( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Michael Bennett has had three fundraisers in 2009. One hosted by (and at the offices of) law and lobbying firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, which represents the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the cram down amendment.
The Durbin amendment, also known as the cram down bill, would have removed the mortgage exemption from bankruptcy proceedings, allowing bankruptcy judges some leeway to rewrite the terms of mortgages which in turn might prevent a lot of foreclosures. It’s fairly clear that Wall Street opposed the measure (here’s a letter from a bunch of financial industry, business and Wall Street trade groups that begins, “The undersigned organizations are strongly opposed to a bankruptcy cram down amendment that is likely to be offered by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) to S. 896…”).
Akin Gump didn’t list it among their lobbying issues in the first quarter of 2009. I wonder if it will be there in the second.
Another fundraiser graciously being hosted by Tony Podesta on the 13th; he also represents the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
h/t to an anonymous tip.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Latest Ballot Return Numbers: Strong Returns for Democrats
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Dems Close Ranks As Trump Tries To Exploit SoS Password Pickle
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Mayor Mike’s Aurora Empire Crumbling From The Inside?
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Evans’ Explanation for Skipping Gay Marriage Vote Puzzles His Colleagues
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Dems Close Ranks As Trump Tries To Exploit SoS Password Pickle
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Latest Ballot Return Numbers: Strong Returns for Democrats
BY: NotHopeful
IN: Latest Ballot Return Numbers: Strong Returns for Democrats
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Friday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Evans’ Explanation for Skipping Gay Marriage Vote Puzzles His Colleagues
BY: Air Slash
IN: Friday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
first.
or the Packer quote — some div layering problem or something.
It’s the way the top banner ad is positioned — it’s killing the link for a strip the whole width of the banner. You’re correct that you can click slightly above or below in the meantime, we’ll redouble our tweakings to fix this.
Yeah, I’ve been using the “Home” link in the menu. Maybe make the “Big Line” graphic a live homepage link for now?
..why do you disenfranchise me? ME.
I blame myself.
Here’s the senator’s take:
That would be Manure Manufacturers of America, who have lent their PR team to help Bennet explain his votes on behalf of the American Bankers Association as well as the CofC.
He claims “three simple reasons,” none of which happen to ring true. Oh well.
Under the theory that the simplest explanation is usually the right one, how about: Bankers opposed cramdown, whereas the White House and most Democrats supported it. Given that, the choice was indeed simple–for Democrats and for Mr. Bennet. It just wasn’t the same choice.
Must we tolerate this just because CofC coughed up some bucks for Baby-Faced Golden Boy (hereinafter, BFGB) between Jan. and Mar.? If so, how do I invest in chickenshit futures? Are they traded on the CME?
I am a pretty middle of the road Dem, and his position even disappoints me. Supporting the fucking banks after all the shit they’ve pulled the past few years and the mess they’ve put all of us in, AND, at the expense of homeowners ! Unbelievable !
Bennet hasn’t been in DC a year yet and the lobbyists are so far up his ass already it makes me puke, and I think he likes it.
If he is primaried I will strongly consider the other candidate.
See, if we let judges help people facing foreclosure, we’ll hurt people facing foreclosure. Your Banker Knows Best. That’s a given. How one goes about selling that is found in Voodoo Economics I by Herr Professor Phil Gramm et al.
I wonder if Bennet would care to expand on his comment about how the amendment would raise interest rates. Who told him that ? Is there a study or opinion out there that someone or some group put forward about it ? Can it be verified ? Is it information coming from anyone other than the banking lobby or Wall St ?
I just don’t buy it. First his office says the WH wanted to kill the amendment and then he gives the “three reasons”. Well, which one is it ? Something is definitely rotten in Denmark, and there is a strong whiff of corporate whore about Bennet.
Not allowing judges to help stem the tide of foreclosures will actually help reduce forclosures. Its the new math. Up is down, black is white, and Tuesdays will be held on Thursdays instead. Yeah, I guess I don’t understand.
I’ll let you know if I get it. If I do, I will press for the details behind the three reasons.
Good luck in getting the phone interview.
1. Did Obama really want the cramdown amendment to fail? Why did (about) 47 Democrats vote FOR it? Why did you decide the carry the water when the president wasn’t willing to come out in public against the amendment, and then go public with the president’s supposed opposition?
1a. If you voted against the amendment because the president wanted you to, why subsequently did you issue a list of three reasons for doing so, none of which included “the president asked me to”? And, how did the president express his desire to defeat the amendment to you? Who exactly did you talk to, now that you’ve gone public and exposed the existence of this communication that started out as a back channel?
2. What percentage of your contributions so far this year comes from individuals in the financial services sector, including banking (investment and commercial)? Have you released the list? When will you do so?
3. You have said the “cramdown” amendment would raise interest rates. How exactly would that work, especially in light of the fact that Fannie & Freddie now account for the great bulk of mortgages? Will this happen despite the Fed’s policy of keeping interest rates low?
4. What percentage of mortgage collections resulting in foreclosure are handled by collection companies whose interests are solely to collect as much money as possible, rather than working out a long-term solution that keeps borrowers in their houses?
5. Given the popularity of Barack Obama in Colorado–and the substantial margin by which he beat John McCain–why did you think it was a good idea as a newly appointed, never-elected, freshman to join the other band of renegades in trying to whack the president’s budget proposals during your first month in office?
6. On ColoradoPols, we heard several complaints that your office does not answer emails, even with form letters. Could you explain that policy, which differs from your predecessor, Ken Salazar?
Finally, don’t forget to ask how he liked the cherry blossoms.
For the benefit of Fidel’s dirt nap and several others on this blog, please ask: “How does it feel to be a corporate whore? In that role, who exactly does what to whom?”
the last one – not so much…
But the list of contributors, and their affiliations, would be of greatest interest.
Of even greater interest will be whether he responds to the email at all! That in and of itself would be an accomplishment.
BTW–and NOT meant as a put-down by any means–worth remembering, I think, that being “granted” an interview is not a compliment per se. Politicos live and die for publicity–preferably favorable, but even unfavorable means someone is talking about them!
One possible exception: Mark Udall, the stealth representative. I don’t know how he won the nomination for CD2 in the first place, but after that…he was the tall, thin Silent One in Cowboy boots (“the rancher from Eldorado Springs?” Right! If he were from Pennsylvania presumably he’d be sporting a miner’s helmet complete with head lamp! But I digress…) from a really, truly Safe District. I don’t foresee Udall as having any more impact in the Senate than he had in the House, or than Horse Doctor Wayne had in the Senate, which in both cases was as close to zero as you can get and still not have people call the medical examiner! Talk about believing in Zombies! Hell, Polis has already had a bigger impact in four months than Udall had in, what, three terms?
is this thing even on?
but my thoughts exactly.
past ‘flames’ that have been exchanged here, I had actually hoped that Mr. Bennett would shut the door on the primary by embracing the party and proving he was not beholden to corporate interests.
if a republican was our senator and had issued this statement on the cramdown, the dem establishment and bloggers here would be ripping that senator a new one.
Does Bennett deserve a free pass?
if anyone out there is considering a challenge, here is your oppo commercial “opposing helping people stuck in a bad mortgage and siding with the bankers”
Bennett it seems, is who we thought he was
I wish someone out there would grow a pair
but I just wanted to point out the post on the fp about ProgressNow’s new ad. Check it out!
The worry is that in a close general election if the base is not enamored, they don’t volunteer, they don’t push their friends to vote for him, etc.