RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Taibbi writes: "The man who ran as an outsider and champion of the common man plays the stooge for industry."

During his campaign, Donald Trump released a 100-day 'action plan' that supposedly targeted 'special interest corruption.' (photo: Mandel Ngan)
During his campaign, Donald Trump released a 100-day 'action plan' that supposedly targeted 'special interest corruption.' (photo: Mandel Ngan)

Trump's Repeal of Bipartisan Anti-Corruption Measure Proves He's a Fake

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

17 February 17


The man who ran as an outsider and champion of the common man plays the stooge for industry

n October 13th of last year, in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Donald Trump gave a desperate speech at a desperate moment. A week after the surfacing of the infamous "grab them by the pussy" video, Trump presented himself as the common man's only defense against a vast conspiracy of global financial interests:

"There is nothing the political establishment will not do," he said, "and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense."

Including running Donald Trump as an anti-corruption candidate! He went on:

"For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat," Trump said. "It's a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class ... and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities."

In conjunction with this speech, which was sold as the "crossroads of history" address (and triggered a new hashtag, #TrumpTheEstablishment), Trump released a 100-day "action plan" that supposedly targeted "special interest corruption."

Among the measures proposed: new restrictions on lobbying, including a five-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists after leaving office.

Months later, with the self-proclaimed "existential threat" to special interests in office, the "establishment" has it better than ever. Not only has the money-over-principle dynamic not changed inside the Beltway, it's ascendant. Under "outsider" rule, Washington has never been more Washington-y.

Tuesday, for instance, Trump signed a repeal of a bipartisan provision of the Dodd-Frank bill known as the Cardin-Lugar Amendment. The absurd history of this doomed provision stands as a perfect microcosm of how Washington works, or doesn't work, as it were.

The election of a billionaire president who killed the anti-corruption measure off is only the brutal coup de grace. The rule was stalled for the better part of six years by a relentless and exhausting parade of lobbyists, lawyers and other assorted Beltway malingerers. It then lived out of the womb for a few sad months before Trump smothered it this week.

Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act was created by Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin and then Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar. Passed in 2010, the rule was simple: It required oil, gas and mining companies to disclose any payments above $100,000 made to foreign governments.

The law was designed to prevent energy companies from bribing foreign dictators. The simple goal was to ensure that the wealth of resource-rich countries would be enjoyed by their citizens, and not converted into obscene personal collections of yachts, mansions, sports cars and Michael Jackson memorabilia – as, for instance, it was when oil was discovered in Equatorial Guinea, and the brutal dictator Teodoro Obiang started doing business with Rex Tillerson's ExxonMobil.

The provision originally passed in the summer of 2010 and became law when Dodd-Frank was signed later that year. But it didn't go into effect right away. As hotshot Wall Street lobbyist Scott Talbott of the Financial Services Roundtable cracked, "When [Obama] signed the financial reform law, that was halftime."

After passage, the law went back to the SEC for the rule-writing process, where it spent two years being bandied around while special interest groups harangued the agency with suggestions and comment letters.

Those first years of SEC rule-writing included multiple meetings and rule addendum suggestions from trade groups like the American Petroleum Institute (API), as well as with executives from companies like ExxonMobil. (Exxon VP Pat Mulva and Corporate Securities and Finance Coordinator Brian Malnak met with the SEC twice in November of 2010.)

Then, on August 22nd, 2012, a version of the rule passed the commission by a vote of 2-1. Success! Yet shortly after the rule passed – on October 10th, 2012, to be exact – the aforementioned API, along with the Chamber of Commerce, filed a lawsuit against the SEC to block the provision.

The suit charged that the SEC "failed to conduct an adequate cost-benefit analysis as required by law" (this was a trick used multiple times to block Dodd-Frank provisions) and that the agency "grossly misinterpreted its statutory mandate to make a 'compilation' of information available to the public."

Industry whined that the rule would prohibit deals in countries where local laws prohibited disclosure of such payments, and that it would force firms to "sell their assets … at fire sale prices." The basic idea was that international capitalism would grind to a halt if they had to make public which dictator's yachts they were buying, and for how much.

The legal Hail Mary worked, naturally, as such suits nearly always do in Washington, and the rule was struck down by a D.C. district court in 2013. The court ruling required the SEC to either write a new rule or come up with a new justification for the old one.

This commenced another years-long slog of meetings, letters and suggestions. The oil-and-gas people, of course, pretended the whole time that they didn't want to kill the provision, exactly, just improve it.

"As we discussed," the API wrote to the SEC on November 7th, 2013, "API strongly believes an effective and workable result can be achieved that accomplishes the transparency objectives of the statute while also protecting investors from significant harm."

API then proceeded to offer 16 maddening pages of suggestions that would ostensibly improve the provision. The SEC would ultimately cave on a number of these industry requests, resulting in a rule that in the end was significantly more convoluted than the original version.

This is why laws like Dodd-Frank end up being unwieldy monstrosities of thousands and thousands of pages: On the road to trying to kill a law outright, lobbyists usually try to weigh it down first by adding exceptions and verbiage. Ironically, this ends up driving the industry's own compliance costs higher in the meantime, but it's worth it, as it stalls the process.

Another irony here is that the public perception that nothing ever gets done in Washington is driven by this very dynamic. The public becomes impatient for action when every tiny provision of every bill gets bogged down as fat-cat lawyers fight for years on end over the definition of words like "compilation" and "project."

This is the ultimate in overpaid busywork for the overeducated. The ongoing bureaucratization of the legislative process is really just a high-priced welfare program for corporate lawyers.

And while lawyers make fortunes pushing commas around and adding mountains of words to already overwritten laws, ex-middle-class workers in places outside of the Beltway keep finding their slice of the pie smaller and smaller.

This leads to frustration with Washington inaction. And as we've seen, this leads to political support for big talkers like Trump who promise, hilariously, to cut through the red tape and "get things done."

To make a long story short, the Cardin-Lugar provision ended up being delayed time and time again. At one point, the SEC had be kicked into action by Oxfam, which sued the agency essentially to force it to complete the rule.

Only after settling with the human rights organization (like many human rights advocates, Oxfam's interest here was in preventing bribes to repressive regimes) did the SEC finally go back to completing its court-ordered and congressionally mandated work.

Despite all of the delays and wrangling, however, it did finally pass last June. But in yet another lurid example of how idiotic our system is, the provision was upended by an asinine law called the Congressional Review Act.

This obscure Gingrich-era statute (signed into law by Bill Clinton), which seems to exist entirely for the purpose of allowing newly elected officials to overturn the work of their predecessors, permits the government to reconsider any piece of legislation within a window of 60 session days after implementation.

The CRA mechanism was put to use shortly after Trump's inauguration. There were a few hours of debate in the Senate, a brief debate in the House, and then Cardin-Lugar was "executed at dawn," as the Lugar Center put it, in an unusual early-morning Senate session that began at 6:30 a.m. on February 3rd.

"Congress," the center noted, "took fewer than five days from the beginning of the legislative process to the end." There were no subcommittee reviews, no hearings, nothing. After six grueling years being pushed uphill, in a process that cost God knows how much in billable hours, the rule was scuttled in Congress and sent to Trump's desk to be wiped out in a matter of weeks.

Ask Trump supporters about this episode, and many would say they won't weep for the loss of any government regulation.

But they should ask themselves if, when they were whooping and hollering for the man who promised to end special interest and lobbyist rules in Washington, they imagined the ExxonMobil chief in charge of the State Department cheering as the new president wiped out anti-bribery laws. The "establishment" sure is on the run, isn't it? your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+81 # JCM 2017-02-17 10:38
They thought a billionaire who spent his life lying and ripping people off will save the day and transform their lives by enriching them with greater wealth. As the orange man would say, SAD.
+71 # Kootenay Coyote 2017-02-17 12:49
Or, as superb economists Keynes & Galbraith said in turn, "Capitalism is the curious belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will do good to the rest of us." & "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
+22 # HowardMH 2017-02-17 14:53
Trump waved his $400,000 a year salary. That was just so White of him. Now in a MONTH he has gone to Florida THREE Times at a cost to YOU of $3,000,000 EACH Trip for a total of $9 MILLION of your tax dollars just so he can show off his large Investment property on Florida. Also, the cost of being a member at his place has jumped from $100,000 to $200,000. Is Trump making money off of being president – you bet your ass he is and laughing all the way to the bank at YOUR expense.

From Daily KOS Feb 16, 2017: Trump’s unhinged display underscored a letter published in the New York Times Tuesday and signed by 35 physicians and mental health professionals who broke with long-held ethics standards to address Trump's "grave emotional instability." They wrote:
Mr. Trump’s speech and actions demonstrate an inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions. His words and behavior suggest a profound inability to empathize. Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists).
In a powerful leader, these attacks are likely to increase, as his personal myth of greatness appears to be confirmed. We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.
+3 # Cassandra2012 2017-02-19 18:04
'waived' but yes. And his moocher sons took vacations on the taxpayers' "dime"!
-33 # Inspired Citizen 2017-02-17 10:42
Trump, it turns out, is as much of a fraud as "progressive" Obama.
+41 # wrknight 2017-02-17 13:34
He was always a fraud. That was as obvious as teets on a boar hog. The only surprise here is how so many people didn't see the obvious.
+1 # librarian1984 2017-02-17 23:59
Yes, if only they'd been given a decent alternative.

The Podesta emails show us the Clinton campaign, with the collusion of the DNC and msm, did their best to get Trump or Cruz as the GOP nominee because they were the only ones they thought Hillary could defeat. It turns out they were a little too optimistic.

Think about that. The Democrats purposely helped put in place the worst possible opponent for Hillary's benefit. And when it went sideways, as many of us knew it would, we got Trump.

Yet people here continue to make snide remarks about Bernie supporters, saying we are Trump apologists, instead of being angry with the Democrats and the Clinton campaign.

That, as much as anything this year, promises that things are not going to get better anytime soon.

We're supposed to be the side with the brains? I don't want to hear any more about Trump supporters being stupid, not when so many Democrats are defending the CIA and buying whatever cr@p the msm is dishing out each day.
+3 # ericlipps 2017-02-18 16:29
People here make snide remarks about Bernie Supporters instead of being angry with the Democrats and the Clinton

People like you, you mean?

If anything, I'd say it was the other way around, with most folks here making nasty comments about Hillary and the DNC and praising Sanders to the skies.
0 # Cassandra2012 2017-02-19 18:06
'teats' but yes.
+51 # HowardMH 2017-02-17 11:48
Notice how the Orange Headed Idiot signs his name with that really thick felt tip pen so his name stands out much much brighter than anything else on the paper. Then he holds it up like - "see mommy, I can sign my name", just like any proud 2nd or 3rd grader would do.

I think you are insulting 13 year olds by comparing him to them.
Ohh, and shouldn’t it be President Bannon, with Trump the puppet doing what he is told.

Sure looks like America is getting close to needing these drastic measures.

When are impeachment hearings going to start with Republicans leading the charge? If they don't stand up real soon for what is right and get rid of the Orange Headed Idiot, with a little bit of management by the democrats, most of these republicans will be gone in 2018 along with several current democrats that will lose in primaries in 2018.
+12 # Michaeljohn 2017-02-17 16:56
Quoting HowardMH:
Notice how the Orange Headed Idiot signs his name with that really thick felt tip pen so his name stands out much much brighter than anything else on the paper. Then he holds it up like - "see mommy, I can sign my name", just like any proud 2nd or 3rd grader would do.

Ahhh, what else would you expect from someone who stands in front of his mirror when he wakes up in the morning and says: 'mirror mirror on the wall, show me who's the greatest of all' .....
+36 # economagic 2017-02-17 11:49
Yeah, I suspect that most of the people who drank that poisoned Kool-Aid the first time have already come back for another dose.

"On the road to trying to kill a law outright, lobbyists usually try to weigh it down first by adding exceptions and verbiage. Ironically, this ends up driving the industry's own compliance costs higher in the meantime, but it's worth it, as it stalls the process."

Not only does it stall the process, but it justifies their raising the price of whatever Kool-Aid a particular vendor is selling, and/or to further screw its workers, in order to maintain profit as a percentage of revenue.

"The basic idea was that international capitalism would grind to a halt if they had to make public which dictator's yachts they were buying, and for how much."

And exactly why would that be a bad idea, even though it is malarkey, just another "alternative fact"? This Kool-Aid is the most lethal of all, folks -- spit it out!
+31 # Jaax88 2017-02-17 12:33
As has been written before in other words, we now have the wrong guy as president, with the wrong agenda, with the wrong people to put it into effect, for the benefit of the wrong class of people and with the wrong potential outcome for America.
+34 # ddd-rrr 2017-02-17 12:55
Ohhhhhhh......, it was SO CLEAR from the beginning of Trump's presidential
run that what we were dealing with was a very rich, "spoiled" bully - and that
he was also a VERY clever (but otherwise not very bright) con-man. It was
also obvious that he was NOT in the presidential race for any reason but for
advancing his own personal monetary, power, and ego positions - and that
he also wished to enhance the power and wealth of his billionaire cronies.
There was NO evidence (other than the "hot air" claims he "emitted" at
campaign events and to the press without any factual support) that he would
be "on the side of" anyone in a lower economic or power position. He made
NO attempt at any time to cover up these truths about himself, yet many people
STILL eagerly voted for him, convinced (without any supporting evidence) that
he would be a good choice to advance their interests! W_E_ I _R_D_!
+22 # dotlady 2017-02-17 12:56
The biggest fat cats pay the biggest bribes, and thus run our country to their profit and most often to our detriment.
+11 # wrknight 2017-02-17 13:23
Trump's only problem with those whose hands were on the levers of power is that they were not his hands. Now that his hands are on the levers of power it's GAME ON!
+16 # tgemberl 2017-02-17 13:30
It is notable that Lugar is a Republican, so this provision was an example of bipartisanship, something we need real badly.

I noticed that one of my postings was posted yesterday and later deleted. I guess the reviewer thought it was okay at first and then it hurt somebody's feelings. I do not post abusive things. I will not contribute funding to this site if it is just another echo chamber.
+5 # Robbee 2017-02-17 17:41
a fake? - yes, it proves rump is a traditional repug!
+3 # noramorse 2017-02-17 18:14
I liked the first Carrot Top better.

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.