SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Analysis finds lawmakers who oversee financial institutions do more borrowing, at better rates. (Photo: Naoki Nakashima/flickr/cc)
A new study identifies "a direct channel through which financial institutions contribute to the net worth of members of the U.S. Congress"--especially those ostensibly tasked with overseeing those very Wall Street entities.
The paper from London Business School professors Ahmed Tahoun and Florin Vasvari, which is based on a "unique dataset" provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), finds that members of Congress sitting on the finance committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives "report greater levels of leverage and new liabilities as a proportion of their total net worth, relative to when they are not part of the finance committee or relative to other congressional members."
The authors write that their analysis was "motivated in part by anecdotal evidence suggesting that some U.S. politicians, who are in a position to potentially affect the future performance of financial institutions that lend to them, have allegedly received preferential treatments from lenders."
In other words, as International Business Times reporter David Sirota wrote Friday: "It is good to be king."
Sirota explained:
In evaluating lawmakers from 2004 to 2011, the researchers found that finance committee members' personal borrowing tended to jump in the first year they were appointed to the panels--a trend not seen for other lawmakers who were given seats on other powerful committees. Similarly, the data show that upon joining the finance panels, lawmakers tended to be given 32 percent more time--or on average four and a half years more--to pay back those new debts than loans they previously had and that other members of Congress have.
[...] The study, which was supported by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, did not evaluate whether the loans and interest rates constitute a systemic violation of congressional rules designed to prevent financial institutions from using loans to deliver special gifts to lawmakers. The restrictions are explicit: the U.S. House's ethics manual declares that "there can also be an improper gift when a Member or staff person is given a loan at a below-market interest rate."
The researchers conclude by confirming that indeed, data indicates that "finance committee members may use their oversight and legislative power to potentially extract benefits from financial institutions."
They add: "We hope that additional research in this area will provide further insights into the personal borrowing activities of members of the U.S. Congress and how this borrowing influences their committee activities on legislative matters and their positions with respect to various pieces of legislation that affect the financial sector."
Look here to see the members of the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, and the House Financial Services Committee, all cited in the paper.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A new study identifies "a direct channel through which financial institutions contribute to the net worth of members of the U.S. Congress"--especially those ostensibly tasked with overseeing those very Wall Street entities.
The paper from London Business School professors Ahmed Tahoun and Florin Vasvari, which is based on a "unique dataset" provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), finds that members of Congress sitting on the finance committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives "report greater levels of leverage and new liabilities as a proportion of their total net worth, relative to when they are not part of the finance committee or relative to other congressional members."
The authors write that their analysis was "motivated in part by anecdotal evidence suggesting that some U.S. politicians, who are in a position to potentially affect the future performance of financial institutions that lend to them, have allegedly received preferential treatments from lenders."
In other words, as International Business Times reporter David Sirota wrote Friday: "It is good to be king."
Sirota explained:
In evaluating lawmakers from 2004 to 2011, the researchers found that finance committee members' personal borrowing tended to jump in the first year they were appointed to the panels--a trend not seen for other lawmakers who were given seats on other powerful committees. Similarly, the data show that upon joining the finance panels, lawmakers tended to be given 32 percent more time--or on average four and a half years more--to pay back those new debts than loans they previously had and that other members of Congress have.
[...] The study, which was supported by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, did not evaluate whether the loans and interest rates constitute a systemic violation of congressional rules designed to prevent financial institutions from using loans to deliver special gifts to lawmakers. The restrictions are explicit: the U.S. House's ethics manual declares that "there can also be an improper gift when a Member or staff person is given a loan at a below-market interest rate."
The researchers conclude by confirming that indeed, data indicates that "finance committee members may use their oversight and legislative power to potentially extract benefits from financial institutions."
They add: "We hope that additional research in this area will provide further insights into the personal borrowing activities of members of the U.S. Congress and how this borrowing influences their committee activities on legislative matters and their positions with respect to various pieces of legislation that affect the financial sector."
Look here to see the members of the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, and the House Financial Services Committee, all cited in the paper.
A new study identifies "a direct channel through which financial institutions contribute to the net worth of members of the U.S. Congress"--especially those ostensibly tasked with overseeing those very Wall Street entities.
The paper from London Business School professors Ahmed Tahoun and Florin Vasvari, which is based on a "unique dataset" provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), finds that members of Congress sitting on the finance committees in the Senate and the House of Representatives "report greater levels of leverage and new liabilities as a proportion of their total net worth, relative to when they are not part of the finance committee or relative to other congressional members."
The authors write that their analysis was "motivated in part by anecdotal evidence suggesting that some U.S. politicians, who are in a position to potentially affect the future performance of financial institutions that lend to them, have allegedly received preferential treatments from lenders."
In other words, as International Business Times reporter David Sirota wrote Friday: "It is good to be king."
Sirota explained:
In evaluating lawmakers from 2004 to 2011, the researchers found that finance committee members' personal borrowing tended to jump in the first year they were appointed to the panels--a trend not seen for other lawmakers who were given seats on other powerful committees. Similarly, the data show that upon joining the finance panels, lawmakers tended to be given 32 percent more time--or on average four and a half years more--to pay back those new debts than loans they previously had and that other members of Congress have.
[...] The study, which was supported by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, did not evaluate whether the loans and interest rates constitute a systemic violation of congressional rules designed to prevent financial institutions from using loans to deliver special gifts to lawmakers. The restrictions are explicit: the U.S. House's ethics manual declares that "there can also be an improper gift when a Member or staff person is given a loan at a below-market interest rate."
The researchers conclude by confirming that indeed, data indicates that "finance committee members may use their oversight and legislative power to potentially extract benefits from financial institutions."
They add: "We hope that additional research in this area will provide further insights into the personal borrowing activities of members of the U.S. Congress and how this borrowing influences their committee activities on legislative matters and their positions with respect to various pieces of legislation that affect the financial sector."
Look here to see the members of the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, and the House Financial Services Committee, all cited in the paper.