OUR CALL-IN DAYS ARE OUR LAST HOPE FOR “NO BAILOUTS REFORMS”
LATEST UPDATES: Tell us how your call went in the report back section right here, or scroll down below. We have had so many calls and so many reports back, it’s really great to watch the staffers start to get it and know we’re around. This week, our targets are Sen. Johnson, Rep. Frank, Sen. Corker, and Sen. Reed. TPM reports on the four New Dems weakening measures behind closed-doors, can you call them and report back?: Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), (202) 225-8203; Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), 202-225-3461; Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC), 202-225-1510; Rep. Dennis Moore, Chair (D-KS), (202)225-2865. Rep. Frank has tried to gut provisions to reform credit rating agencies, showing where he is going with the bill… The Senate agreed to expand auditing of the Fed – 1 BIG WIN SO FAR. Our #2 reform discussed now, seems like a win.. Thank you for making the calls! (Follow on @wayfwd, FaceBook, riski)
We’re going to make sure there are no backroom deals that effectively gut the best reforms currently in the bill — we’ve launched “Call-in Days for the Big 3 No Bailouts Reforms” to put every decision maker in the spotlight for gutting or keeping the Big 3. We have 14 days until June 24 to influence the financial reform bill to be something worth passing. So, yesterday on Tuesday, today on Wednesday (6/16), and tomorrow on Thursday (6/17), please help us get enough people so it’s like we’re walking right into the backroom with them and slapping their hands if they do something bad. We’ll update our list on the slimiest and worst on financial reform. Full list below.
Sign up for a day that works for you — you just need a 5 minute chunk of time free — and we’ll make your call effortless. If you’ve already signed up and when you finish your call, add what you find out in the report back section here
. As soon as we hear back from you, we’ll update who is acting the sleaziest (you can also report back at #finreg #716 on twitter).
- I have 5 minutes on Tuesday 6/22
- I have 5 minutes on Wednesday 6/23
- I have 5 minutes on Thursday 6/24
We need to call as much as each of us can to stop government support and incentives for banks to become bigger and riskier – this is structural reform.
WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE LAST LEG OF FINANCIAL REFORM? The financial reform bill is going into the final stage in the legislative process this week and bought-out members of Congress are trying to stealthily remove all the provisions in it that the big banks oppose. The financial reform bill would be a pure product of lobbying and big banking if it were not for the just a handful of “No Bailout Reforms” that are still in the bill as we speak. Can you join us in making sure that conferees don’t gut the strongest provisions in the financial reform bill behind closed doors?
No-Bailout Reform #1, is Section 716, “PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS OF SWAPS ENTITIES”. Currently, the Senate financial reform bill still has language in it that will stop the biggest, most dangerous banks from getting federal bailouts for their riskiest gambling. The provision that provides for this would require banks to spin off the derivatives activities into separate entities without access to discount Fed money and FDIC guarantees. It is structural reform. This is the main provision that our conference committee members are being asked to gut by the lobbyists. 716 literally says this in its own bill text. Without this language financial companies that turned themselves into banks for the purpose of receiving bailouts under the TARP will get to stay bailout recipients in perpetuity. Without this language, the 2008 crisis will lead to a permanent situation where the government continually subsidizes derivatives trades, which were at the heart of what caused the crisis. Here’s more from Bankster.
No-Bailout Reform #2, STRONG CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BIG AND SMALL BANKS: When banks make their bets, they’re supposed to put some money down. Over the years, the largest banks received exemptions to how much, and therefore their bets got riskier. This time around, Senators Collins and Representative Speier have introduced complementary amendments in the Senate and House to make sure that the money these banks put down for their bets is real capital and is enough to keep the big banks from taking risks they can’t pay for and need to be bailed out by taxpayers. For strong capital requirements, the best of the House and Senate version need to stay. Here’s more from Rortybomb.
No-Bailout Reform #3, A NEW CONSUMER PROTECTION AGENCY: A signature reform of the Obama Administration and TARP watchdog Elizabeth Warren, an independent consumer watchdog agency can stop financial corporations from abusing consumers. “Subprime mortgages. Abusive and arbitrary rate hikes on your credit card. Payday loans. If you’re wondering who lets banks get away with this crap, there are more people at it than you think. There are no less than four federal regulators responsible for overseeing consumer protection in finance, and all of them are terrible,” writes Zach Carter. The Senate bill would house the CFPA in the Fed and allow the Fed to veto their rules proposal. That’s unacceptable. We need an independent CFPA, via the House bill, with full rule-making authority. More from HuffPo.
BIG REFORM #4: First and foremost, we’re advocates of breaking up the big banks. We fought for the Brown-Kaufman amendment to cap the size of banks before they get too big to fail, but it didn’t pass with the Senate bill. Therefore, we agree with Dr. Simon Johnson that Rep. Kanjorski’s amendment to allow regulators to break up the banks is an important part of the finreg bill and are happy to push for it. To see more reforms, see our blog post from Stephanie and Ruth.
Supporters of these measures are Nobel Laureate Economist Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, renowned Economists Robert Reich, Jane D’Arista, Dean Baker, Simon Johnson, Jennifer Taub, David Moss, Michael Greenberger, financial writers and advocates, Rortybomb/Mike Konczal, Ilan Moscovitz of the Motley Fool, Zach Carter of CAF/Alternet, Public Citizen, CAF, David Dayen/FireDogLake, BanksterUSA, McJoan of Daily Kos. Join them!
Latest movements for the strongest reforms: Simon Johnson, Rortybomb, FireDogLake. CNBC says banks will lose on 716. Fed Chiefs support 716. NYTimes editorial.
AND NOW, WHO IS WATERING DOWN THE BILL? We have figured out who is trying to water down the bill thanks to the many people who have told us what they have heard in the comments of this post and what has been said in public.
Who of the 28+ are running the sleaziest deals (today the top 4 are Frank, Reed, Johnson, and Corker)?:
Big Bank Defenders (they would love to hear from you):
* Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D, IL) (202) 225-8203 here, here
* Rep. Spencer Bachus (R, AL) 202-225-4921 report, report
* Sen. Jack Reed (R, RI) (202) 224-4642 here, CFPA
* Rep. Dennis Moore, Chair (D, KS) 202-225-2865 blue dog, here
* Rep. Mel Watt (D, NC) 202-225-1510 bank cash, pro-CFPA, here
* Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI), (202) 225-5802 here, here
* Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) 202 224 3521 here* Rep. Scott Garrett (R, NJ) 202-225-4465 C-SPAN, this
* Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) 202-224-6142 here
* Rep. Judy Biggert (R, IL) 202-225-3515 bad
* Rep. Gregory Meeks (D, NY) (202) 225-3461 bad, here
* Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R, TX) 202-225-3484 bad
* Rep. Edward Royce (R, CA) 202-225-4111 here, here
* Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) 202 224 3324 report, article
* Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) 202 224 5744 here, here
* Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) 202 224 3344 herePublic Defenders (so far):
* Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D, PA) (202) 225-6511 here
* Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D, AR) (202) 224-4843 gutting, reverting, report
* Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) 202-225-2165 prefers House version, maybe
* Sen. Tom Harkin (D, IA) (202) 224-3254 here
* Sen. Patrick Leahy (D, VT) (202) 224-4242 here
* Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) 202-224-5842 pro-CFPA
* Rep. Maxine Waters (D, CA) (202) 225-2201 here, hereMYSTERIOUS (they need calls ahora)
* Sen. Chris Dodd (D, CT) (202) 224-2823 report, and report, report
* Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) 202 224 6542 report, most fin cash, here
* Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D, OH) 202-225-2015 neutral
* Rep. Shelley Capito (R, WV) 202-225-2711 (against)
* Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D, NY) (202) 225-7944 unclear, here
* Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA) (202) 225-5931 no, yes, yes, here, YESWe hope that you are helping to call, join us for the next day or call right now, and further target the few people we need to reach. Then, help us finish the job — we can’t wait to hear from you so we can update our list of sleaziest deals — tell us what you hear in the comments of this post. Thanks for making it happen!
Archein
Both staffers at the offices said they would pass along my message.
Linda
I spoke with reps at the offices of Royce and Waters. Royce’s aide said he was still strongly opposed to 716, but would pass along my message. Waters’ rep didn’t know where she stood. I left a voicemail for her aide in charge of financial issues.
I’ll call the big four tomorrow earlier in the day. Their offices don’t take calls past 2pm pacific time.
thanks so much, that’s useful info. will link. thanks, Stephanie!
I made my calls at about 1 PM. Blanche Lincoln’s staff-person said she was fighting for sec. 716. Chris Dodd’s and Barney Frank’s staff members routed me pretty quickly to message machines where I urged them to keep sec. 716 and the Collins amendment.
Jon Strait
Nashville, AR
thanks, Jon. interesting that they’re sending people to machines.
I think it was more my own ineptness why I ended up there. The people handling calls were actually fairly responsive. Still, I said my bit. They’re hearing from us.
I called Senators Gregg (NH) and Schumer (NY) and Rep Bachus (AL). In each case the person at the other end of the line said he could not speak for the congressman, so I don’t know their stances. But each time I was told that my message would be passed along….
great, Anne. thanks for leading us in the morning — they’ll get the message by the afternoon! thanks so much. we will get their stances.
Called Gregg, Bachus, Schumer. First two, awake and seemingly interested.. Schumer’s receptionist seemed utterly bored, indifferent. Aim to call her back.
hah, funny. thanks a lot!
from email:
Hi: I made these three calls but did not find out much information. The messages will be passed along. Rep. Bacchus’s aide took my address. Sen. Schumer’s aide said he usually satnds against big banks but we will know more in the next couple of weeks. Sinerely, Mary Edda
Sen. Schumer’s state is highly dependent upon Wall Street profits. The entire economy of NY benefits from trickle down salaries and bonuses. His voting record clearly reflects this. Its not a bad thing, unless its bonuses for pushing bogus swaps deals. Next time don’t let the staffer off so easy and bring up his ‘nay’ on Brown-Kaufman, etc.
we need to go after the nay’s on brown-kaufman. good idea.
Senator Judd’s office said they would pass along my message but Judd has not released a position statement.
Rep. Spencer Bachus’s office said they would pass along my message and asked for my email and snail mail addresses so that the Congressman can send me a letter. (This aide seemed the nicest and “most concerned” of any of the people I spoke with).
Senator Schumer’s aide said the Senator “will probably support” the three reforms, but that he hasn’t released a statement yet.
will link to this.
great on schumer!
thanks…
hi, i have linked to this. thanks, carla. great to get it down.
I spoke with an aid at Senator Judd Greggs office. He couldn’t give me any definite information regarding the senators position on the cantwell and collins amendments, but said he thought he supported a consumer protection agency. He did say the Senator was concerned about the creation of banks too big to fail. Spoke with an aid at Rep Bachus office who didn’t know the reps position on any of this, but he was in the process of looking everything over. I could not get an answer at Sen Schumers office.
Christopher
this is really great, we should hold gregg to it. thank you!
Sen. Gregg: Aide couldn’t give his official position on the 3 points.
Rep. Bachus: Aide didn’t want to speak for him.
Sen Schumer: Aide said he hasn’t released an official position yet.
Hi John, thanks for calling again. i love the aides.
I called my 3 contacts. Staffers at Sen. Schumer’s and Rep Bachus’ office accepted my comments but could not give further info on position. Staffer at office of Sen. Gregg got quite defensive until I supported my position with knowledge of this issue. May be feeling quite a bit of heat at that office.
perfect. thanks, peter. we’re getting there today.
Dan:
I called Schumer’s office at 9:10 EDT. They accepted the message, courteously but without commitment.
BTW: Your sign-ups were for EST. I hope you meant EDT — anyhow, it worked.
Gregg’s office was courteous but non-commital, same with Bacchus. The aide who answered Schumer’s phone said that he hadn’t really decided.
thanks, catharine. schumer’s aide also said he is yes on all three, every bit of pushing counts. thanks.
I had to call earlier than assigned, sorry. Sen. Gregg’s office already knew the points I was concerned about–recited them to me–said they’d had many calls.
Got no specific info. from anyone, said they’d pass on my concerns. I gave some general ideas from the point of view of retirees who see their nest eggs dwindling. Sen. Schumer’s office was most pleasant
that’s great to hear! so glad…thanks, wendy.
Both staffers said they would pass along my information. There was no answer at Sen. Schumer’s office. One staff person asked for my address. I know when they find out of town callers, they disregard the call.
since this is conference, they should treat these calls a little differently. we should tell them that we are rating people on what they’re doing in conference and the public is watching.thanks, valerie for pushing!
Senator Gregg’s office seemed to be swamped with calls. Had to leave message. Baucus- no comment. Schumer’s office indifferent, but seemed to like the attention.
glad to hear schumer’s office is receptive. thanks rich.
Staff members for Gregg and Bachus said they would pass along my message. Bachus’ office asked for my address suggesting they want to know if I am a constituent. I haven’t been able to connect with Shumer’s office yet.
I called Senator Gregg’s, Rep. Bachus and Senator Schumer’s offices.
The man who answered Senator Gregg’s said he would pass my message along and then said, “Have a good one.” It sounded as if there was a recording of what I was saying.
The woman who answered Rep. Bachus’ phone immediately asked me for my address. Then she listened to what I had to say. Then she said “Thank you.” It did not sound as if there was any recording of what I said or note taking.
Senator Schumer spoke via a recording when I called his office. He said he was sorry there was no one to answer the phone right now but hold on. I held on for five minutes and the phone went from silence for awhile to ringing and ringing with no answering.
Hi Helen Jo — great job, thanks for inundating them and the report back.
first: I would have appreciated more specific info on this issue, i.e., name and number of bill, etc.
I called Gregg, Bachus and Schumer and spoke to whomever answered phone. None of the legislators had a stand or statement on issue and most directed me to their website for their stand on any issue. When I asked how Schumer planned to vote, the aide said he would ask. Came back to the phone and said they didn’t know! Unfortunatley, legislators know less than we do on any issue and will vote the way that will get them the most for the money to keep them in office. it’s frustrating and sad that they do not work or represent us
Hi Anita, we will add more info to the reminder email so people know what to say better. We didnt want to confuse people, but we’ll work it out. how about something like this?
Deb Fay wrote it:
“Hi , I’m Debby Fay and I’m with ANWF, a group supporting banking reforms. I’m calling to find out the Senator’s position on the three reforms we think are essential for a good bill.
Section 716 the Cantwell bill, which calls for a ban on FDIC assistence to bank swaps. How does the Senator feel about that.
Collins Amendment which calls for stricter leverage.
Does he support a consumer protection agency.
None of the people I spoke with knew how their senator/representative planned to vote, but all promised to pass on the message. At Sen. Gregg’s office I spoke with Kate, at Sen. Schumer’s with Stephen, and Elyse at Rep. Bachus. Elyse was the only one to ask me if i was a constituent of the Congressman. (He’s Alabama and I’m from Texas, so no.)
great, Brad. thanks, the important piece is we call and make contact with their offices, so important!
They are all full of *##@%!!!
They are noncommittal because they want to screw you and not be held accountable! What government. They are fascists!!!
Called the three:
1.Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) “Check his website”.
2.Rep. Spencer Bachus (R, AL) “No position yet”.
3. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) “independent Consumer Protection Agency and am unsure about the others”.
perfect, gary!
Number three should read “Is for …”
Opps!
Called Gregg, Bachus, and Schumer. Their aides said they’d pass along my comments.
great making contact, so important. thanks, Terry!
I called the offices of Senator Gregg, Senator Schumer and Representative Bachus this morning. Senator Gregg’s staffer said that he would pass my message alongwhile the staffer for Bachus said that he could not speak for him but would also pass my message along (after asking for my mailing address). Senator Schumer’s staffer also said that he would pass my message along and that Senator Schumer supports financial reform including deriviative reform.
great, this is the third time we heard a positive from schumer’s office. thanks, Lori!
Gregg and Bacchus, were very thankful that I called, as they were trying to get off the phone. Schumers no answer, but I will keep trying. YES,YES, and by the way did I say YES.
awesome, JIMMMMMM!
Staffs were all “unable to speak for” them. On the 3 points, I said with gravity “we are watching”.
EXACTLY. thank you.
I called Schumer, Dodd, Franks, Bachus, and Judd. Bachus’ office asked for my mailing address. I had explained that I was calling as a citizen intent on urging conferees to take the side of citizens, not lobbyists, and that we all know what’s going on out here.
Amazingly got in touch with Schumer’s DC office. Normally rings and rings then automated system cuts me off to buzzzzzzzz.
Staffer at Schumer and Frank’s offices most polite; sounded like they actually listened and took notes. Dodd not bad. Judd endured the call…ho-hum, let’s get this over with kind of attitude.
I found that providing specifics helped staffers. I cited:
Lincoln Amd # 716
Kanjorski Amd (closest to Volcker Rule) to break up banks
Increased capital requirements (S. Collins has an Amd. I think)
I also said I wanted the Fed audited and an independent consumer protection agency.
I repeated that we are watching and aware.
The staffers all said that they would pass along my comments.
thanks for contacting the office… so important.
My phone calls to the 3 congressmen were answered by their aides and I was told the following:
Sen. Gregg couldn’t give his official position however they passed along my request for him to vote for the 3 points in the No Bailout Reform bill.
Rep. Bachus’s aide could tell me his position but said she’d pass along my concerns.
Sen Schumer hasn’t released an official position yet; however I was told he was still taking in opinions so I gave them one.
thanks a lot, Frank. good progress.
1.Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) – “can’t speak for him”.
2.Rep. Spencer Bachus (R, AL) “still formulating position”.
3. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) “he hasn’t released his position”.
everyone said they’d pass the message along.
great, good to hear. we’re keeping on them. thanks!
Today I called …
Senator Greg – no comment and passed me on 4 times to a voice mail where I left a message.
Rep Bachus – said “not sure on 716″…”probably no against the Collins Amendment because of capital allocations concerns” and “definitely no on the Consumer Financial Protection because we don’t want to create a new beauracracy”. I said that “thats exactly what we do need, a regulating agency to keep an eye on these guys…look what’s happened in the gulf and look whats happened to our taxpayer funds being funneled to banks without benefit to taxpayers.” He seemed to “ho hum” it.
Senator Schumer – No position yet available…so I left him our priorities and he said that the Senator is currently accepting comments from constituents. If that’s true maybe people in NY should call him now.
Cheers!
-Sandy
this is super good info. thanks, passing to other bloggers too.
Senator Judd Gregg: His secretary said she didn’t know how he was going to vote, but would make sure he recieved my message.
Representative Spencer Bachus: Secretary didn’t give me an affirmative.
Representative Barney Franks: His secretary was sure he would come through.
thanks, Jeanne. this is substantial.
I called Senator Dodd in addition to Gregg, Bachus & Schumer and all pretty much replied that they couldn’t state their Senator’s position. Bachus said to refer to his website.
great, Terry. thanks, we need every call.
Senator Judd Gregg’s staff and Rep.Spencer Bacchus office said thay would transmit the message and that he/she would consider it. They were both friendly. There was no answer or answer machine at Sen Charles Scumer so I could not leave any message for him.
someone else said they could not leave a message. that’s not a good way to deal with citizens, schumer – and we’ll make note of it soon. thanks, Angelina.
I called all three requested legislators, Gregg, Bachus, Schumer. None of the staffers would state positions. Staffers said they would pass on my messages. Rep Bachus’s staffer said I could look at his website.
rude on staffers’ parts. we;ll definitely make note of this.
Sen.Schumer’s web site. Apparently Chuck isn’t taking messages today–at least I can’t send one.
we’ll make note of this, thanks, wendy.
Called Sen. Charles Schumer’s office……office staffer answered, after I stated my support for strong financial reform legislation I was asked for the exact bill’s name/number and then I was placed on hold.
schumer’s office is not dealing with citizen calls well. will note, thanks, Pamela.
[...] our most experienced regulators weigh in, the lobbyists start to struggle. The mobilization of broader support against gutting the legislation also helps – the earlier Senate debate has raised sensitivity [...]
I had to call hours later than planned, but around 5:15 PM Eastern I reached staffers for Rep. Bachus and Sen. Gregg, who listened to my pitch about fighting hard for the American people in the conference negotiations.
I listed the Big 3 measures and described them as being the ones most likely to prevent another bailout, then asked if the Rep./Sen. supported them. In both cases they said they didn’t know his positions but would be happy to pass along my message.
I was unable to get through to Sen. Schumer’s office. Pretty unfortunate way to treat the public, whether by design or not: after 6 minutes of waiting on hold and hearing 2 different recorded messages from Schumer himself (which at least is an attempt to show interest in what callers have to say), I got several rings and then was disconnected. I notice this is just what someone else reported.
yes, i agree with you. great push and report, thanks a lot Lars.
i called a day late for franks and dodd, listed the talking points and added end fractional reserve, and that we really should pass the american monetary act,
sounds good — thanks for making the call, Mike!
The aides of all 3 – Sen. Reed, Rep. Kanjorski, and Rep. Waters – said they can’t speak for the member of Congress, but will pass my message along to him/her.
Thanks again, John. This is a good start.
From Rosemary in an email:
I’ve called but gotten no answers. For Sen. Reed I left a call back number and voicemail for the staffer working w financial reform. For Congressman Kanjorski I left a call back number and sent an email to the appropriate staffer. For Congresswoman Waters I left a call back number.
The staff answering the phone didn’t want to address the issues and I can’t seem to get through to someone who will. Any suggestions?
Rosemary
response:
This will be noted when we profile these people. You could possibly try calling later in the day — it’s bad governance for them not to answer the phone!
from Charlie in an email:
I called Dodd’s and Frank’s offices.
Dodd’s person said that the Senator “thinks that [the Lincoln amendment] is a step in the right direction, but I don’t have anything more than that on it.”
Frank’s person in the Finance Committee office said they won’t address it until next week.
Charlie
The call receiver thanked me for my comments and/or reminded me that the conference is still ongoing.
hah, a bit rude. doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be pushing! thanks a lot.
Sen. Reed’s staffer abruptly informed me that she did not know where the Senator stood on those three issues. She did not offer to pass my comments on to the senator.
Representative Water’s intern said that she did support the new consumer protection agency, but that she hadn’t publicly announced her position on the other two. He said that he would pass my comments on to her.
Rep. Frank’s office transferred me to the appropriate phone number, but the staffer who answered said he didn’t know where the representative stood because he had been busy “running in and out of the office”; he transferred me to another person who he said could help me, but the number was busy and I left a message.
Representative Kanjorski’s intern said that she did not know where he stood on the three issues, but would pass my comments on to him.
thank you, arlene. you’re starting this stuff up today. thank you.
we’re going to write a blog post about the worst offices and send it around, absolutely outrageous! we’ll let you know.
Jack Reed’s receptionist said they’ve received a lot of calls from ANWF and told me to check his website for his positions on the issues.
hah, that’s great. thanks!
Rep Kanjorski’s receptionist said the Rep has made no decisions yet; I told him my three concerns and he said he’d pass on the message.
The receptionist for Rep Waters didn’t know the Rep’s positions on the three issues; so, I reiterated what the issues were and emphasized their importance to the American People, and the receptionist said she’d pass on the message.
thanks — you’re one of the first to touch Waters’ office. she should be a yes, but we need to make sure, thanks you!
Senator Reeds aide could not speak for the Senator and referred me to his webiste
Rep. Maxine Waters aide did not know her stance on Section 716 or the Collins Ammendment but did say that she supported a consumer protection agency.
Rep. Kanjorski’s aide said he had not made a statement on his position and that he could not speak for the congressman.
thanks for this, really good info. sooooo important.
Spopke with Sen Reed and Reps Kanjorski and Waters’ staffers. When I asked their postitions, Reed’s staffer directed me to his website, Kanjorski’s said “everything isin review” and Waters’ was noncommittal. Seems we need to keep the calls coming – with specifics on language if possible?