Who is the biggest 'corporatist' candidate in the race?

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0322-05.htm

Published in the April 8, 2002 issue of The Nation

Enron Democrats
by William Greider

If left-labor-liberal progressives had the cohesion and muscle of their right-wing opposites, they would be articulating a simple-to-understand litmus test for the Democratic Party--no "Enron Democrats" on the presidential ticket in 2004. That precondition would eliminate a number of presidential wannabes now mentioned by the Washington media's Great Mentioner. Scratch Senator Joe Lieberman. Forget the happy talk about Senate majority leader Tom Daschle's running for the White House. And Senator Joe Biden can stop daydreaming. These men--and perhaps some other would-be candidates--do not pass the Enron smell test.

It is not that Enron Democrats got a lot of money themselves from the now-ruined energy company, but they are implicated in more significant ways. On various matters, they helped set the stage for the scandalous behavior of Enron and other highfliers now in disgrace. They defended the degraded accounting standards that hoodwinked investors. Or they promoted financial gimmicks and deregulatory measures that opened the way for grand malpractice. Or they formed thick alliances with the very banks, auditing firms and corporations that are now running for cover--sued, investigated or defrocked as New Economy marvels.

Enron Democrats are compromised by their own past behavior, which explains why the Democratic Party's reaction to this spectacle is so muted. Much as in the S&L scandals of the late 1980s, an unspoken truce may emerge between the two parties--don't throw mud at me or I'll throw some back--since so many leading Democrats are implicated along with the Republicans. The hallmark of "Enron issues" is the ease with which Democrats desert the interests of their party's core constituencies to serve the political needs of business and banking. Some doubtless do so as a matter of conviction; some doubtless are convinced by the money.

(snip)

Citibank Democrats

Labor and consumer lobbyists felt a chill in early March when Senate majority leader Tom Daschle announced his intention to get "a strong bankruptcy bill out of conference and on the President's desk within four weeks, so the bill can be signed before we go home for the Easter recess." Bankruptcy "reform" is of a different order from Enron fraud or loophole bookkeeping by Arthur Andersen, but it emanates from the same political sources and is, likewise, hideously one-sided in its impact on ordinary citizens. The legislation was written by major banks and the credit-card industry, wishing to tighten the screws on debt-soaked families. No one doubts this measure will make life even more miserable for the people maxed out on their credit cards and on the brink of Chapter 7. Daschle's statement meant the Democratic leader thinks it is now safe to enact the bankers' bill. Last year, a record 1,492,000 Americans filed for bankruptcy protection, but now the recession is over, isn't it?

"It really is pretty much a creditors' wish list," explained Henry Sommer, vice president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Lawyers. "Some people won't be able to file at all , and everyone will have to pay hundreds of dollars more in fees, which knocks a lot of them out of filing. Many who by filing now could save their homes from foreclosure or their cars from repossession won't be able to do so under this bill. And many will come out of bankruptcy owing as much as they owe now. Congress gave a lot to the credit-card companies, but this is really an equal-opportunity bill; they also gave a lot to the car lenders, the mortgage lenders, the residential landlords, the finance companies, even credit unions."

In Congressional circles, a bill like this one is known as a "money vote," because it's an opportunity for good fundraising from monied interests (or, if you vote wrong, you face the risk of those interests financing your next opponent). For six years, the financial industry has lobbied intensively for this measure and both parties have milked it like a veritable cash cow. Contributions from finance companies and credit-card firms more than doubled during the last election cycle, passing $9 million. Commercial banks are the dominant credit-card issuers--led by Citibank, with $99.5 billion in credit-card debt--and this remains their most profitable line of business. Commercial banking as a whole increased political spending in the last election by nearly 60 percent, to $26.1 million, though the bankers' money speaks on many issues beyond tapped-out borrowers.

When George W. Bush took office, a bankruptcy bill was the first major legislation passed by the new Congress. Bill Clinton had vetoed a milder version, but in the new circumstances many former opponents scrambled aboard. Only sixteen Democratic senators voted against the bill, led by Paul Wellstone (the measure would have become law long ago, if not for Wellstone's guerrilla resistance). The "yea" votes included a couple of new faces much celebrated as "people" politicians and presidential possibles--Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Two other potential candidates--Russ Feingold and John Kerry--voted against it.

(snip)

Lieberman's Slippery Slope

Senator Joe Lieberman, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, presides over hearings into what-went-wrong with the air of sorrowful piety that is his specialty. "Gatekeepers weren't keeping the gate, watchdogs weren't watching," he lamented. He neglects to mention that he is one of the faulty watchdogs and also a leading gatekeeper who blocked the timely reform of corporate finance. The Senator has a hypocrisy problem. He frequently sermonizes on the moral failings of others, including other public figures. Meanwhile, he has shilled vigorously, sometimes venomously, for the very players who are new icons of corruption--major auditing firms, corporate executives who cashed stock options early while investors took a bath and, especially, those self-inflating high-tech companies in Silicon Valley that drove the stock-market bubble. As a New Democrat, Lieberman held the door for their escapades.

His most important crusade was protecting the loopy accounting for corporate stock options. Nervous regulators recognized early on that the profusion of stock options had the potential to deceive investors while cheating the tax system--illusions that could drive company stock prices to impossible heights. Tech startup firms, as well as established names like Microsoft, were issuing a growing volume of stock options as a substitute for wage compensation, especially for top executives. These companies did not have to report the billions in new options as an operating cost, thus making their earnings seem much greater than they were. Yet when employees eventually cashed in the options, the companies claimed them as tax deductions. This two-way mirror is symptomatic of the deceptive bookkeeping that permeated corporate affairs during the boom and the bubble.

Back in 1993, when the Financial Accounting Standards Board proposed to stop it, Lieberman went to war. "I believe that the global pre-eminence of America's vital technological industries could be damaged by the proposal," he warned. The FASB, he insinuated, was politically motivated or simply didn't grasp the bright promise of the New Economy. Lieberman organized a series of letters warning the accountants' board to stop its meddling. In the Senate, he mobilized a resolution urging the Securities and Exchange Commission to squelch the reform. It passed 88 to 9. The regulators backed off--and stock prices soared on the inflated earnings reports. Whenever FASB tried to reopen the issue, Lieberman jumped them again. He was well rewarded by Silicon Valley and auditing firms. He is the New Democrats' favorite candidate for 2004.

...lots more...

was what Ralph Nader was alluding to when he said there was no difference between the parties.

How can you be corporate when you have the best record of all the candidates on the environment? :crazy:

Say what you want about Kerry, but corporatist he isn't. He has one of the most liberal records in the senate, for crying out loud!

Thanks for posting this, Will. Kerry is more corporate than say Kucinich or Nader, but he is a damn sight less corporate than others I could mention.

The CATO Institute promotes deregulation for industries and corporations.

The Appeal of Howard Dean
From the September 15, 2003 issue: Why he could be Bush's more dangerous opponent.
by Stephen Moore
09/15/2003, Volume 009, Issue 01


SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors. We were curious about his views because we had heard that he harbored political ambitions beyond the governorship.

Dean charmed nearly everyone in the boardroom. He came across as erudite, policy savvy, and, believe it or not, a friend of free markets--at least by the standards of the Tom Daschle-Dick Gephardt axis of the Democratic party. Even when challenged on issues like environmentalism, where he favored a large centralized mass of intrusive regulations, Dean remained affable.

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
>>>>>>

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp?pg=1

So, if Dean's campaign used it, why not here?

you just knew I was going to ask this.

But, it's true. They used Stephen Moore's own words against him in response to the Club for Growth ad.

See post #6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=183846#183936


See proof:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=183491&mesg_id=183599&go_ahead=doit

That she had checked all the corporate contributions off a website she gave (CNP?) and that George W Bush was far ahead of everyone on boht sides but that on the Democratic side, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry were leading the pack. Since Gephardt is no longer in the race, that would leave Kerry as the Democratic leader in "special interest" money. Does anyone know if he has taken money from the insurance companies? I guess we can forget about any meaningful healthcare reform if he wins??

Kerry's record leads me to believe he would do what he says he will do, but I'd like the link to that info, if you have it.

This is what a lady caller said...said she had researched it and that was why she was voting for Dean.

That wasn't obvious from the the way it's been presented around here.

That info helps a lot.

in the Senate Banking Committee and squeezed Commissioner Levitt's budget to manipulate him into giving up the idea of reforming the SEC.

for people contemplating that bankruptcy bill (which, notably, is not law today, thanks, most likely, to the poison pills inserted into it by Democrats who voted for it).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=99819#100744

mbali (599 posts)
Sun Jan-11-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. This was far more complicated - and less damning - than made to appear ...

Edited on Sun Jan-11-04 10:41 AM by mbali

Edwards voted for the Senate version of the bill, but there's more to the story.

Edwards joined most Democrats, including Kerry, Schumer, Wellstone, etc. in attaching an amendment, authored by Wellstone
himself, that made the Senate version much harsher on the banking industry and easier on individual debtors. At that point, it
became a judgment call whether to vote for the bill or against it since voting for it, with the amendment, would force the bill to
conference and increase the likelihood that it would die in conference or that conference would produce a version more
favorable to individuals than it otherwise would have been. The odds of this were excellent since Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold,
Schumer, Durbin were among the Democratic conferees. The banking industry and corporate interests hated this version, by
the way.

And, yes, Kerry, Wellstone and 14 other Democrats voted against final passage. But all of the other Democrats, including
Clinton, Cleland and Edwards, voted for final passage, largely because they knew that the version the Dems had forced would
probably eventually scuttle the bill. And it has. The bill died at the end of the 107th Congress.

It's important to know all of the facts before condemning anyone for one particular vote. Senate procedure and strategy is
extremely complicated and just looking at a yea or nay does not always tell the story. That's why it is sometimes misleading to
try to characterize anyone's motives or views just by looking at one vote.

That he was smeared with a guilt-by-association brush and again left without credit he's due? He's used to it.

This is what we could expect from him in the White House.

he vigorously sought.

I guarantee you "CA-style" energy deregulation wasn't an idear that popped in his head one day on long run through the VT woods (well, maybe not a long run).

AP, please don't give me anything trivial to hold against Dean, wouldja? I have enough big stuff to hold against him as it is.

I really, really, REALLY hate that "idear" thingy!

But the legislature had to turn Dean down and California had to become a Republican disaster before he learned. We can't wait for Dean to catch up on the learning curve. He gave breaks to the corporations and cut services. That's the opposite of what I want in the White House.

The Party isn't going to even try to purge itself from the influences that get in the way of Democrats serving their constituents. Some people on these boards have suggested cleaning up the Party after the election, I find it unacceptable.

I feel that this next election is going to be about who turns out the least people. Most groups have or will have a reason to stay home.

John Kerry
http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_i_corporateaccountability.cf

How do you propose to make corporate boards of directors more accountable to shareholders?

We must have the fairest, most transparent and efficient financial markets in the world and our public companies must live up to the highest standards of accountability. This is critical to ensuring that the United States remains strong and competitive in the global economy. In recent years, the trust and confidence of the American people in their public companies and their financial markets have been dangerously eroded by the emergence of serious accounting irregularities by some companies and possible fraudulent actions by others. In too many instances, the company's board of directors did not provide appropriate oversight necessary to insure the United States maintains the highest standards of corporate accountability. These actions have put a strain on the growth of our economy, have contributed to an overall decline in stock values and have caused grave losses to both individual investors and many pension funds.

I strongly supported the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 because I believed the corporate governance provisions included in the bill would help restore confidence in our capital markets, increase our economic stability and growth. I am concerned that this Administration is not implementing this law in a way that will protect workers as Congress intended. However, I believe that additional actions are necessary to ensure that corporate boards of directors are accountable to investors. For example, I strongly support the recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) action to increase the shareholder voice in executive compensation practices. I also believe that the SEC should allow long-term significant investors to have a voice in the selection of a portion of a company's board of directors. Finally, I believe that the SEC should consider requiring companies to provide greater transparency in the reporting of their executive retirement stock purchase and investment plans in order to determine whether executives receive significantly better compensation and retirement benefit packages than other workers in the same company. These actions will help prevent accounting irregularities and fraudulent actions by businesses in the future while helping companies become more responsive to their investors.


What can be done to address runaway executive compensation, including stock options and retirement benefits?

I am very concerned about runaway executive compensation. Today, the average CEO makes more than 500 times what the average worker makes, and I think that's wrong. While I don't believe our government should place dollar limits on compensation, I do think there are steps we can take to make the system fair. We must curb abuses where they occur, especially such practices as funneling money to offshore accounts or tax shelters that allow executives to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

I also support expensing stock options, which will curb abuses and provide workers savings for retirement, education and other family priorities with better information to make wise investment decisions. The final FASB standard should provide clear, credible, and comparable information in the capital markets. It should also be fair, accurate and protect the entrepreneurial drive that employee ownership can inspire.

by the way, because of his class roots and his class politics.

I missed that.

Here's a fixed link for the page. John Edwards has a statement on there also. Along with Dennis, Al, Wes, And Howard Dean.

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_i_corporateaccountability.cfm

.

Maybe some eyes will open.

I saw the Frontline episode on accountancy scandals. Lieberman played a large role in preventing tighter controls on corporate governance.

Edwards' connection to the banking industry is pretty well documented. In a political way it makes sense, banking is a very big business in NC. It does kind of contrast with his "man of the people" meme though.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm

Business leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them if they got snarled in the state's stringent environmental regulations. When Canada's Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. wanted to build a new manufacturing plant on 700 acres of Vermont farmland in the mid-'90s, for instance, Dean greased the wheels. Husky obtained the necessary permits in near-record time. "He was very hands-on," says an appreciative Dirk Schlimm, the Husky executive in charge of the project.

And when environmentalists tried to limit expansion of snowmaking at ski resorts, "Dean had to show his true colors, and he did -- by insisting on a solution that allowed expanding snowmaking," says Stenger. IBM (IBM ) by far the state's largest private employer, says it got kid-gloves treatment. "We would meet privately with him three to four times a year to discuss our issues," says John O'Kane, manager for government relations at IBM's Essex Junction plant, "and his secretary of commerce would call me once a week just to see how things were going."

Taking thousands and thousdands of dollars from them in order enact legislation benefitting them, is another. A governor's job is also to make sure that business does not leave the state. It's a job, quality of life issue. Dean is an outdoorsman.. I don't think he'd fuck with the environment the way you've been led to believe.

lobbyiest and supporter of thug Enforcers of "free" trade

January 24, 2004

Special Report
Kerry Carries Water for Top Donor
Presidential Candidate Intervened on Behalf of Firm’s Clients Multiple Times

By M. Asif Ismail


WASHINGTON, May 7, 2003 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose largest campaign contributor lobbies on behalf of telecommunication interests, pushed the legislative priorities of its clients in the wireless industry on several occasions, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign, lobbying and congressional records has found. That analysis is part of the Center’s research for The Buying of the President 2004 (to be published by HarperCollins), which tracks the financial backers and interests of the major candidates for the White House.

Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor.

Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. has been the biggest financial backer of the Massachusetts Democrat’s two decades-long political career in elected office, with its employees contributing nearly $187,000 to various Kerry races, including his current presidential campaign.


http://www.publici.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=521&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

OK.

ok pass...:)

There was no quid pro quo. They donated for years for a 1996 telecom bill?

The article wants you to believe that one client of the firm's benefitted on a telecom bill that the whole Boston tech corridor benefitted from at the time.

$9350 a year. :-)

Then again I'm not married to a woman with more money than god. ;-)

I can see that he gets a lot of corporate donations. What person in D.C. doesn't? It's what the candidate DOES as a result of those donations. I mean.. you can take their money, but you better not act as a paid lobbyist when you do! I don't care how much someone gets.. if they're clean about it. This is why we all want Bush & Co. out of there.. they are all about lobbying for those donations.

Show me a candidate that takes donations, and does not do any bidding on behalf of the donors, and I"m okay with that..

(I'm a Dean person, BTW).

This is great, thanks for posting it WP

He will be going back soon to make millions but I hope he will stay and help the party like the others who have worked hard for years.

Made a living lobbying the pentagon. Doesn't inspire confidence that he could usher in a new era any different than Bush.

This guy needs to be tested by time with us. I read too much of the rove stuff on here but what if he is working with clark. Clark and bush are old buddies.

There is just something in my gut that tells me to run from clark. Tim will deal with him tomorrow.

It's his entire life's background.

Plus, he's DLC.

that's odd

Way behind Kerry, IMO.

Environmentalists don't agree with you.

I see a lot of "Oh, that's not actually what happened" or "You need to see all the facts" or or or

Doesn't seem like corporatism is a bad thing as long as there are no political repercussions.