Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Obama ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

  1. #1
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default Obama ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

    McCain asserts that Obama has taken more money from these two corrupt financial institutions than any other Senator
    .

    This blog seems to agree:
    http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/...reddie-mac.php

  2. #2
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    Transcript -- Fox News 9/16/2008

    HEATHER NAUERT: Barack Obama attacking John McCain once again on the economy and the market turmoil today. Our John Gibson has new information on the Democratic presidential nominee and the mortgage mess for us now. What have you got John?

    JOHN GIBSON: Alright Heather. Lehman Brothers' collapse is traced back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big mortgage banks that got a federal bailout a few weeks ago. Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs. A group called the center for responsive politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. Senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were democrats and number two is Senator Barack Obama. Now, remember, he has only been in the Senate four years but still managed to grab the number two spot ahead of John Kerry, decades in the senate, and Chris Dodd who is chairman of the senate banking committee. Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional democrats and the Clinton white house, designed to make mortgages available to more people, and as it turned out, some people who couldn't afford them. Fannie and Freddie have also been places for big Washington democrats to go to work in the semi-private sector and pocket millions. The Clinton administration's white house budget director Franklin Raines ran Fannie and collected 50 million dollars. Jamie Gurilli, Clinton Justice Apartment Official, worked for Fannie and took home 26 million dollars. Big Democrat Jim Johnson, recently on Obama's VP search committee has hauled in millions from his Fannie Mae C.E.O. job. Now remember, Obama's ads and stump speeches attack McCain and republican policies for the current financial turmoil. It is demonstrably not Republican policy and worse, it appears the man attacking McCain, Senator Obama, was at the head of the line when the piggy's lined up at the Fannie and Freddie trough for campaign bucks. Senator Barack Obama, number two on the Fannie/Freddie list of favored politicians after just four short years in the senate. Next time you see that ad, you might notice he fails to mention that part of the Fannie and Freddie problem. Heather.

    NAUERT: Wow, that's quite a report, begs the question -- where is John McCain on this?

    GIBSON: John McCain is a measly $20,000 after over 20 years so he really doesn't even come close in the political contribution department.

    NAUERT: Interesting. All right. John Gibson, great to see you, as always, excellent thank you.

    http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/...tributions.php

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Phoenix Az
    Posts
    1,421

    Default

    Oh Sandra, such a scandal ! Lol. What you are not saying ( and probably do not understand) is that this money was in contributions from EMPLOYEES.
    Lets say you work at a Johns Cookie Oven and you give a contribution to Mrs Smiths campaign. Your contribution is tallied with other employees at the cookie factory and low and behold, the headlines read JOHNS COOKIE OVEN GIVES 650.00 to Mrs Smith.
    It doesn`t mean anything. Read and learn.Gosh.

    Fannie, Freddie Takeover Ends Lobbying Effort Bigger Than GE's

    By Jonathan D. Salant
    Enlarge Image/Details

    Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The government's takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stops one of Washington's most powerful lobbying juggernauts in its tracks after the mortgage giants had spent tens of millions of dollars thwarting efforts to increase government oversight.

    ``There's no doubt that the legislation was delayed for many years because of the strength of their lobbying power,'' said James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, after issuing an order halting all of their political and lobbying activities. The companies employ 20 in-house lobbyists and 48 outside firms, U.S. House records show.

    ``Effectively they report to me and government agencies can't have lobbyists,'' he added in an interview yesterday. ``So they notified all of their outside lobbyists that they are no longer allowed to do any lobbying.''

    The government's decision to end the mortgage companies' political and lobbying activities is reminiscent of the 1998 agreement between state attorneys general and tobacco companies. As part of the deal, the industry shut down its trade group, the Tobacco Institute, which issued studies and fought efforts to restrict smoking.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent $7.4 million on lobbying in the first six months this year -- $2.9 million by Fannie Mae and $4.5 million by Freddie Mac. Their $174 million in combined lobbying expenses since 1998 put the two companies just behind the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Medical Association and ahead of General Electric Co., according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington-based group that tracks money in politics.

    On Retainer

    Among those making the case for either Freddie or Fannie were former Senator Alfonse D'Amato, a New York Republican, as well as former Representatives Thomas Downey, a New York Democrat, and Vin Weber, a Minnesota Republican.

    Others hired to lobby for one of the companies included Steve Ricchetti, deputy White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton; and Gregg Hartley, former chief of staff to current House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican.

    ``This lobbying and insider revolving door created a very comfortable environment where there wasn't rigorous oversight by Congress,'' said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University in Washington. He called the lack of strong oversight of the companies ``one of the biggest failures of Congress.''

    `Look Elsewhere'

    Their ``outside lobbyists,'' most from top congressional leadership positions, ``will now have to look elsewhere for their retainers to cover their schmoozing with their former bosses,'' said Kent Cooper, former Federal Election Commission assistant staff director. Freddie Mac spokesman Douglas Duvall declined comment; Fannie Mae spokesman Brian Faith didn't return a call.

    Thurber said the loss of lobbying expenditures and campaign donations means Fannie and Freddie will have to make their case to lawmakers on the facts, not on relationships or contributions.

    ``It's in the public interest to force them to play the game based on knowledge and expertise rather than money,'' Thurber said.

    The lobbying effort staved off years of efforts by lawmakers, spearheaded by Republicans including former Representative Richard Baker of Louisiana, to strengthen oversight of the companies. A bill passed this year only after concerns about the companies' capital emerged. Driving those concerns was a decline in U.S. home prices following last year's collapse of the subprime-mortgage market.

    Campaign Cash

    The two companies' lobbying efforts have also been buttressed by millions in campaign cash, doled out in a bipartisan fashion.

    Since 1989, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae employees have given $19.5 million to federal candidates and committees, 53 percent to Republicans, according to the center. Combined, they would be the 25th largest giver during that period, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. About 57 percent of Freddie Mac's money went to Republicans, while about 52 percent of Fannie Mae's went to Democrats.

    Fannie Mae so far in this two-year election cycle has given $1.3 million, twice as much as Freddie Mac, the center said. Both are giving more to Democrats in this election cycle.

    Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, an Illinois senator, has raised $103,899 from both companies' employees for his presidential run, compared with $15,650 for his Republican opponent, Arizona Senator John McCain, according to the center's figures.
    It seems the employees like Obama a whole lot more. A picture of things to come ?

  4. #4
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    It seems the employees like Obama a whole lot more.
    No, dummy, they like their jobs . . !
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  5. #5
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    It wasn't contributions from employees at all! Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been paying Obama for some time to represent them at the legislative level. It's basically called lobbying, but in this instance it's looking more like bribery because Obama is claiming he didn't support them at the legislative level when yes, in fact, he did. So he says one thing, but if the price is right, he changes his mind.

    Obama has a lot of nerve trying to pin this on McCain when he himself (Obama, that is) was going to bat for these two corrupt institutions and is now being considered at least partially responsible for the mess they've caused.

    That you want to sit there making excuses for them makes me wonder about you as someone who claims to work in the field of finances.

  6. #6
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    Their $174 million in combined lobbying expenses since 1998 put the two companies just behind the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Medical Association and ahead of General Electric Co., according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington-based group that tracks money in politics.
    Out of the three officials who received those bribes, Obama received the second highest amount in less than a 2 year period than the other two received over a period of several years, essentially meaning that Obama was paid at a much higher rate.

    Here he is accepting this money to keep these institutions alive when everyone knows they're corrupt and will cause stock market problems, and he's voting to keep them going anyway - yet he's pointing fingers at McCain?!

    Obama is not only a hypocrite, he's a bold faced liar, too.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Phoenix Az
    Posts
    1,421

    Default

    Read the last PARAGRAPH HERE ,

    Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, an Illinois senator, has raised $103,899 from both companies' employees for his presidential run, compared with $15,650 for his Republican opponent, Arizona Senator John McCain, according to the center's figures.

    NOW READ THIS
    http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/06/d...ic_part_10.php
    Democratic Party Will No Longer Accept Washington Lobbyist Donations
    Posted by Michael Link on June 5, 2008 at 11:46 AM

    Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and the Obama for America Campaign today announced that the DNC will no longer accept Washington lobbyist donations, making the same commitment as Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

    "The DNC and the Obama Campaign are unified and working together to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. Our presumptive nominee has pledged not to take donations from Washington lobbyists and from today going forward the DNC makes that pledge as well," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "Senator Obama has promised to change the way things are done in Washington and this step is a sure sign of his commitment. The American people's priorities will set the agenda in an Obama Administration, not the special interests."
    Here is the real Issue with Freddie/Fannie money and McCain

    McCain's Fannie and Freddie Connections

    John McCain railed against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the campaign trail today, saying that the CEOs that led the lenders to ruin "deserve nothing" and should have to pay back their severance packages. In an Wall Street Journal op-ed co-bylined by his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, McCain suggested bold reforms for Fannie and Freddie that would "terminate future lobbying, which was one of the primary contributors to this great debacle."

    If that's the case, McCain should look first to his campaign staffers as the cause of that debacle. One of them was Fannie Mae's head of lobbying, and spread tens of millions of dollars around Washington in the form of lobbying contracts. A number of McCain staffers were on the receiving end of those contracts, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars each from the lenders to rep their interests. And McCain's campaign manager served as president of a lobbying association that fought to protect Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from the sort of regulation that McCain is now proposing.

    In McCain's op-ed in the Journal, he and Palin wrote:

    For years, Congress failed to act and it is deeply troubling that what we are seeing is an exercise in crisis management rather than sound planning, and at great cost to taxpayers.

    We promise the American people that our administration will be different. We have long records of standing up to special interests…

    But McCain's own campaign staffers are those special interests, a fact that casts doubt on both McCain's hiring judgment and his ability to pursue tough reforms of Fannie and Freddie.

    Aquiles Suarez, listed as an economic adviser to the McCain campaign in a July 2007 McCain press release, was formerly the director of government and industry relations for Fannie Mae. The Senate Lobbying Database says Suarez oversaw the lending giant's $47,510,000 lobbying campaign from 2003 to 2006.

    And other current McCain campaign staffers were the lobbyists receiving shares of that money. According to the Senate Lobbying Database, the lobbying firm of Charlie Black, one of McCain's top aides, made at least $820,000 working for Freddie Mac from 1999 to 2004. The McCain campaign's vice-chair Wayne Berman and its congressional liaison John Green made $1.14 million working on behalf of Fannie Mae for lobbying firm Ogilvy Government Relations. Green made an additional $180,000 from Freddie Mac. Arther B. Culvahouse Jr., the VP vetter who helped John McCain select Sarah Palin, earned $80,000 from Fannie Mae in 2003 and 2004, while working for lobbying and law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP. In addition, Politico reports that at least 20 McCain fundraisers have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pocketing at least $12.3 million over the last nine years.

    For years McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was head of the Homeownership Alliance, a lobbying association that included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, real estate agents, homebuilders, and non-profits. According to Politico, the organization opposed congressional attempts at regulation of Fannie and Freddie, along the lines of what John McCain is currently proposing. In his capacity of president of the group, Davis went on record in 2003 and insisted that no further reform of the lenders was necessary, in contradiction to his current boss's sentiments. "[Fannie and Freddie] are subject to an innovative and stringent risk-based capital stress test," Davis wrote. "The toughest in the financial services industry."

    At a campaign rally Wednesday morning in Fairfax, Virginia, John McCain said that the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ought to give back the millions of dollars they've earned. What about the lobbyists who helped Fannie and Freddie game the system? Maybe McCain can ask them — at the next campaign strategy meeting.
    Last edited by davide; 09-19-2008 at 09:17 AM.

  8. #8
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    One of the questions you can ask yourself, if you want to look at this honestly, is this . .

    WHY . . Does a Corporation that is supported, insured and overseen by Congress, need to lobby Congress? Or Congressmen?

    And . . Why would an Honest Man who is supposed to represent the American Taxpayer accept money from that entity for any reason?
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  9. #9
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    WHY . . Does a Corporation that is supported, insured and overseen by Congress, need to lobby Congress? Or Congressmen?
    ----------------------------------------------------
    I kind of think this is why it's being called bribery in some circles. I also think this matter needs to be investigated a little more - I think the corruption extends to Obama.

  10. #10
    Administrator Sandra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,683

    Default

    davide, you're not looking at the bigger picture. That's just campaign contributions. The money he received before he began considering running for President - the money he received directly from those institutions - is what I'm on about, not campaign contributions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •