'Good to Be King': The Very Good Loans Key Lawmakers Get from Wall Street Banks
Members of Congress who ostensibly oversee Wall Street 'allegedly received preferential treatments from lenders'
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.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.