Tammy Baldwin Looking Out for Us On Bailout

Waxing America readers know of my concern that stimulus money not work its way into elections for Members of Congress who voted on the bailouts. While individuals and corporations may have protected rights of free speech, they do not have the right to use public money for electioneering. If they do not like the rules attached to the stimulus funds, they can refuse to accept the money.

Our congressional representative Tammy Baldwin (D-2) is keeping an eye on this matter. Last spring she wrote to Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and received this response:

Dear Congresswoman Baldwin:
Thank you for writing the Congressional Oversight Panel about your concems
regarding financial institutions' use of funds dispensed through the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP). The Panel shares your belief that the TARP was intended to strengthen
financial institutions in order to restore economic stability - not to further interests of
individual banks - and that using TARP dollars for lobbying or electioneering would not be
appropriate.

To that end, the Panel has pressed Treasury from its very first report, issued on
December 10, 2008, to describe how the money that it has provided to financial institutions
through the Capital Purchase Program (CPP) and other programs has been used by those
banks to further the goals of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA). Since then,
in numerous letters and reports, we have reiterated our belief that it is indeed possible to
track TARP dollars as they move from the financial institutions into loans, dividend
repayments, executive compensation, or the purchase of other assets.

The issue of tracking specifically how TARP funds have been utilized by financial
institutions is one that most closely falls within the domain of the Special Inspector General
for the TARP (SIGTARP). On February 5, that office began sending letters to recipients of
TARP funds, asking the firms to document how they are spending the money they received
through the TARP. As of March 23, SIGTARP had received responses from all TARP
recipients. While SIGTARP continues to analyze the responses it has received, among its
more significant preliminary conclusions is that complaints that it is impractical or
impossible for banks to detail how they used TARP funds were unfounded.

While an outright ban on lobbying or electioneering on the part of companies
receiving TARP funds raises potential conflicts with the First Amendment rights of those
companies, we agree that taxpayer dollars should not be used for these purposes. In the
weeks and months ahead, the Panel will continue to work with Treasury, SIGTARP, and
others in order to ensure that funds provided to frnancial institutions through the TARP are
used for their stated pu{pose - to stabilize the financial system and to promote an economic
recovery that benefits Americans from Wall Street to Main Street.

 Let's all join Rep. Baldwin and keep our eyes on how the TARP recipients lobby and politically advertise, and not forget to include their use of sock-puppet "grassroots" organizations (aka "astroturf"). Don't just leave this issue to the SIGTARP.

Comments

[R.J.]

What is that piece of garbage? I don't know if I'm supposed to leave a suitcase full of $100 bills in a phone booth at the bus station or get my eyes checked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/16/elizabeth-warren-tarp-ove_n_151418.html
Harvard, you say? That's money...well...spent.

[Barry Orton]

It's more understandable now; Paul had a formatting fight with his laptop and the laptop won by a knockout.

[R.J.]

Let's get real, 1/3 of that money has vanished into thin air. Now after reading this letter I'm convinced that my estimate is WAY low.

"TARP, SIG, SIGTARP, CPP, EESA, from Wall Street to Main Street...any questions? Thank you, this press conference is over."

[rich]

Paul,

Interested in your view of the clear continuity of Obama's decisions on civil liberties and the Constitution with the positions Bush took.

This was the major reason I voted for Obama -- really the only reason. Can he honestly be named a Constitutional scholar? I won't be able to vote for him again, unless this changes in 3 years --- and yeah, no other issue takes precedence: this is THE issue, the one that wraps up all the other issues, because nothing else happens substantively until this does.

OT I know --- but we need to hear additional voices on this.

rich