Intro: "The great mystery story in American politics these days is why, over the course of two presidential administrations (one from each party), there's been no serious federal criminal investigation of Wall Street during a period of what appears to be epic corruption."
Matt Taibbi at Skylight Studio in New York, 10/27/10. (photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)
Why the Government Won't Fight Wall Street
19 September 12
the great mystery story in American politics these days is why, over the course of two presidential administrations (one from each party), there’s been no serious federal criminal investigation of Wall Street during a period of what appears to be epic corruption. People on the outside have speculated and come up with dozens of possible reasons, some plausible, some tending toward the conspiratorial – but there have been very few who've come at the issue from the inside.
We get one of those rare inside accounts in The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins, a new book by Jeff Connaughton, the former aide to Senators Ted Kaufman and Joe Biden. Jeff is well known to reporters like me; during a period when most government officials double-talked or downplayed the Wall Street corruption problem, Jeff was one of the few voices on the Hill who always talked about the subject with appropriate alarm. He shared this quality with his boss Kaufman, the Delaware Senator who took over Biden's seat and instantly became an irritating (to Wall Street) political force by announcing he wasn’t going to run for re-election. "I later learned from reporters that Wall Street was frustrated that they couldn’t find a way to harness Ted or pull in his reins," Jeff writes. "There was no obvious way to pressure Ted because he wasn’t running for re-election."
Kaufman for some time was a go-to guy in the Senate for reform activists and reporters who wanted to find out what was really going on with corruption issues. He was a leader in a number of areas, attempting to push through (often simple) fixes to issues like high-frequency trading (his advocacy here looked prescient after the "flash crash" of 2010), naked short-selling, and, perhaps most importantly, the Too-Big-To-Fail issue. What’s fascinating about Connaughton’s book is that we now get to hear a behind-the-scenes account of who exactly was knocking down simple reform ideas, how they were knocked down, and in some cases we even find out why good ideas were rejected, although some element of mystery certainly remains here.
There are some damning revelations in this book, and overall it’s not a flattering portrait of key Obama administration officials like SEC enforcement chief Robert Khuzami, Department of Justice honchos Eric Holder (who once worked at the same law firm, Covington and Burling, as Connaughton) and Lanny Breuer, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
Most damningly, Connaughton writes about something he calls "The Blob," a kind of catchall term describing an oozy pile of Hill insiders who are all incestuously interconnected, sometimes by financial or political ties, sometimes by marriage, sometimes by all three. And what Connaughton and Kaufman found is that taking on Wall Street even with the aim of imposing simple, logical fixes often inspired immediate hostile responses from The Blob; you’d never know where it was coming from.
In one amazing example described in the book, Kaufman decided he wanted to try to re-instate the so-called "uptick rule," which had existed for seventy years before being rescinded by the SEC in 2007. The rule prevents investors from shorting a stock until the stock had ticked up in price. "Forcing short sellers to wait for the price to tick up before they sell more shares gives a breather to a stock in decline and helps prevent bear raids," Connaughton writes.
The uptick rule is controversial on Wall Street – I’ve had some people literally scream at me that it doesn’t do anything, while others have told me that it does help prevent bear attacks of the sort that appeared to help finally topple already-mortally-wounded companies like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers – but what’s inarguable is that Wall Street hates the rule. Hedge fund types or employees of really any company that engages in short-selling will tend to be most venomous in their opinions of the uptick rule.
Anyway, Connaughton and Kaufman were under the impression that new SEC chief Mary Schapiro would re-instate the uptick rule after taking office. When she didn’t, Kaufman wrote her a letter, asking her to take action. When that didn't do the trick, he co-sponsored (with Republican Johnny Isakson) a bill that would have required the SEC to take action.
Nothing happened, and months later, Kaufman gave a grumbling interview to Politico about the issue. One June 30, the paper’s headline read: "Ted Kaufman to SEC; Do Your Job."
The next day, the Blob bit back. Connaughton was in the basement of the Russell building when a Senate staffer whose wife worked for Shapiro shouted at him. From the book:
"Hey, Jeff, you’re in the doghouse." He meant: with his wife. "Why?" I asked. "That Politico piece by your boss." I was taken aback but tried to downplay the matter. "We just want the SEC to get its work done." "Remember," he said. "We all wear blue jerseys and play for the Blue Team. I just don’t think that helps."
When Connaughton told Kaufman over the phone what the staffer said, Kaufman exploded. "You call him back right now and tell him I said to go fuck himself in his ear," Kaufman said.
Similarly, when Kaufman tried to advocate for rules that would have prevented naked short-selling, Connaughton was warned by a lobbyist that it would be "bad for my career" if he went after the issue and that "Ted and I looked like deranged conspiracy theorists" for asking if naked short-selling had played a role in the final collapse of Lehman Brothers. Naked short-selling is another controversial practice. Essentially, when you short a stock, you're supposed to locate shares of that stock before you go out and sell it short. But what hedge funds and banks have discovered is that the rules provide "leeway" – you can go out and sell shares in a stock without actually having it, provided you have a "reasonable belief" that you can locate the shares.
This leads to the obvious possibility of companies creating false supply in a stock by selling shares they don't have. Without getting too much into the weeds here, there is an obvious solution to the problem, which essentially would be forcing companies to actually locate shares before selling them. In their attempt to change the system, Kaufman and Connaughton discovered that the Depository Trust Clearing Corporation, the massive quasi-private organization that clears most all stock trades in America, had come up with just such a fix on their own. Kaufman recruited some other senators to endorse the idea, and as late as 2009, Connaughton and Kaufman were convinced they were going to get the form. "I said to Ted, 'We’re going to change the way stocks are traded in this country.'"
But before the change could be made, Goldman, Sachs issued "data" showing that there was "no correlation" between naked short selling and price movements. When Connaughton asked an Isakson staffer what the data said, the staffer, intimidated by Goldman, replied, "The data proves we're full of shit." Connaughton looked at the data and realized instantly that it was a bunch of irrelevant gobbledygook, even firing off an angry letter to Goldman telling them the tactic was beneath even them.
But Goldman’s tactic worked. A roundtable to discuss the idea was scheduled by the SEC on September 24, 2009. Of the nine invited participants, "all but one" were for the status quo. Connaughton expected the DTCC representatives to unveil their reform idea, but they didn’t:
Afterwards, I went over to [the DTCC representatives] and asked, "What happened?" Sheepishly, and to their credit, they admitted: "We got pulled back." They meant: by their board, by the Wall Street powers-that-be.
Essentially the same thing happened in Kaufman’s biggest reform attempt, the amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill he co-sponsored with Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, which would have broken up the Too-Big-To-Fail banks. But the Brown-Kaufman amendment, which was really the meatiest thing in the original Dodd-Frank bill, the one reform that really would have made a difference if it had passed, just died in the suffocating mass of the Blob. The key Democrats one after another failed to line up behind it, and in the end it was defeated soundly, with Dick Durbin, the number two man in the Democratic leadership, giving it this epitaph: "a bridge too far."
Again, those interested in understanding the mindset of the people who should be leading the anti-corruption charge ought to read this book. It's the weird lack of concern that shines through, like Khuzami’s comment that he’s "not losing sleep" over judges reprimanding his soft-touch settlements with banks, or then Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Ray Lohier’s comment that the thing that most concerned him – this is the period of 2008-2009, the middle of a historic crimewave on Wall Street – was "cyber crime."
On the outside we can only deduce the mindset from actions and non-actions, but Connaughton’s actually seen it, and with the book you get to see it too. It’s scary and definitely worth a read.
Matt Taibbi is a contributing editor for Rolling Stone. He’s the author of five books, most recently The Great Derangement and Griftopia, and a winner of the National Magazine Award for commentary.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
In conjuction with this book, I urge people to read "Predator Nation" by Charles Ferguson. (He made the award winning film, "Inside Job.") This book names those to blame for the financial debacle and what should be done about it.
They and their cronies (through deregulation!) now control the media so there is NO amplified voice of dissent.
Through our misplaced trust and inattention, we come to the situation that we face in November -- no friend out there, for Working America. The sacred ideal of the plutocracy is an Old Plantation system where all of us must BEG to serve them for some dry bread for our children.
It's rigged so that every time we wiggle, the chains just get tighter.
The way out of this will be neither peaceful, safe nor easy. There are still many who want peace at all costs, and they won't help us but will blame us for their inevitable discomfort, 'cause no matter what "good folks" they may be, they'll never get the keys to the Fat Cats' Kingdom.
As long as MONEY has a word to say, in human affairs, justice does not stand a chance.
The only international mafia (beside the Cosa Nostra) is international capital (i.e., capitalism/capi talists) which has been killing millions and oppressing billions for hundreds of years (depending on when one dates the origins/rise of/domiance of capital).
As for us Ashkenazim being Jews "in name only"...the only thing we need to know is that if and when the fascists (like yourself) ever come to power in this (or any other country) they won't care whether you are Ashkenazim, Sephardic or Eskimo you will still round all of us up and march us to the camps and into the gas chambers at which point the only question will be how many of you can we take with us. In the meantime, we will continue to fight fascists such as yourself, not because we think we can win but rather because you are fascists.
I have written letters to my Congressperson and my Senator (I live in California) regardind the issue of financial reform, as well as other issues and always got a scripted reply. Hinting they would consider or look into it but in the end either ignoring a reform or voting against it.
I'm a Democrat and my representatives are Democrat and after seeing how my elected officials ignore their constituents it is easy to see that they are in the pockets of the big donors and the Wall Street corporations.
So what will a full Democratic majority get us? Not much as Matt Taibbi shows us. Maybe it's time we look at votind differently. I know I have...
Since I am totally disillusioned by both parties, especially in the light of Matt Taibbi's article, I would like to ask SMoonz how he is looking at voting differently. Do you mean we should push for a third (or fourth) party, as is current in many other countries? If so, I agree! However, how will you solve the problem of financing it without falling into the trap of corruption? Some day, somehow we must reform our campaign financing system. But since such a reform would have to be legislated by the very people who profit from the present corrupt system, don't hold your breath!
Washington, and Wall Street are 'Brothers in Crime'; Both 'Co-operative Elements' for 'The Powers That Be' (The Big Money). They are working, together, exactly as intended by 'The Money' that owns them.
Follow The Money!! Through the Big Banks, through the FED and Bank of England, onward, UPward, through the IMF and World Bank..to The Big Boys...who you rarely see, or hear from (They 'Make Phone calls', write Very Large Checks...and never Dirty Their Own Hands).
But, Their Will... is being done..on Earth, if not in Heaven.
Our 'Representative s' do not represent 'We, The People', and Wall Street, is not a 'Free' market place.
Please stop being surprised by the deliberate 'sellout'.
government by thugs and gangsters is government.
From the Greek, An, (meaning without), and Archos, (meaning government), gives us, literally, NO government.
No government, means self control, personal responsibility, and the chance to learn from mistakes.
What happens when you are governed, if not that you do as you are told, so you don't have responsibility for what you do.That's the recipe for chaos, with everybody blaming somebody else.
To be precise, Archos refers to a ruler and not necessarily a gov't and so the notion of a participatory, democratic form of decision making (i.e., governance or gov't) is not necessarily in contradiction with the philosophy of anarchism...and no governement does not inherently mean or lead to "self control,persona l responsibility and the chance to learn from mistakes." Anarchism is clearly against "the state" (but then so is Marx in his definiton of communism) but that does not mean that the state as we have come to know it is the only possible for of governance/gov' t.
What's to further understand, after years of damning revelations regarding the massive scope of naked predation and corruption by the TBTF casinos...er... banks, answered predictably by galactic inertia from the "Justice" Department, which has consciously decided to "ape" the 3-Orangutan tribunal--Speak , See and Hear-No-Evil--w ho ignored Charleton Heston's rational pleadings in the original "Planet of the Apes"? (I know someone's gonna accuse me of racism for using this metaphor, but you can stuff that you know where).
Unless you're in a coma or on bath salts, it's apparent the Justice system, from Obama to Holder down the line, has simply looked the other way, not only to minimize any drought in the campaign lettuce crop, but also to avoid a prolonged, withering legal spotlight on the sausage-factory inner shenanigans of America's still premier industry, Wall Street. It sends a cynical message to legions of young people trying to find their way around this screwed up world, to figure out how stuff really works, the diff between "right" and "wrong", assuming they're not in the slothful, victimized 47% who just want to suck on that government headlight. So what? Relax; if anything, the last 30 years have guaranteed that when it comes to giving a shit, the old Sinatra flick comes to mind, "Never So Few".
Ours is not a Democracy. Plutocracy, Corporatocracy, Bankocracy or Richocracy are closer to the truth. We have lost control of our government, and unless there are very fundamental changes made soon we have essentially lost everything good on which our country was founded. It may be too late, but a last ditch effort should be made to put the people behind bars who caused and continue to cause financial crises for our country and the world. Occupy America. We need to take it back.
Like · · Share
Capitalism in this country exists in name only.
It's kind of like someone said of our Constitution, ..."it's a pretty good document, maybe we ought to try and follow it..."
Your statement, "...the protection of the capitalists by capitalist governance: absolute power and unlimited profit for the Ruling class..." is almost a textbook definition of fascism.
Capitalism may have some flaws, but what we are dealing with today sure ain't capitalism.
Would that it was.
Fascism is a particular political regime of capitalism; a form of capitalist rule/governance but it in no way describes the underlying economic system which remained capitalist i.e., a system based on wage-labor and the private ownership and control of the means of production).
And, while it is certainly true that there are "neo-merchantil ist" elements to contemporary global capital capitalism as a whole or as a system hasn't been truly merchantilist for a couple of hundred years.
You have stated nothing that disagrees with my premise at all.
Capitalism doesn't and never has existed in this country. Certainly not since Henry Clay's "American System" came to fruition.
You agree that we have "elements" which are "neo-mercantili st" (a commendable turn of phrase BTW) in our present system.
Unless I misread you, or you misread me, I see nothing in your reference to fascism that is not consistent with my comments.
I suspect you sniff a pro-capitalist tint to my remarks and it lit a fuse to your sense of egalitarianism.
dbriz, i wasn't looking to have an argument at all and i suspect we agree to a certain degree but was reacting to your comment that what we have now is not capitalism and to the idea that at one point we had a "free market" capitalist system that has been replaced by something else (whether you call it merchantilism or anything else). My own view is simply that the current system we live under (now global) is still very much capitalist and is very consistant with capitalism from its very beginnings and throughout its development.... doesn't mean that there haven't been significant changes as there certainly have but i don't think this makes the current system not capitalist in any way, shape or form.
Is anyone ready to change that?
Were government by, of, and for "We the People", we'd be much more optimistic, and for good reason. As it stands now, this election is not only about who's been brainwashed by spin and party loyalties more successfully, but a referendum on the proposition that we are a people with *representation * of our (individual and collective) needs as citizens. So the short answer to the question is simple, and clear: Government *is* Wall Street, as Sanders and other voices rightly note. Who is representing "We the People"? The ONLY way we can elect representatives of US is to Vote for President, and sweep out the Congress of No Apologies and No Compromise and 'no soup for you', and return to American values, like "liberty and justice for all". Government by and for *human being* people. If we grow, and share in opportunity and hope - the American dream - everyone wins. As "Chance Gardner" said in "Being There", "If the roots are strong, the tree will grow." Vote for representatives of WE the PEOPLE.
RSS feed for comments to this post