MapLight - Money and Politics: Marshall & Ilsley Corporation News

Legislators Voting YES on Derivatives Deregulation Bill Receive 2.6 Times More Money From Top Banks

Donny Shaw — Fri, 24 May 2013 16:53:01 +0000

Earlier this month the House Financial Services Committee approved six bills that would roll back pieces of the Dodd-Frank Act designed to improve regulation of the derivatives market. The most contentious of the bills, H.R. 992, would repeal most of Sec. 716 of the 2010 financial reform bill, Dodd-Frank, which requires banks to spin off their derivatives activities into separate affiliate institutions that do not have access to federal bank subsidies. Many financial reform advocates consider Sec. 716 to be Dodd-Frank's key measure for preventing public subsidies of speculative derivatives trading.

Data: A MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to members of the House Financial Services Committee from the PACs of top banks (Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, & Wells Fargo) and the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) sector from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012. Data source: Federal Elections Commission (FEC)

House Financial Services Committee members voting 'YES' on H.R. 992 received, on average, 2.6 times more money from top banks than committee members voting 'NO.'
House Financial Services Committee members voting 'YES' on H.R. 992 received, on average, 3 times more money from the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) sector than committee members voting 'NO.'

Note: Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup collectively hold 93.2% ($208 trillion in notional value) of all derivatives contracts.

Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to members of the House Financial Services Committee voting on H.R. 992 from top banks (Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, & Wells Fargo) and the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) sector from January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2012. Data source: FEC

Image: Mclek / Shutterstock

GMO Labeling Amendment Rejected Overwhelmingly in the Senate

Donny Shaw — Fri, 24 May 2013 06:56:30 +0000

Yesterday, by a vote of 27-71, the Senate defeated an amendment to the farm bill from Senator Bernie Sanders that sought to ensure that states can enforce their own laws requiring genetically modified foods to have special labels.

Some, including Senator Sanders, believe that biotech food companies are pursuing a legal strategy to prevent states from requiring the labels. "When the state of Vermont, and other states go forward in passing legislation to label genetically modified food, they have been threatened by Monsanto and other large biotech companies with costly lawsuits," Sanders said on the Senate floor.

The amendment would have stated in federal law: "Notwithstanding any other Federal law (including regulations), a State may require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that State have a label on the container or package of the food, beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient."

Data: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to the Senate from the PACs of key companies supporting the use of genetically engineered crops from January 1, 2009 - March 17, 2013. Contributions data source: FEC

Company	2010	2012	2014	Grand Total
American Crystal Sugar	$194,500	$188,500	$22,500	$405,500
Monsanto Company	$79,250	$83,500		$162,750
American Farm Bureau	$77,483	$74,951		$152,434
Syngenta Corporation	$55,500	$61,500		$117,000
Archer Daniels Midland	$39,500	$57,500	$1,000	$98,000
National Cotton Council	$42,500	$50,500		$93,000
Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative	$36,400	$34,000	$2,000	$72,400
Cargill, Inc.	$39,000	$31,500		$70,500
Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative	$25,800	$37,000		$62,800
Scotts Miracle-Gro	$19,500	$6,500		$26,000
Total:	$609,433	$625,451	$25,500	$1,260,384

Members of the Senate have received $1,260,384 from the PACs of these organizations.
Senator Debbie Stabenow, author of the Farm Bill and Chair of the Agriculture Committee, has received $90,500 from these organizations, more than any other senator.
Senator Sanders has received no money from these organizations.

Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions from PACs to current members of the 113th Congress since January 1, 2009, based on latest available data from the FEC as of March 17, 2013.

Image credit: WILPF

Image:

Cal-Access Database Available for Download by Labor Day, Says California Secretary of State

Rosie Cima — Mon, 20 May 2013 22:03:08 +0000

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and Daniel Newman, Co-Founder and President of MapLight

Yesterday, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's spokeswoman Shannon Velayas told Judy Lin of the Associated Press that her office plans to make the state's entire campaign finance database available for download on one spreadsheet by Labor Day (September 2, 2013), reversing Bowen's earlier denial of a request signed by several media, transparency, and reform groups that she “upload a copy of the Cal-Access [campaign finance] database [daily] to a publicly accessible website where data can be downloaded as a single file by members of the public and the media.” Daniel G. Newman, Co-Founder and President of MapLight and co-author of the request, is calling Bowen's decision a "public access victory."

Bowen's current website has an interface for searching the database, but it only allows users to download data a committee at a time, which is a problem for anybody wanting to analyze the dataset as a whole. "It takes a hundred times more work for the state to put up a searchable public website than to make the raw data available for download," Newman explained, "and the raw data is in many ways more useful."

Just weeks ago, Bowen declined the request on the grounds that the upgrade would not constitute a "cost-effective" allocation of resources. The new announcement follows an in-depth discussion with Newman and Phillip Ung, a policy advocate for the grassroots organization Common Cause. "Great credit goes to Secretary Bowen for recognizing the importance of this data set, and I hope this sets the precedent for other states across the nation," Newman said. "It's not just a small feature that she's adding—it's a quantum leap forward for transparency."

Ung and Newman also hope that, in addition to spreading across the states, the lower levels of government within California also take the cue to bring their public databases into the 21st century. "Agencies throughout the state should follow Secretary Bowen's example to make public data public," said Ung.

The original request was *signed by several newspapers and nonprofits, including the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the Los Angeles Times, the Sacramento Bee, Rootstrikers, and the Sunlight Foundation. Newman says that he estimates the Sept. 2 deadline will give these organizations "plenty of time" with the data before the next election. Bowen has also announced that once the download is up, it will be updated twice daily with new records. "Once the raw format of the data is also available daily through our website, anyone with the technological expertise can write their own tracking program," Bowen said in a statement.

"Secretary Bowen's decision will make it easier for citizens throughout California to keep track of who's funding their elected officials, furthering a transparent and accountable democracy," Newman said. "MapLight and our partners are proud to have worked with the Secretary of State to make this important public access victory possible."

*Full list of signatories of the request letter: MapLight, Common Cause, Around The Capitol, California Forward, California Newspaper Publishers Association, Courage Campaign, Global Exchange, Los Angeles Times, Rootstrikers, The Sacramento Bee, Sunlight Foundation, and Senator Leland Yee.

Photo credit: California Secretary of State and MapLight

Image:

Extension of Sugar Program Remains in Farm Bill: Sugar Amendment Rejected

Donny Shaw — Tue, 14 May 2013 20:10:00 +0000

In an attempt to cut costs and limit waste, the farm bills advancing in the Senate and the House include many reforms to long-standing agricultural programs. Direct payments to farmers would be eliminated, food stamps and nutrition programs would be reduced, and government funding for conservation efforts would be cut.

But so far at least one major farm bill program would be left untouched. According to the Senate Agriculture Committee summary, under the bill, "the Sugar Program is continued without changes through 2017." The House's version of the bill would also reauthorize the Sugar Program without any changes.

During the Senate debate this afternoon, an amendment to refrom the Sugar Program, from Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Kirk, (R-IL), and Patrick Toomey, (R-PA), was rejected, 45-54. The amendment would have eliminated certain price supports that lawmakers say make sweets more expensive for consumers.

The Sugar Program is criticized for boosting the price of American sugar by providing nonrecourse loans to growers and processors of sugarcane and sugar beets. It also restricts the amount of sugar that can be imported to the U.S. from other countries. Critics of the program argue that it uses taxpayer resources while increasing costs for food consumers and manufacturers.

Data: MapLight analysis of contributions to members of Congress from the sugar cane and sugar beets industry between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2012.

Members of the Senate have received $637,830 from the sugar industry.
Members of the House have received $3,168,232 from the sugar industry.
Senator Bill Nelson received more money from the sugar industry than any other member of Congress ($71,250).
Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow received $65,830 from the sugar industry, 9.2 times more than average for members of Congress ($7,127).
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas received $56,000 from the sugar industry, 7.9 times more than average for members of Congress ($7,127).

Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to current members of Congress from PACs and employees of organizations in the sugar cane and sugar beets industry from January 1, 2011—December 31, 2012. Contributions data source: OpenSecrets.org

Image credit: NatalieMaynor/Flickr, imstock/Shutterstock

Image:

Internet Sales Tax Bill Passes Senate - Contributions from Key Stakeholders

Donny Shaw — Tue, 07 May 2013 16:06:58 +0000

By a vote of 69-27, the Senate passed a bill on Monday that would require online retailers to collect and distribute sales taxes according to the tax laws of the fifty states.

Under current law, retailers are only required to collect sales taxes for online purchases originating in states where they have a physical presence. The Senate's bill is supported by national brick-and-mortar chains and Amazon, both of whom would gain a competitive advantage by the increased burden the bill would place on small and mid-size retailers that sell online (the bill exempts businesses with less than $1 million in annual sales). Opposition to the bill is being led by eBay, which has organized a coalition of small online retailers and activated its sellers to lobby Congress on the bill.

Data: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions from interest groups that have taken a position on S. 743 (Marketplace Fairness Act) to members of the Senate from January 1, 2007—December 31, 2012. Contributions data source: Center for Responsive Politics

Amazon contributions to the Senate total $208,428.
eBay contributions to the Senate total $177,900.
Interest groups supporting the bill (including Amazon, Walmart, AFL-CIO) have given 40 times as much money to senators than interest groups opposing (including eBay, TechNet, FreedomWorks).
Senators voting "YES" received, on average, 53% more money from Amazon than from eBay.
Senators voting "YES" received, on average, 44% more money from Amazon than senators voting "NO."
Senators voting "NO" received, on average, 62% more money from eBay than senators voting "YES."
Senators voting "YES" received 29% more money, on average, from interest groups supporting the bill than senators voting "NO."

Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions from interest groups that have taken a position on S. 743 to current members of the Senate, from January 1, 2007—December 31, 2012. Contributions data source: OpenSecrets.org

Image credit: doomu/Shutterstock

Image:

Why is the Agriculture Committee Deregulating Financial Derivatives?

Donny Shaw — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:09:45 +0000

On March 20, the House Agriculture Committee debated and passed seven bills designed to roll back derivatives regulations that were created by Congress three years ago in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.

According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the top four commercial banks—Bank of America, Goldman Sachs Bank, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase Bank—account for 93.2% of the derivative contracts held for trading. That amounts to $208 trillion in notional value* outstanding in derivatives at these institutions.

Data: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to members of the 113th Congress since 2009 from the political action committees (PACs) of the top four commercial banks. Data source: FEC.

**CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PACs OF TOP FOUR COMMERCIAL BANKS**
Company	$ to House Agriculture Committee	$ to Congress
Goldman Sachs	$112,000	$1,532,500
Bank of America	$86,000	$1,522,614
JPMorgan Chase	$67,500	$1,219,249
Citigroup	$32,500	$631,000
Total:	$298,000	$4,905,363

The PACs of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup contributed $298,000 to members of the House Agriculture Committee since 2009.

*includes futures, exchange traded options, over the counter options, forwards, and swaps

Correction: A previous version of this post included contributions to Mike Rogers (R - MI) instead of Mike Rogers (R - AL). The current version has been updated to exclude contributions to Mike Rogers (R - MI) and include contributions to Mike Rogers (R - AL), who is a member of the Agriculture Committee.

Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions from the PACs of top four commercial banks to committees associated with members of 113th Congress since January 1, 2009, based on latest available data from the FEC as of March 26, 2013.

The following seven bills were approved by the committee—six by voice vote and one, H.R. 992, by a vote of 31-14—and are now awaiting action by the full House or the Financial Services Committee:

H.R. 634 - Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act
H.R. 677 - Inter-Affiliate Swap Clarification Act
H.R. 742 - Swap Data Repository and Clearinghouse Indemnification Correction Act
H.R. 992 - Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act
H.R. 1003 - To improve consideration by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of the costs and benefits of its regulations and orders.
H.R. 1038 - Public Power Risk Management Act
H.R. 1256 - Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act

Background: The House Agriculture Committee was given jurisdiction over derivatives in the late 19th century, when farmers began using derivatives to stabilize crop prices. Over the years, derivatives have transformed into a complex, global financial market with little to do with agriculture, but the Agriculture Committee has held onto their jurisdiction over the matter.

Photo credit: thetaxhaven / Flickr

Image:

CA State Senator Michael Rubio Leaves Senate to Join Chevron

Chad Outler — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:31:00 +0000

CA State Senator Michael Rubio is leaving the state legislature for Chevron Corporation to direct governmental affairs in California. Rubio had been serving as chair of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality and had also been a member of the Committee on Natural Resources and Water.

Data: A MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to Senator Michael Rubio shows:

Contributions from Chevron Corporation to Rubio total $7,800.
Contributions from Oil & Gas interests to Rubio total $42,600.

Top 10 Interests Funding	Contributions
General Trade Unions	$150,300
Health Professionals	$109,999
Insurance	$66,332
Real Estate	$64,058
Public Sector Unions	$60,892
Tribal Governments	$45,400
Oil & Gas	$42,600
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$35,390
Pharmaceuticals & Health Products	$32,700
Telecom Services & Equipment	$31,200

Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to CA State Senator Michael Rubio from May 20, 2008-May 19, 2012. Data source: National Institute on Money in State Politics.

Photo: Denis Kuvaevi/Shutterstock.com

Image:

Op Ed: California can shine a light on national 'dark money' in campaigns

Daniel Newman — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:32:28 +0000

The disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision three years ago unleashed a flood of political money unprecedented in U.S. history. Organizations can now raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, without disclosing where that money came from. These "dark money" groups spent hundreds of millions of dollars nationally to influence November's elections.

In California, this dark money poured into campaigns for California's congressional representatives, and for state ballot measures. Most notably, a group called Americans for Responsible Leadership spent $11 million to influence Propositions 30 and 32 -- without disclosing its donors. Chairwoman Ann Ravel led California's Fair Political Practices Commission in a lawsuit against the group to pry free the basic civic information of who was funding their efforts to influence California elections.

The state's suit was successful, but only up to a point. Americans for Responsible Leadership was forced to reveal that it received the $11 million from a second group, the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which in turn received it from a third group, Americans for Job Security.

The donors to this third group are still secret today -- and the current law allows them to remain that way. Voters now know the nondescript names of three secret groups that funneled money -- but are still in the dark about who really influenced California's ballot measures.

Citizens United also freed corporations to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. The public doesn't know the extent of corporate spending on elections, because the law currently allows corporations to keep their spending secret. Consumer-facing corporations, sensitive to public perceptions of political influence, are able to hide their political spending by financing trade associations, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that do not have to disclose their donors.

And we certainly can't rely on corporations to voluntarily self-disclose. In a public statement to its shareholders, the insurance giant Aetna promised to be transparent about its political spending. Then, it accidentally revealed in a year-end regulatory filing that it contributed $4.5 million to the Chamber of Commerce to influence elections -- a mistaken disclosure that it promptly deleted from its public filing.

Congress will not be acting to reveal this secret money anytime soon. Republicans in Congress will continue to block the DISCLOSE Act and similar sunshine attempts, because the dark money overwhelmingly benefits them.

In November's elections, 85 percent of dark money supported Republicans, according to research from the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

In California, we can ourselves take major steps that will unmask some of this secret money nationally, leveraging our position as the nation's most populous and most influential state. These three California proposals, if implemented at the state level, would reveal dark money across the nation:

First, the state could make use of its tremendous purchasing power to require that companies contracting with the state disclose all their political contributions -- national, state, and local. It's bad enough that government contractors contribute to politicians who can help them win contracts. We citizens should at least know what these contributions are.

Second, California could require that all companies doing business in the state disclose all their political contributions -- national, state, and local. As the eighth largest economy in the world, California can use our economic size to leverage the political transparency that is critical for our democracy.

Third, California could require disclosure of every entity making major contributions to the type of "pass-through" dark money groups implicated in the $11 million political money-laundering case. California could require the disclosure not just of the generic name of an organization, but of all the organization's major donors, if the organization's money was spent on California elections. This change would mean that, in the case of the laundered $11 million, all three dark money groups that touched the funds would have to disclose all their major donors, opening up a window into these groups' funding sources nationally.

Reforms such as these are well within our grasp. In both chambers of the California Legislature, there have been proposals for legislation, such as the California Disclose Act (SB 52) in the current session, which would bring greater accountability to our elections. What we need now, though, is to move beyond mere proposals.

The California public is disgusted with our broken system of money-dominated politics. Any or all of these three changes made by Sacramento lawmakers would shine a bright light on dark money nationally, while endearing their legislative champions to the California public.

Daniel G. Newman is co-founder and president of MapLight, a nonpartisan research organization revealing money's influence on politics. He is a 2011-13 network fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University.

Link to this article at: http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_22457593/daniel-g-newman-california-can-shine-light-national

Image: