Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee, went to the Fairmont Kea Lani resort in Maui for a week. The $2,415 junket was courtesy of the California Independent Voter Project, a San Diego nonprofit with funding from oil companies, utilities, pharmaceutical companies and a cigarette maker, according to the newspaper.
...Assemblyman Marty Block, D-San Diego, took a $10,735 Italy trip paid for by the California Foundation on the Environment and Economy, a San Francisco-based nonprofit made up of oil companies, utilities and environmental groups. The trip included plant tours and meetings on energy issues, from solar power to smart meters.
Block also went on a $3,883 trip to Israel sponsored by Faith2Green, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit made up of faith-based organizations interested in environmental issues.
...Not all the trips had big budgets. Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, reported accepting a $219 gift of lodging and meals from the California Independent Petroleum Association as part of a symposium.
Report: SD lawmakers received overseas trips
Associated Press
March 11, 2012
Several San Diego County legislators received all-expenses-paid trips last year to Hawaii, Mexico, Israel and Italy _ renewing calls from critics that state gift-giving rules should be tightened.
Disclosure reports show the treks, bundled with meetings and plant tours, were sponsored by nonprofits that receive contributions from influence peddlers with a stake in legislation and the budget, according to an investigation by UT San Diego (http://bit.ly/ApmvwP) published Sunday.
Representatives from the corporations, utilities, labor unions and environmental groups often joined the excursions, giving them access to lawmakers, the newspaper said.
State law limits the value of gifts. But travel, if funded by a nonprofit, can be accepted as long as lawmakers participate in a meaningful way _ by giving a speech or sitting on a panel, for example.
California Common Cause, a government accountability group, says it's a loophole that should be closed. The group has lobbied for tightening gift-giving rules and providing full disclosure of who is contributing how much to the nonprofit group listed as the trip's sponsor.
"This is another way to get money into politics," Phillip Ung, policy director of California Common Cause, told UT San Diego.
The newspaper cited 10 lawmakers who reported accepting trips in 2011. Among them was Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who took a $5,866 trek to Israel to discuss homeland security and Iran. It was sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles...
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
State Assembly Bill Seeks to Disclose Political Ad Donors
State Assembly Bill Seeks to Disclose Political Ad Donors
AB 1148, the California Disclose Act, goes before the state Assembly Tuesday.
Hollywood Patch
Jan. 31, 2012
Public interest groups are urging citizens to back a bill up for a vote Tuesday in the California Assembly that would require the disclosure of large donors to political ads seen by voters across the state.
Under AB 1148, also known as the California Disclose Act, the three largest donors to political advertising on TV and radio as well as those in mailers and Web sites would need to be named.
"This would be a huge win for democracy in California, allowing citizens to give proper weight to the different messages they hear and make informed decisions at the ballot box," said MapLight, a nonprofit that tracks the influence of money in politics, in an email message to supporters.
Other organizations that have registered their support of the bill include the California National Organization for Women, the California League of Women Voters, the Planning and Conservation League and the California Clean Money Campaign (which is sponsoring the bill), among others.
The California Chamber of Commerce has announced its opposition, saying the bill would place "significant and onerous changes" on the process and hurt protected speech. The Chamber's opposition dims the bill's prospects, the San Jose Mercury-News stated. The California Broadcasters Association also opposes the bill.
AB 1148, the California Disclose Act, goes before the state Assembly Tuesday.
Hollywood Patch
Jan. 31, 2012
Public interest groups are urging citizens to back a bill up for a vote Tuesday in the California Assembly that would require the disclosure of large donors to political ads seen by voters across the state.
Under AB 1148, also known as the California Disclose Act, the three largest donors to political advertising on TV and radio as well as those in mailers and Web sites would need to be named.
"This would be a huge win for democracy in California, allowing citizens to give proper weight to the different messages they hear and make informed decisions at the ballot box," said MapLight, a nonprofit that tracks the influence of money in politics, in an email message to supporters.
Other organizations that have registered their support of the bill include the California National Organization for Women, the California League of Women Voters, the Planning and Conservation League and the California Clean Money Campaign (which is sponsoring the bill), among others.
The California Chamber of Commerce has announced its opposition, saying the bill would place "significant and onerous changes" on the process and hurt protected speech. The Chamber's opposition dims the bill's prospects, the San Jose Mercury-News stated. The California Broadcasters Association also opposes the bill.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Heritage Foundation supports freedom of speech: comes out against SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)
Pro-copyright group takes SOPA to task
by Declan McCullagh
December 21, 2011
The Heritage Foundation, probably the nation's most influential conservative advocacy group, has long been a reliable ally of large copyright holders. But not when it comes to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act.
The venerable think tank, which enjoys close ties with the Republican Party and inspired President Reagan's missile defense program and the GOP's welfare reform effort, warned today that SOPA raises important security and free speech concerns.
"The concern with SOPA is that it enforces private property rights at the expense of other values, such as innovation on the Internet, security of the Internet, and freedom of communication," James Gattuso, Heritage's senior research fellow in regulatory policy, told CNET this evening. While SOPA addresses a "very real problem," he says, it's not necessarily the right solution.
Unlike some Washington advocacy groups that are predictably anti-copyright, Heritage has historically taken the opposite position. It called the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to sue peer-to-peer pirates a "wise choice," and suggested that disrupting P2P networks to curb piracy, an idea that some politicians actually proposed, is a step "in the right direction."
Heritage's criticism is important because SOPA author Lamar Smith of Texas, who has become Hollywood's favorite Republican, is almost certain to win committee approval in early 2012. Then the bill's fate will rest in the hands of the Republican House leadership--which could chose to delay a floor vote indefinitely if the GOP appears divided...
by Declan McCullagh
December 21, 2011
The Heritage Foundation, probably the nation's most influential conservative advocacy group, has long been a reliable ally of large copyright holders. But not when it comes to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act.
The venerable think tank, which enjoys close ties with the Republican Party and inspired President Reagan's missile defense program and the GOP's welfare reform effort, warned today that SOPA raises important security and free speech concerns.
"The concern with SOPA is that it enforces private property rights at the expense of other values, such as innovation on the Internet, security of the Internet, and freedom of communication," James Gattuso, Heritage's senior research fellow in regulatory policy, told CNET this evening. While SOPA addresses a "very real problem," he says, it's not necessarily the right solution.
Unlike some Washington advocacy groups that are predictably anti-copyright, Heritage has historically taken the opposite position. It called the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to sue peer-to-peer pirates a "wise choice," and suggested that disrupting P2P networks to curb piracy, an idea that some politicians actually proposed, is a step "in the right direction."
Heritage's criticism is important because SOPA author Lamar Smith of Texas, who has become Hollywood's favorite Republican, is almost certain to win committee approval in early 2012. Then the bill's fate will rest in the hands of the Republican House leadership--which could chose to delay a floor vote indefinitely if the GOP appears divided...
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Republicans block Obama's nominee to head consumer watchdog agenc
Senate Republicans block Obama's nominee to head consumer watchdog agency
Washington Post
Dec. 8, 2011
In a long-awaited vote Thursday morning, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead his signature consumer watchdog agency, a move that prevents it from exercising many of its broad new powers.
Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Though GOP lawmakers have praised Cordray’s qualifications for the job -- he currently serves as the CFPB’s director of enforcement -- they have pledged to prevent any candidate from being confirmed unless significant structural change are made to the bureau.
Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-republicans-block-cordray-as-obama-consumer-watchdog-nominee/2011/12/08/gIQA6j9BfO_blog.html
Washington Post
Dec. 8, 2011
In a long-awaited vote Thursday morning, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead his signature consumer watchdog agency, a move that prevents it from exercising many of its broad new powers.
Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Though GOP lawmakers have praised Cordray’s qualifications for the job -- he currently serves as the CFPB’s director of enforcement -- they have pledged to prevent any candidate from being confirmed unless significant structural change are made to the bureau.
Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-republicans-block-cordray-as-obama-consumer-watchdog-nominee/2011/12/08/gIQA6j9BfO_blog.html
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Citigroup and the people who brought the financial meltdown
Citigroup to Pay Millions to Close Fraud Complaint
By EDWARD WYATT
New York Times
October 19, 2011
WASHINGTON — As the housing market began its collapse, Wall Street firms and sophisticated investors searched for ways to profit. Some of them found an easy method: Stuff a portfolio with risky mortgage-related investments, sell it to unsuspecting customers and bet against it.
Citigroup on Wednesday agreed to pay $285 million to settle a civil complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had defrauded investors who bought just such a deal. The transaction involved a $1 billion portfolio of mortgage-related investments, many of which were handpicked for the portfolio by Citigroup without telling investors of its role or that it had made bets that the investments would fall in value.
In the four years since the housing market began its steady descent, securities regulators have settled only two cases related to the financial crisis for a larger sum of money. This is also the third case brought by the S.E.C. accusing a major Wall Street institution of misleading customers about who was putting together a security and about their motive. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Company both settled similar cases last year.
The settlement will refund investors with interest and include a $95 million fine — a relative pittance for a giant like Citigroup. On Monday, the company reported that in the third quarter alone it earned profits of $3.8 billion on revenue of $20.8 billion. The settlement may also have trouble getting approval from Jed S. Rakoff, the federal district judge in New York who must ultimately sign off on the fine and who has taken a hard line on S.E.C. settlements.
Neither the S.E.C. nor the Justice Department would say whether the case raised questions about whether Citigroup had been involved in any criminal wrongdoing. But the case highlights a growing frustration felt by foreclosed homeowners, investors and Wall Street protesters alike that few, if any, senior banking executives have faced criminal charges for losses growing out of the financial crisis.
Citigroup has settled one case stemming from the crisis. Last year, it agreed to pay $75 million to settle federal claims that it hid from investors vast holdings of subprime mortgage investments that were losing value during the crisis and that ultimately prompted the federal government to rescue the bank.
“The securities laws demand that investors receive more care and candor than Citigroup provided” to investors in the security, said Robert Khuzami, director of the S.E.C.’s enforcement division, referring to Wednesday’s action. “Investors were not informed that Citigroup had decided to bet against them and had helped to choose the assets that would determine who won or lost.”
The complex amalgamation of investments known as Class V Funding III produced $126 million in profits for Citigroup’s brokerage subsidiary, and another $34 million in fees for putting it together. All of that, including interest and the $95 million fine, will now be going back to the investors; the government will not receive anything.
In a statement, Citigroup noted that the S.E.C. did not charge it with “intentional or reckless misconduct.” Rather, it settled charges that its actions were negligent and misleading to investors. Despite its profits on the current deal, over all Citigroup lost tens of billions of dollars on its holdings of mortgage-related investments.
“We are pleased to put this matter behind us and are focused on contributing to the economic recovery, serving our clients and growing responsibly,” the company said in a statement. “Since the crisis, we have bolstered our financial strength, overhauled the risk management function, significantly reduced risk on the balance sheet and returned to the basics of banking.”
The S.E.C. on Wednesday also brought a case against Credit Suisse, which played a smaller role in the transaction, and against one individual at each company. But those individuals were midlevel employees in each company’s investment and trading departments; no senior executives at either company were charged...
By EDWARD WYATT
New York Times
October 19, 2011
WASHINGTON — As the housing market began its collapse, Wall Street firms and sophisticated investors searched for ways to profit. Some of them found an easy method: Stuff a portfolio with risky mortgage-related investments, sell it to unsuspecting customers and bet against it.
Citigroup on Wednesday agreed to pay $285 million to settle a civil complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it had defrauded investors who bought just such a deal. The transaction involved a $1 billion portfolio of mortgage-related investments, many of which were handpicked for the portfolio by Citigroup without telling investors of its role or that it had made bets that the investments would fall in value.
In the four years since the housing market began its steady descent, securities regulators have settled only two cases related to the financial crisis for a larger sum of money. This is also the third case brought by the S.E.C. accusing a major Wall Street institution of misleading customers about who was putting together a security and about their motive. Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase & Company both settled similar cases last year.
The settlement will refund investors with interest and include a $95 million fine — a relative pittance for a giant like Citigroup. On Monday, the company reported that in the third quarter alone it earned profits of $3.8 billion on revenue of $20.8 billion. The settlement may also have trouble getting approval from Jed S. Rakoff, the federal district judge in New York who must ultimately sign off on the fine and who has taken a hard line on S.E.C. settlements.
Neither the S.E.C. nor the Justice Department would say whether the case raised questions about whether Citigroup had been involved in any criminal wrongdoing. But the case highlights a growing frustration felt by foreclosed homeowners, investors and Wall Street protesters alike that few, if any, senior banking executives have faced criminal charges for losses growing out of the financial crisis.
Citigroup has settled one case stemming from the crisis. Last year, it agreed to pay $75 million to settle federal claims that it hid from investors vast holdings of subprime mortgage investments that were losing value during the crisis and that ultimately prompted the federal government to rescue the bank.
“The securities laws demand that investors receive more care and candor than Citigroup provided” to investors in the security, said Robert Khuzami, director of the S.E.C.’s enforcement division, referring to Wednesday’s action. “Investors were not informed that Citigroup had decided to bet against them and had helped to choose the assets that would determine who won or lost.”
The complex amalgamation of investments known as Class V Funding III produced $126 million in profits for Citigroup’s brokerage subsidiary, and another $34 million in fees for putting it together. All of that, including interest and the $95 million fine, will now be going back to the investors; the government will not receive anything.
In a statement, Citigroup noted that the S.E.C. did not charge it with “intentional or reckless misconduct.” Rather, it settled charges that its actions were negligent and misleading to investors. Despite its profits on the current deal, over all Citigroup lost tens of billions of dollars on its holdings of mortgage-related investments.
“We are pleased to put this matter behind us and are focused on contributing to the economic recovery, serving our clients and growing responsibly,” the company said in a statement. “Since the crisis, we have bolstered our financial strength, overhauled the risk management function, significantly reduced risk on the balance sheet and returned to the basics of banking.”
The S.E.C. on Wednesday also brought a case against Credit Suisse, which played a smaller role in the transaction, and against one individual at each company. But those individuals were midlevel employees in each company’s investment and trading departments; no senior executives at either company were charged...
Friday, November 11, 2011
At last, the SEC shows more respect to Markopolos (terrific name, right?) than to Bernie Madoff
Seven SEC employees disciplined on failure to stop Madoff fraud
By David S. Hilzenrath
November 11, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission, which failed to stop Bernard Madoff’s long-running investment fraud despite repeated warnings, has disciplined seven agency employees over their handling of the matter but did not fire anyone, a person familiar with the actions said.
An eighth employee resigned before disciplinary action was taken, the person said.
The SEC’s head of human resources had recommended that SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro fire one individual, according to a second person, an official involved in the process. The human resources head took that position after a law firm hired by the SEC to advise it on the disciplinary actions also recommended that the employee be fired, the official said.
The law firm, Fortney & Scott, “recommended formal disciplinary action, including removal from service,” for an assistant regional director at the SEC, the agency’s inspector general said in an August report.
The punishments given the employees varied and included suspensions, pay cuts and demotions, according to the first person familiar with the matter. An employee who received one of the most severe sanctions got a 30-day suspension and a demotion. Another was given a pay cut of about 6 percent. At the low end, one employee was suspended for seven days, another for three days and yet another was issued a “counseling memo,” which is a step below a reprimand.
The SEC’s disciplinary process with respect to the Madoff matter was concluded months ago, SEC spokesman John Nester said Friday. He had no other immediate comment.
When the law firm advising the SEC recommended that an employee be fired, it included a qualifier, the second person familiar with the matter said. If the SEC thought it was important to avoid losing that individual’s services, it could consider a different punishment.
The people who spoke about the disciplinary process did so on condition of anonymity. One cited the sensitivity of the information and the other was not authorized to discuss it.
Madoff’s fraud cost investors billions of dollars, shattered lives, and became perhaps the biggest embarrassment in the SEC’s history. After Madoff’s house of cards collapsed in 2008, a financial sleuth named Harry Markopolos became famous for having tried in vain to get SEC employees to see through the scam...
By David S. Hilzenrath
November 11, 2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission, which failed to stop Bernard Madoff’s long-running investment fraud despite repeated warnings, has disciplined seven agency employees over their handling of the matter but did not fire anyone, a person familiar with the actions said.
An eighth employee resigned before disciplinary action was taken, the person said.
The SEC’s head of human resources had recommended that SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro fire one individual, according to a second person, an official involved in the process. The human resources head took that position after a law firm hired by the SEC to advise it on the disciplinary actions also recommended that the employee be fired, the official said.
The law firm, Fortney & Scott, “recommended formal disciplinary action, including removal from service,” for an assistant regional director at the SEC, the agency’s inspector general said in an August report.
The punishments given the employees varied and included suspensions, pay cuts and demotions, according to the first person familiar with the matter. An employee who received one of the most severe sanctions got a 30-day suspension and a demotion. Another was given a pay cut of about 6 percent. At the low end, one employee was suspended for seven days, another for three days and yet another was issued a “counseling memo,” which is a step below a reprimand.
The SEC’s disciplinary process with respect to the Madoff matter was concluded months ago, SEC spokesman John Nester said Friday. He had no other immediate comment.
When the law firm advising the SEC recommended that an employee be fired, it included a qualifier, the second person familiar with the matter said. If the SEC thought it was important to avoid losing that individual’s services, it could consider a different punishment.
The people who spoke about the disciplinary process did so on condition of anonymity. One cited the sensitivity of the information and the other was not authorized to discuss it.
Madoff’s fraud cost investors billions of dollars, shattered lives, and became perhaps the biggest embarrassment in the SEC’s history. After Madoff’s house of cards collapsed in 2008, a financial sleuth named Harry Markopolos became famous for having tried in vain to get SEC employees to see through the scam...
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Darrell Issa’s personal Goldman rep arranged Elizabeth Warren perjury showdown
Darrell Issa’s personal Goldman rep arranged Elizabeth Warren perjury showdown
Lucas O’Connor
Courage Campaing
August 26, 2011
There are more and more wrinkles in the troubling saga of the former Goldman Sachs VP hired by Issa to protect Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms from accountability on the Hill. It now looks as though he was also personally responsible for the scheduling disagreement between Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Patrick McHenry that quickly mushroomed into a debacle of McHenry twice accusing Warren of perjury.
Goldman Sachs has dropped millions on lobbying Congress and now it looks like they've gotten themselves a mole as well, courtesy of Darrell Issa. Issa and McHenry, of course, have themselves been the beneficiaries of generous campaign donations from giant financial firms throughout their careers.
~ While on that subject, the Goldman exec in question claimed last week that he had change his name to honor his family's Transylvanian heritage. Submitted with nothing but amazement, it appears that heritage is about service to an Hungarian fascit military dictator who was an early ally of Hitler's regime in Germany. So... there's that.
~ Some credit where it's due -- Issa has been ahead of the curve on government giving up. Back in January, he proposed not just ending the HAMP program designed to help struggling homeowners, but replacing it with nothing. His plan was to just spend the money instead on... well... nothing. Now it looks like $30 billion originally earmarked for foreclosure relief will be spent on nothing, because congressional Republicans aren't interested in rerouting the money.
~ New numbers show that in the last few years, private companies have seen record profits per employee, indicating that these businesses can but are not hiring. The profit rate has spiked 12% during the same period that Darrell Issa and others have continued insisting that supply-side economic policies of giving more money to private companies would spur job growth...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)