee that FERC would not put Enron on a leash of any kind.
And if the revolving door wasn’t bad enough, read Gretchen Morgenstern last Sunday in NYT on how Goldman Sachs is not only doing the revolving door scamper, but manipulating stock and share prices on all those other corporations that are using lobbying money to stay alive, since they’re no longer actually competitive.
Many Dems are, but not all of them.
Byron Dorgon and Maria Cantwell both have a lot of experience looking into derivatives and market manipulation because of Enron’s impact on their state economies and local power utilities (in Cantwell’s case in Washington state; Dorgan’s may originate in agricultural ‘futures’ and commodities problems).
My concern is that trolls and GOPers will use the ‘All Dems = bad’ meme to get rid of the few extremely knowledgeable and pissed of Dems. Dorgan, Cantwell, and Bernie Sanders come to mind.
The Wall Street crowd will go after anyone in DC who crosses them.
We have to figure out which Senators are knowledgeable and then we have to keep their backs.
Gack! I apologize for thread-whoring, but really want to underscore one point that Howie Klein made brilliantly:
In a different place, but also in the dotcom era, I saw the very same dynamic.
And so people who’d worked in “Main Street” businesses, and whose business models were based on personal integrity, community relationships, and fiscal prudence were left in the dust by the IPO mentality.
And Enron personified that IPO mentality, as does Goldman Sachs.
Just because someone can write complicated math formulas does not make them a good steward of corporate resources, of other people’s money, or the ‘rules’ of capitalism.
Arguably, they are far less qualified than the now aging “Main Street” crowd of actual entrepreneurs who were prudent and depended on their personal reputation and integrity in order to build their businesses.
Interesting that you write that.
I worked for a large blue corporation, and in the ’80s they became unable to innovate becuse their business strategy was to “protect the revenue stream”.
Any existing product could non-concur on any new initiative if it potentially affected existing revenues, in “we don’t eat our own children”, leaving the competition to feast.
The most poisonous scheme in the company was the “executive program”, where potential high fliers were nominated and rotated though successively more senior positions. This evolved into a “don’t finish anything you start” and “it was all right on my watch”, to avoid measurement and accountability.
The results of this culture is that this company has now exited every segment of the business in which it was the market leader.
I worked with many of its’ major customers, including the military, and all I worked with, without exception, has similar program and similar systems in place to “promote the next set of leaders”.
Very Informative Diary, thanks.
These people are like cancerous tentacles. What is old becomes new again, obviously Glass-Steagall Act and the associated laws wasn’t nearly enough. These people are like cancerous tentacles. What kind of cloth is Eliot Spitzer cut out of? He seems to be the antithesis of them.
In a similar vein, “Barack Hoover Obama”
We’ve been working on a break up with your credit card/debt/big bank campaign — HuffPo just put out something similar. We need to keep growing the movement and change our debt-fueled, big bank takes all economy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/move-your-money-a-new-yea_b_406022.html
Our campaign is out in a few weeks. Would love everyone’s help.
I agree with you basically — I originally put profit above public but the Supreme Court piece defines profit in the sense of shareholder interests so I wanted to be more accurate. But, certainly couldn’t agree more. I think your comment is right on about how people are feeling towards corporations and will look into the numbers for how many people still work there, but I also know the problem of the corporation comes off as so benign to so many people as compared to say people being ground up into meat at factories of yesterday.
To follow up on my earlier post Barry Ritholtz has a chart that lays it out here.
In order of biggest campaign contributors and lobbiers and TARP disribution: Bank of America, Citigroup, AIG, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Faro, General Electric, Goldman Sachs….
Wow, this is a very good point, and I’d missed it so I really appreciate your explanation.
If you are interested, or familiar with Shoshana Zuboff’s work, her book “The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and The Next Episode of Capitalism “ (co-written with her husband, a former CEO of Volvo IIRC) was a real clarifying experience for me back in about 2003.
In their intro (p. 5 of the hardcover) they cited research that claimed (as of 2002, so numbers are no longer accurate, but use as a recent baseline):
– 57% of Americans said they did not trust corporate execs or brokerage houses to give them **honest** information.
– A majority of Americans believe (again, 2002 or earlier) that companies should put the interests of employees (31%), their customers (27%), and their communities (19%) first… only 14% identified stockholders and 3% identified corporate execs as the appropriate focus of corporate decision-making.
However, evaluations of actual corporate behavior showed just the opposite – that 43% believed that top execs were/are the primary beneficiaries of corporate decisions***…
– 68% of investors believed that corporations were using questionable accounting (!) — no time to look at where Zuboff got these stats, nor how close on the heels of WorldCom, Tyco, and Enron they came.k (And I’m not sure how they defined ‘investor’.)
– 28% of respondents believed there was/is ‘an epidemic of deceptive accounting practices.’ (Just as an aside, I’ve heard several long-time accountant friends speak with shuddering horror of the Enron mark-to-market scheme, which they view as brazen fraud, but I digress…)
IIRC, Zuboff’s background is in psychology — organizational psychology; Maxmin’s is in business.
They have some really tremendous insights into the psychology of what has gone wrong inside corporate structures, and in my dreams I get to have dinner sometime with Zuboff, Maxmin, and Wendell Potter (ex Cigna exec) ;-))))
You’d love the title of Chapter 8: Organizational Narcissim: Products, Pyramids, and the Legacy of Contempt.
I know that we are all busy folks, but given this post you may want to see whether you could at least get your hands on a copy of this book; I think it’s proving its value even now.
And that link to Big Picture is now in my bookmarks — terrific data!
*** This is very well documented and backed up by excellent data in Prins’ “Other People’s Money”.
Wow, I wish that we could go hang out at a bar and swap tales over beers.
I mostly steered clear of corporate craziness, but I have a few stories and I’ve heard plenty of others… wow, if we ever end up at Netroots Nation or somewhere in the same town, I’m buying you a beer or two and swapping tales.