....scheduled to appear Thursday at a Washington policy institute (the Center for National Policy), where he will participate in a “discussion” with Brad Miller, a former Democratic congressman considered a leader on financial reforms. The event is timed to coincide with the fifth anniversary of Dodd-Frank, the landmark banking legislation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/21/omalley-moves-wall-street-speech-so-he-can-meet-the-press-on-his-own-terms/

...since Martin O'Malley is the ONLY candidate to put out a detailed economic plan to deal with Wall Street excesses and abuses in this campaign.

...those strong words of his are backed up by a solid, detailed 10-page plan to 'Protect the American Dream From Another Wall St. Crash.' The plan proposes to:

•Ensure Key Political Appointees Are Independent of Wall Street
•Appoint to Key Positions—Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, SEC Chair—Individuals Committed to Pursuing Criminal Cases.
•Require the SEC Director of the Division of Enforcement to be a Presidential Appointee, Subject to Senate Confirmation
•Institute a Three-Year Revolving Door Ban
•Institute an Additional Three-Year Mandatory Disclosure Rule
•Require the General Counsel at the Fed to be a Presidential Appointee
•Require the President of the New York Fed to be a Presidential Appointee
•Require the Board of Governors to Vote on All Major Decisions, Including Those Regarding Financial Reform
•Immediately Double Funding for CFTC and SEC to Police Bad Behavior on Wall St. (Double CFTC Funding from $322 million to $644 million. Double SEC Funding from $1.7 billion to $3.4 billion.)
•Create a Standalone Economic Crimes Division Within DOJ
•Implement Points Accrual System to Crack Down on Recidivist Banks
•End Days of “Neither Admit Nor Deny.” If an institution commits a major crime or violation of a law, they should be required to admit their guilt, so that they face the full ramifications of parallel civil and criminal proceedings
• Require Transparency Around Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPA’s) and Non Prosecution Agreements (NPA’S).
•Crack Down on SEC’s Use of Waivers By Requiring Public Votes, Statements on Them
•Separate Risky Investment Banking from Ordinary Commercial Banking
• Immediately Reinstate Glass-Steagall
•End “Too Big to Fail”
•Mandate Higher Capital Requirements for Big Banks
•Implement a Financial Transaction Tax to Limit High-Frequency Trading
•Create a Fiduciary Standard for Loan Brokers

Words alone aren't enough? How about actual liberal accomplishments:

Here's why I support him:

Martin O'Malley:

1. Ended death penalty in Maryland
2. Prevented fracking in Maryland and put regulations in the way to prevent next GOP Gov Hogan fom easily allowing fracking.
3. Provided health insurance for 380,000
4. Reduced infant mortality to an all time low.
5. Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
6. Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
7. Supporter the Dream Act
8. Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders (raised taxes on the rich).
9. Reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive.
10. Enacted some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.

There is a lot more, but I'll only add that Mother Jones magazine called him the best candidate on environmental issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk

Although I support Bernie, and am very unlikely to change, I welcome information about O'Malley.

...but the poster 'read somewhere' that he's DLC.

Let's see, believe innuendo and spin, or a solid record of progressive accomplishments, progressive results, and substantive policy proposals hailed and accepted by progressive economists and others for their boldness and comprehensiveness...

...so you think you can distract from it with this phony rhetoric.

No one is buying it. There absolutely zero DLC about O'Malley's record. Now stop working to hijack this thread with this bullshit. Either respond to the subject of the op or push off.

I'm not bashing O'Malley here, I don't know that much about him. But the DNC is well aware of a simmering revolt against their corporatism, even if they're yet to realize it's full extent. As a result, several candidates and groups are claiming the "progressive" mantle as a smokescreen to hide their true corporatism. That's one reason I support Bernie, his politics have remained pretty consistant for 50+ years...he's no Johnny-come-lately.

...true, though, that Bernie's been in Washington politics much longer than O'Malley has held public office. Still, there's nothing DLC about the progressive achievements Gov. O'Malley's led and ushered into being in my state.

I'd be wary of relying on an argument which suggests progressive accomplishments are some sort of wolf in sheep's clothing for a contradictory agenda. If you want your candidate's accomplishments to be taken at face value and for folks here to disregard natter about 'smokescreens' hiding 'true' agendas, I'd suggest leaving all of that under the rock where it resides.

before the election, but didn't follow through when they were elected.

...just a smokescreen?

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

Are you determined to keep disrupting this post? This isn't a post about whether he's DLC. It's about his progressive economic proposals. If you have nothing to more to add on that you need to go away. Start your own thread of stupid on this if want to go on and on about it..

Can you give us links to the drawn out plans they have to fix the problems we face, like "Wall Street"? Or how about plans on how to fix immigration, health care, college tuition, etc. Do they have any plans they have put on in writing for all to see?

Then O'Malley is your only choice.

They've been making money off Elizabeth Warren for a long time, and now seem to have moved onto O'Malley.


http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/adam-greens-dishonest-fundraising-attack-meets-obamas-adult-debt-conversation/

http://theobamadiary.com/2011/07/15/here-we-go-again-2/

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00458000&cycle=2012

For the 2012 Election Cycle:



~ $4 million spent

~ $2 million on salaries
~ $500K on Administration
~ $300K on Media
~ $400K on Research


$48K to Federal Candidates


For the 2014 Election Cycle:



http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00458000&cycle=2014

Note: Contributions to Federal Candidates - $899

Contributions to Adam Green: $129,352


boldprogressives, my ass.

Sid

...against their criticisms of his policies - namely the debate over whether he was advocating cutting Social Security in budget negotiations - and this group was raising funds behind their attacks on his policies.

Looks like the debate over their criticisms was reflected here on DU - not many positions have changed in that debate here. I see that reflected in your post. I was on Pres. Obama's side in that debate, btw. Not really agreeing with this post, though it's understandable that you're still sore over those attacks on his economic policies and politics.

They make a good analysis here. It's clear that they still advocate to the left of Obama and many Democrats on these economic issues, so...progressives.

They raised and spent ~$4million during the 2012 election cycle. More than half of that went to their own salaries.

The numbers are similar for the 2014 cycle.

A group whose salaries alone, not even considering the other administrative costs, eats up more than half of their expenditures is not a group progressives should be supporting. They're raising money for themselves, not Democrats.

Sid

...or the objections here at DU either.

I'd note further that this group's support of O'Malley's plan includes support for reviving Glass-Steagall - something which the administration is opposing. I see the same divergence of views today with the administration (and O'Malley's proposals) that there were when this article was written.

I obviously see the rest of what you posted, but I'm not interested in diverting from the crux of the economic debate (which is what this post is about) to indulge in criticizing the fundraising tactics of the policy group. If you have differences with O'Malley's economic focus, state those differences. Discussing this old article and controversy without discussing the economics (in effect, diverting the focus of this thread) is worthless to me.

If you want to promote this shady group, that's on you.

Knock yourself out.

Sid

...you've attempted to hijack this thread with this old debate over this progressive group and their attacks on President Obama's economic policies and politics.

I'm to be forgiven if I view this as just another extension of the defense here of President Obama then, and, perhaps (since you avoided discussing anything related to the economics in my op) a backdoor defense of the president's economic policies today which O'Malley is opposing in his economic plan.

...or, maybe it's a defense of Hillary's economics?

If you were promoting O'Malley, you'd link to O'Malley.

And that pic is a perfect example of what I described. boldprogressives raised millions of dollars using Elizabeth Warren's name. Millions of dollars that went into their own pockets.

Now, finally realizing that Warren ain't running, they've shifted gears and are going to milk O'Malley supporters.

You can accept that they're in it for themselves, or not.

I don't really give a flying fadoo.

Sid

...which just happen to mirror the administrations (and Hillary's) economic initiatives differences with O'Malley's proposals. But, you don't give a flying fadoo.

Okay.

I'll just keep stressing the economic focus of the op (you just continue on with your diversion. I could use the kicks).


from xchrom's 2013 post:

Two years from now, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, it’s possible that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could be running for the nomination without a major opponent to her left.

But even if no serious Clinton challenger in the mold of progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren emerges, a nonprofit group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, or PCCC, is prepared to take up the mantle.

Co-founder Adam Green says plans are already in the works to pressure Clinton from the left on Wall Street reform and Social Security, sending PCCC members to storm her early town hall meetings and using Warren — the Massachusetts freshman senator who is increasingly held up as the hero of the party’s left wing — as the guiding force of their movement.

“Elizabeth Warren is the North Star of where our party should be going and is going,” Green said in a phone interview, citing Warren’s work on student loans, her introduction of a new Glass-Steagall Act earlier this year, and a speech she delivered last week that advocated for the expansion of Social Security.

Their comments on O'Malley's plans are on the mark.

Donate directly to the candidates.

I don't want people thinking their donations to PCCC are supporting their chosen candidate, when the reality is that only pennies, if that, of every dollar goes to candidates. The vast majority of donations that go to PCCC pay for PCCC activities, PCCC expenses and PCCC salaries.

Sid