Not many people remember the House debate over Wall Street reform. It occurred in the backdrop of the health care debate, and the lack of attention from the general public led to a pretty badly compromised bill. The lobbyists were able to win the day on a number of fronts, and the finished product, while OK on one or two points, was generally weak. In particular, there were a number of amendment votes put together by New Democrats and Blue Dogs which reduced the strength of the bill, particularly on derivatives and pre-emption measures on the CFPA.
Now the Office of Congressional Ethics is taking a look at a series of fundraisers held by Democrats and Republicans within 48 hours of the final vote, and even closer to the votes on those amendments.
The Office of Congressional Ethics is investigating eight lawmakers who held fundraisers within 48 hours of a major House vote on a Wall Street reform bill or received substantial donations from business people with a financial stake in the bill, according to congressional sources and letters.
The probe is focused on whether the timing of accepting the campaign checks created an unacceptable appearance of a conflict, according to sources familiar with the investigation and letters sent by the OCE to lobbyists requesting information. The OCE’s spokesman declined to comment for this article, citing the ongoing nature of the investigation.
The office is scrutinizing five Republicans and three Democrats, a diverse group that includes a conservative, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), and a liberal member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.).
Seven of the eight members held fundraisers for their reelection campaigns on Dec. 9 or Dec. 10 — just before the House voted Dec. 11 in favor of a bill to make broad changes in how Wall Street and financial firms are regulated, according to a Washington Post analysis. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) held a “Finance Services luncheon” at the Capitol Hill Club on Dec. 10. On the same day, a lobby firm with financial clients, Davis & Harman, hosted a fundraising breakfast for Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) at its Pennsylvania Avenue offices.
Watt was the member who offered a competing version of the “audit the Fed” bill in the House Financial Services Committee. He was ultimately unsuccessful. The article also notes that Watt dropped a proposal to close the loophole exempting auto dealers from the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. I question the correlation here; Watt’s fundraiser was largely with groups like Goldman Sachs and the Investment Company Institute, who aren’t entirely interested in that facet of the bill.
But Watt does sit on the conference committee, which is charged with making the key changes to the text to blend the House and Senate bill (Hensarling’s on it too). How can that be allowable? You have two members of Congress under investigation for influence peddling on the very bill which they’re shaping through their presence on the conference committee?
In addition, how can the assault on the Senate derivatives title by the New Democrats and House Democrats from New York be possibly taken seriously, when Joe Crowley, a leader of the New Democrats from New York, is under investigation? Hopefully this can discredit that effort.
