The McCain Freddie Mac Lobbyist Issue

[ClydeR]

The New York Times makes a claim, and McCain responds. Quotes and links are below.

My question is this. If Mr. Davis, who is still a partner in the firm, did not receive salary or distributions or "equity in the firm based on profits," does that mean that he did not benefit from the payments by Freddie Mac?


New York Times
WASHINGTON — One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html)


McCain's Response
Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

More... (http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=74063c9d-7cb5-47c9-acf6-53c0c2d88376)

[Gan]

I saw this story this morning. It would be interesting to see if the NYT can produce evidence for their allegation.

[Parkbandit]

Since when does the NYTimes need to produce evidence? The story will be picked up by all the typical liberal media outlets and McCain's response will get very little play.

[crb]

I love how the liberal media is focusing on Rick Davis' former job... instead of on the fact that the regulation he was lobbying against was sponsored by McCain.

[Keller]

It'd be interesting to see the partnership agreement if in fact he is a partner and he receives no profit/loss allocation.

I'm not sure there is case law to support his inclusion in the firm as a partner. I know that any deal we do a partner is given at least a .1% share just to be a nominal partner to the purpose of creating a partnership.

[Daniel]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160713

Back Pedal! Fast!



Filings made by "Davis Manafort Partners" with the Virginia Corporation Commission as recently as April 1, 2008, show that Davis was still listed as one of only two corporate officers and directors of the firm, according to records on the commission’s Web site reviewed by NEWSWEEK. That filing records Davis as the "treas/clerk" of the firm; his business partner, Paul Manafort is listed as the president and chief executive officer.
Another filing by “Davis Manafort, Inc.” (with the same Alexandria, Va. Address and recorded on Oct. 17, 2007) also lists Davis as an officer and director of the firm, reporting his position as "T/Clerk," a reference to his formal title as corporate treasurer and clerk.

Both filings are annual reports of basic corporate information that are required by Virginia state law. There is no record of any amendments to the filings reporting that Davis's status with the firm has changed. The next annual report by "Davis Manafort Inc.", for the year 2008, isn't due to be filed until next month.

The McCain campaign Wednesday sought to clarify Davis's affiliation with his firm, but insisted that the new information contained in the corporate filings in Virginia didn't alter their basic points. Rick Davis is functionally not affiliated with the firm," said Hazelbaker, the communications director. "That is to say that, since he left, he in fact has not done any work for Davis Manafort or its clients, and he has not taken a salary or received compensation since 2006. Furthermore, he will not receive any deferred compensation

[Daniel]

I love how the liberal media is focusing on Rick Davis' former job... instead of on the fact that the regulation he was lobbying against was sponsored by McCain.

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit that streams from your keyboard anymore?

[Stanley Burrell]

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit that streams from your keyboard anymore?

He's the guy who's canceling all of his SIMU products subscriptions once GemStone IV is released.

[TheRoseLady]

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit that streams from your keyboard anymore?

I'll answer for you, obviously not. I find great pleasure in knowing that PB has to deal with yet another asshat on the conservative side. The fond memories of 2004...

(And no Gan you're not the asshat ;)

[Gan]

:)

[crb]

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even pay attention to the bullshit that streams from your keyboard anymore?
Just for future reference, I always know what I'm talking about. I always have sources. I don't post bullshit I make up.

How convenient it must be for you liberals to ignore the repeated calls by Republicans in the last 8 years to reform fannie mae and freddie mac. Including even Bush, warning of this in a few of his State of the Union speeches.

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2008/09/federal-housing.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

I give you the NYT link because it has the boilerplate Dem response:



''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Social engineering for the loss.

Democrats wanted more subprime loans to get more poor people into their own homes. Democrats resisted attempts to reign in these mortgage giants. Now the subprime mess is blowing up in everyone's face. This is not a failure of capitalism, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were always government sponsored and thus not a product of capitalism. Without the government's backing and instructions on creating more affordable housing they would have never been able to grow so large and investors would have not provided them the capital to acquire so many subprime loans (thus encouraging banks to lower standards - if the two GSEs would buy any loan you write, what is to stop you from writing any loan you can?).

McCain needs to take his speech from 2005 and make it a campaign commercial to get infront of the economic issues. It really, really, is wrong for people to see Obama as better on the issue. McCain needs to stop attacking Obama on weird shit or just generic taxes and go after him on economic policy hard.

[Back]

McCain needs to retire. To Boca Raton. Gracefully.

[Daniel]

Just for future reference, I always know what I'm talking about. I always have sources. I don't post bullshit I make up.

How convenient it must be for you liberals to ignore the repeated calls by Republicans in the last 8 years to reform fannie mae and freddie mac. Including even Bush, warning of this in a few of his State of the Union speeches.

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2008/09/federal-housing.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

I give you the NYT link because it has the boilerplate Dem response:



Social engineering for the loss.

Democrats wanted more subprime loans to get more poor people into their own homes. Democrats resisted attempts to reign in these mortgage giants. Now the subprime mess is blowing up in everyone's face. This is not a failure of capitalism, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were always government sponsored and thus not a product of capitalism. Without the government's backing and instructions on creating more affordable housing they would have never been able to grow so large and investors would have not provided them the capital to acquire so many subprime loans (thus encouraging banks to lower standards - if the two GSEs would buy any loan you write, what is to stop you from writing any loan you can?).

McCain needs to take his speech from 2005 and make it a campaign commercial to get infront of the economic issues. It really, really, is wrong for people to see Obama as better on the issue. McCain needs to stop attacking Obama on weird shit or just generic taxes and go after him on economic policy hard.


Does anyone else find it funny that CRB can point to a comment 5 years ago that says people are overblowing the issue as a way to justify his partisan bullshit, but can't look at the same thing said 5 weeks ago?


Or does anyone else find it funny that Republicans are more than willing to reform regulations governing public institutions and those that engage in "social engineering" but not those private institutions that they are apart of?

Or that they then blame it on this "social engineering" instead of the pervasive problem that caused all of this?

Because I find it kinda sad actually.

[Daniel]

The first comment from your "source":
Do you mean, "In 2005?" Because according to the link you provided, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 was introduced on Jan 26, 2005. Where it died in a Republican-controlled committee of the Republican-controlled Senate.

This page tracks various initiatives from 2003, and demonstrates how no progress occurred on any reform bill while the Republicans controlled Congress. In stark contrast,

On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the November 2006 election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221, a "bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes." Among other things, the bill granted the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency "supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks (enterprises)" (per CRS analysis).

Pelosi's bill became Public Law 110-140 on 19 December 2007.

How are any of the facts consistent with your thesis? How are the Dems responsible for Richard Shelby's failure to get the reform bill out of committee, or for the Republican failure to pass any reform bill from 2003-2006?

[Kefka]

I love how the liberal media is focusing on Rick Davis' former job... instead of on the fact that the regulation he was lobbying against was sponsored by McCain.


If there were subpoenas to be served, I'm pretty positive they'd focus more on McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, than on Franklin Raines. Obviously, campaign contributions had more to do with the crisis and bailout of Fannie and Freddie than all the lobbyists that contributed to all the deregulation granted by congress, right?

You asked for it and here it is. When you have not just a lobbyist, but THE Lobbyist for Fannie, who's job is to push for deregulation, as your campaign manager, it's pretty hard to wave the reformer flag.

[Gan]

You asked for it and here it is. When you have not just a lobbyist, but THE Lobbyist for Fannie, who's job is to push for deregulation, as your campaign manager, it's pretty hard to wave the reformer flag.

Franklin Raines

[crb]

You asked for it and here it is. When you have not just a lobbyist, but THE Lobbyist for Fannie, who's job is to push for deregulation, as your campaign manager, it's pretty hard to wave the reformer flag.
I didn't know Rick Davis was running for president.

Last I knew John McCain was the candidate and John McCain stood up to his pal Rick and cosponsored reform regulation in 2005, and has been part of a group to get these giants reformed since.

As a liberal you really don't want to go down this road, the more the public becomes aware of the past issues with fannie and freddie the better it is for the republicans.

[crb]

The first comment from your "source":
Do you mean, "In 2005?" Because according to the link you provided, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 was introduced on Jan 26, 2005. Where it died in a Republican-controlled committee of the Republican-controlled Senate.

This page tracks various initiatives from 2003, and demonstrates how no progress occurred on any reform bill while the Republicans controlled Congress. In stark contrast,

On 31 July 2007, after the Democrats obtained control of the Congress in the November 2006 election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced HR 3221, a "bill to provide needed housing reform and for other purposes." Among other things, the bill granted the newly formed Federal Housing Finance Agency "supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks (enterprises)" (per CRS analysis).

Pelosi's bill became Public Law 110-140 on 19 December 2007.

How are any of the facts consistent with your thesis? How are the Dems responsible for Richard Shelby's failure to get the reform bill out of committee, or for the Republican failure to pass any reform bill from 2003-2006?
every democrat voted against it in committee, and just because you control congress doesn't mean you get your way, you need filibuster proof majorities and no one has had that in the senate in awhile. See the current democratic congress, why are they not sending bill after bill after bill of liberal agenda stuff to the president (to veto)? Because they have a slim majority in the senate and so are forced to work with republicans, and if the republicans in the senate don't want something, they can block it.

Read up on how your federal government works daniel.




Nice to see the liberal idealism intact... you guys are going to defend the social engineering of fannie and freddie. Why don't you take that to the american people. Nothing would secure the election for McCain more than a bunch of liberals going on TV defending the government encouragement of subprime loans.

I'll freely admit starting the Iraq war was a mistake. Why can't you idealogues admit that social engineering by lowering lending standards was a bad move?

[Daniel]

I didn't know Rick Davis was running for president.

Last I knew John McCain was the candidate and John McCain stood up to his pal Rick and cosponsored reform regulation in 2005, and has been part of a group to get these giants reformed since.

As a liberal you really don't want to go down this road, the more the public becomes aware of the past issues with fannie and freddie the better it is for the republicans.


I'll take that bet. Contrary to your repeated claims the crisis goes well beyond freddie and fannie

[BigWorm]

I didn't know Rick Davis was running for president.

Last I knew John McCain was the candidate and John McCain stood up to his pal Rick and cosponsored reform regulation in 2005, and has been part of a group to get these giants reformed since.

As a liberal you really don't want to go down this road, the more the public becomes aware of the past issues with fannie and freddie the better it is for the republicans.

I didn't know Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright were running for president either but you never had a problem bringing those two up and they are significantly less involved with the Obama campaign that Rick Davis is with the McCain campaign.

[Gan]

How convenient of you to ignore that the Republicans did not need to "call on" anything. They had a significant majority in both houses and control of the presidency. This wasn't an issue that they were adamant on, and the Democrats thwarted with filibusters.
I blame the GOP too. Its been known too long they have been in bed with Wall Street. Clinton recognized that and made his own network with Manhattan. Thats where the money is. Money is like a TV camera to a politician.

[crb]

I'm still waiting for his response. Don't think I'm going to get one, though.
I tend to ignore most of what you say as rubbish, so I went back and looked up and saw what you asked, that you say I didn't answer, only did, maybe not directed to you.

Keller was half right in another thread. Who buys mortgages is an issue. Only keller was ignoring fannie and freddie.

If you know anything about healthcare you'll know that we really don't have a capitalist system. The largest insurer is the federal government through medicare and they more or less set the standard for reimbursements that the other insurance companies work off of.

Fannie & Freddie's willingness to buy any loan because they were operating with a goal to increase home ownership by keeping loans affordable to all borrowers, allowed the mortgage originating institutions to lower their standards.

That investment banks were also allowed to buy mortgage backed securities is rather irrelevant when you consider their size compared to fannie & freddie. The investment banks were followers, not leaders. The goliaths set the standard.

Fannie and Freddie were both larger and more leveraged than any investment bank. The implicit backing of the US Government allowed them to take on more risk and more debt than any public company could.

You see, they are the largest players in the industry, together holding half of all mortgages, like 6 trillion. That brought with it the influence to affect the market for everyone.

Not to say that investment bank managers aren't also at fault. They are, and they've been fired, and seen their share prices plummet, or even gone belly up. There isn't a single one left actually now.

But to put it all on them is to ignore the elephant in the room.

[crb]

I didn't know Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright were running for president either but you never had a problem bringing those two up and they are significantly less involved with the Obama campaign that Rick Davis is with the McCain campaign.
It isn't the same thing.

That Rick Davis had a job as a lobbyist does not make him scum, Joe Biden's son is a lobbyist. Lots of politicians who leave office become lobbyists. It is a job.

Attacking Rick Davis for doing his job is like attacking John McCain as a baby killer for doing his job in Vietnam.

When Rick Davis has killed people or bombed people, then he is william ayers.

Secondly, John McCain was not influenced by his friend's lobbying, which speaks to his character.

[Tsa`ah]

It isn't the same thing.

That Rick Davis had a job as a lobbyist does not make him scum, Joe Biden's son is a lobbyist. Lots of politicians who leave office become lobbyists. It is a job.

Attacking Rick Davis for doing his job is like attacking John McCain as a baby killer for doing his job in Vietnam.

When Rick Davis has killed people or bombed people, then he is william ayers.

Secondly, John McCain was not influenced by his friend's lobbying, which speaks to his character.

Excuse me while I laugh at your bullshit.

What people did Ayers kill? Who's death is he held accountable for?

How long have you been a close personal associate to McCain?

... I just can't go on. I'm about to piss myself from all of the laughing.

[crb]

Much like people tend to write off what you say as mindless, reactionary rhetoric. You implied that the Republicans--the group in power in both houses of congress with strong majorities as well as the executive--called for reform of Freddie and Fannie. So why didn't they follow through? Like I said, it wasn't because of a obstructionist liberals.


Yes, it was. You can go back and look. McCain have a speech on the floor of the senate in 05. Ron Paul in 03. Bush mentioned it twice in state of the union addresses. This isn't opinion, this is all fact.

Democrats opposed reforms because they didn't want to jeopardize access to affordable housing for subprime borrowers. That is right from the horses mouth, literally. You'll find many quotes by democrats saying exactly that.

And I really wasn't aware republicans had a filibuster proof majority.



"because the government or a government supported enterprise chose to lend to risky borrowers, enacting social engineering, somehow we as private institutions can no longer see that these borrowers are unqualified, and therefor it's the government's fault for "making" us make stupid loans."


That isn't what I've been saying. The question is one of influence. Also, you have to realize how markets work and that with the federal government in the form of Fannie Mac providing a backstop for all conforming loans, it provided a safety net that let other banks play without strings. Those companies were simply too big, too leveraged, and too badly run. And since they hold 50% of all mortgages their influence on the bubble was far far far far greater than an investment bank.

Which is sorta what the government wants to do more of with this bailout, provide a big safety net floor for these mortgages so that their value stabilizes and stops fucking with balance sheets. This bailout accomplishes more or less exactly what the fannie & freddie taking over accomplished, only for a fraction of the risk. Here taxpayers will be only exposed to $700 billion of risk, instead of the $6 trillion we're exposed to from Fannie & Freddie.



This is not the fault of irresponsible borrowers. Stupid people apply for things they're not qualified for all the time. People with little to no experience apply for jobs, people with bad credit apply for car loans, etc. It's up to the institutions or people whose job it is to scrutinize to filter out the bad weeds, but instead these lenders chose to take their money and hope the interest rates would hold out. They misjudged the risk versus the potential reward, and deserve to pay the price.

I mostly agree, lets go ski in hell. Except some blame HAS to go on the borrower. But you know what... the price has been paid. There is no independent investment bank left, literally. They're all gone now, they either went under, got bought by a commercial bank (thus becoming a commercial bank which is more regulated) or turned into a commercial bank.

[TheRoseLady]

As a liberal you really don't want to go down this road, the more the public becomes aware of the past issues with fannie and freddie the better it is for the republicans.

Yeah because millions of folks read the PC to get their political insight.

[Sean of the Thread]

Yeah because millions of folks read the PC to get their political insight.

I read the PC for boobies durrrr.

[TheRoseLady]

The government may set the standard for things like cost of reimbursement for medical procedures...


This is false. Medicare sets its own rates based on whatever criteria they use. Providers such as doctors, hospitals etc, are not bound by what the Medicare rates are, nor are insurance companies. Insurance companies utilize their own methods to determine reimbursement. Agreeing to accept the Medicare rate is a totally separate issue, but I am sure since you are such a smart guy about health care you'll enlighten us.

Source: My own brain.

[Parkbandit]

Source: My own brain.

:rofl:

PS - It didn't have a link :P

[Gan]

Yeah because millions of folks read the PC to get their political insight.

Oh yea? Ron Paul posts here.

What say you now?

[TheRoseLady]

What say you now?

That you should post your pic again ;)

[Gan]

meeow.

Whats the matter, you need a fresh picture for your dart board?