The Turnkey Totalitarian State

Alan Grayson Gives Props to Occupy Wall Street on Real Time w/ Bill Maher

Grayson slams mosque debate as a ‘distraction’

(I like Alan Grayson, and I totally agree that this mosque bullshit is a planned distraction--it's an inane concept to deny someone's first amendment rights because you are offended by their religion, it's 'blame' for 9-11, and a proposed community center/place of worship 8 BLOCKS from where the WTC once stood, not at the actual site. I disagree with what he thinks is that from which we are being distracted: it's the economy, stupid! It is tanking hard now, and a depression is unavoidable because the wrong people are in place to try and prevent the oncoming economic desolation. Crony capitalism, the good ol' boy network, and the bankster's alliance, will only make things worse. Geithner and Summers, et al, will make things much worse before they eventually are asked to resign. We are being fed this bullshit "recovery" lie with a heaping helping of "the oil in the gulf is all gone" lie, and given this stupid mosque "debate" to set fire to the vengeful, hateful superstitious crowd among us who think we are at war with Islam, and keep them from getting mad about being unemployed. Folks...back off...shake off the fog...our economy has crashed. There are no jobs coming for the 15-20 million unemployed. No raises coming for those with jobs. Life is about to get even harder than it has been, and way harder than we would have imagined back in 2008. The mosque "debate" is a non-issue meant to make you get worked up about something that doesn't matter, so you won't get worked up about something which does matter--an economic depression the likes of which has not been seen since the feudal days. Sorry to be the one to tell you. So, Grayson is half right.--jef)

***

Grayson: "Talk about admin that ‘let’ 9/11 happen instead"
By Stephen C. Webster
Saturday, August 21st, 2010

The debate over a planned Islamic community center several blocks from New York City's World Trade Center site is a "distraction," according to Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL).

Instead, the debate should shift in focus to an examination of the administration which "let it happen."

'It,' of course, being the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The remark was made during a Friday appearance on MSNBC's The Ed Show with former liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz.

“If we are going to talk about 9/11, why don’t we talk about how not so much the people who died on 9/11 were disgraced by the possibility of an Islamic athletic center several blocks away; how about the fact that they were disgraced by a president who let it happen?" he asked. "Who went on vacation for the entire month of August after he was warned in writing that Osama bin Laden was actually finding targets in NYC and learning how to take these planes and do terrible things with them? The thing itself said ‘hijacking’ and they did nothing about it."

He called talk of the Islamic community center mere "distraction" from real issues facing Americans.

Unanswered questions

In its report on the devastating attacks, the 9/11 Commission wrote:

[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. ...Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period. Domestic agencies did not know what to do, and no one gave them direction. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI’s efforts. The public was not warned.

In 2008, Philip Shenon, who covered the 9/11 Commission proceedings for the New York Times, published a book called, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, in which he revealed the uncomfortably close ties between the commission's executive director, Philip Zelikow, and Bush advisers Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice.

The following year it was revealed that the commission's crucial chapters, detailing the planning and execution of the attacks, was sourced namely on information obtained through torture.

9/11 Commission members Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton wrote that although US President George W. Bush had ordered all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the probe, “recent revelations that the CIA destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot.”

“Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.”

They continued: “There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the CIA — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot.

“Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations,” Kean and Hamilton wrote.

Just four days ago, two tapes that were supposedly destroyed, depicting the interrogations of a Sept. 11 suspect, were discovered under a desk at the CIA. Dozens of other tapes that captured the waterboarding and torture of other prisoners were allegedly destroyed.

In a 2006 telephone survey of 1200 individuals, just 47% agreed that “the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense.” Almost as many, 45%, indicated they were more likely to agree “that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.”

This video is from MSNBC's The Ed Show, as snipped by Mediaite.

Verizon & Google Want to Kill the Open Internet--Rep. Alan Grayson

Media Mogul Confirms Their Bad Intentions
Google's market capitalization is $150 billion. Verizon's is $85 billion. They don't care about our wellbeing. Even if one of them tells us it won't "be evil."
By Rep. Alan Grayson, AlterNet
Posted on August 20, 2010

"[Barry] Diller asserted that the Google-Verizon proposal "doesn't preserve 'net neutrality,' full stop, or anything like it." Asked if other media executives were staying quiet because they stand to gain from a less open Internet, he said simply, "Yes."" New York Times, August 12, 2010

The Verizon-Google Net Neutrality Proposal begins by stating that "Google and Verizon have been working together to find ways to preserve the open Internet." Well, that's nice. Imagine what they would have come up with if they had been trying to kill off the open Internet.

Actually, you don't have to imagine it. Because that's what this is. An effort to kill off the open Internet.

Much of the coverage of the Verizon-Google Proposal has focused on only one of the proposal's many problems: the fact that the proposal allows wireless broadband carriers -- like, say, Verizon, for instance -- to discriminate in handling Internet traffic in any manner they choose. They can charge content providers, they can block content providers, and they can slow down content providers, just as they please. That sure doesn't sound "neutral."

We've already seen examples of political censorship over mobile networks. In 2007, Verizon refused to run a pro-choice text message from advocacy group NARAL, due to its supposedly 'unsavory' nature. Yes, this happened; yes, this kind of censorship would be continue to be legal under the Google-Verizon deal; and yes, Google, this is evil.

But the Verizon-Google Proposal allows almost as much latitude to other internet carriers, like cable and DSL carriers. Under the heading "Network Management," all carriers can "engage in reasonable network management," which "includes any technically sound practice" (which means what?). And it specifically includes the power to "prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency." The term "latency" means delays in downloading, from carrying video files and such. So if you want video, and YouTube won't pay Verizon to provide it, then Verizon can "prioritize" other traffic. And then your two-minute video will take two hours to see. And let's say you want to start a new website that offers video -- good luck getting through to Verizon's customer service department, to have Verizon place it in the right 'tier' of Verizon's internet service. In my experience, customer service requests have extraordinarily high "latency."

Furthermore, under the heading "Non-Discrimination Requirement" (that sounds promising!), wireline carriers cannot engage in "undue discrimination." "Undue discrimination!" What, exactly, is "due" discrimination? And even then, the presumption of non-discrimination "could be rebutted."

And if a carrier somehow manages to run afoul of these absurdly loose standards, the FCC doesn't even have the power to act, unless someone actually finds out about the discrimination, complains about it, and can prove it. And even then, the Verizon-Google Proposal limits the penalty to $2 million.

Do you happen to know what Verizon's revenue is every 10 minutes? It's . . . $2 million. That's right. The maximum fine is equal to what Verizon takes in every 10 minutes.

Do we laugh? Or do we cry?

This would give Verizon -- and every other large internet carrier -- the equivalent of a cheap "put" option on every company with an internet-based product or service. For a mere $2 million, Verizon could secretly block (or just mess with) the internet content of a billion-dollar company, destroying its market value overnight. And, perhaps, sending those customers to Verizon's rival product or service.

Now, I really would like to believe that the FCC can deliver on guaranteeing net neutrality. But remember, this 'proposal' came after months of secret, closed-door meetings with the FCC, spurred by Chairman Julius Genachowski, that sought an industry- brokered deal along the lines of the Verizon-Google Proposal. And when the proposal was issued, net neutrality's longtime ally, Commissioner Michael Copps, responded as follows: "Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That's one of its many problems."

When I see our most stalwart friend on the commission coming out against a deal shepherded by the Chairman, it doesn't inspire confidence that the FCC can hold the line against telecom and cable companies, when those companies have something else in mind.

Google's market capitalization is $150 billion. Verizon's is $85 billion. They don't care about our wellbeing. Never have, never will. Even if one of them tells us it won't "be evil."

It's time for the FCC to step up. It's time for Congress to step up. It's time for all of us to step up. We need for the law to protect the internet: No discrimination in pricing or in service. No self-regulation by corporate titans. And no blessing of corrupt deals at the FCC.

And we need all citizens to engage, to be vigilant. Remember, no one in Big Business has an interest in keeping this medium open to all of us. The only interest that wants to keep the internet open and free, for you and me, is you and me.

So if you care about a free and open internet, uncensored by Big Business, then look toward the horizon. A storm is brewing. There's a hard rain coming.

Alan Grayson is congressman for Florida's 8th District.

Conyers throws in with Grayson, co-sponsors ‘War is Making You Poor Act’

By Stephen C. Webster | Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

It seems that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) would agree, perpetual war is making you poor.

To begin rectifying the situation, he's joined with Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) in co-sponsoring the "War is Making You Poor Act," which would limit defense spending to $548.9 billion: the exact figure alloted in the fiscal year 2011 budget.

The act also seeks to utilize an additional $159.3 billion set aside for "discretionary" operations abroad to relieve the full federal income tax burden on every American's first $35,000 earned per year, or up to $70,000 per year for married couples.

According to Detroit publication MLive, Conyers, who chairs the powerful House Committee on the Judiciary, is adding his name to the roster of support.

"I believe that the thing we need to do is to take that $159 billion that the President has set aside – we’re not saying he has to stop the war, we’re not giving a cut-off date for the war – we’re simply saying you need to fund that out of the base budget of $549 billion," Grayson said of his bill. "And we take 90 percent of that and give it back to the American people."

He's also launched an online petition in support of the "War is Making You Poor Act". At time of this writing it had accrued over 45,000 signatures.

Surprisingly enough, even some conservatives see the legislation as a potential positive.

"Each troop we send to Afghanistan costs the public $1 million per year," National Review's E.D. Kain noted. "That’s $1 million siphoned out of the U.S. economy and shipped overseas to the mountains of Afghanistan and the Iraqi deserts. As Veronique de Rugy pointed out in 2008, for years many of these costs were hidden, not even included in the Pentagon’s defense budget. This obscures not only the real cost of war, but the costs of all the extraneous programs our tax dollars end up going toward in the name of national defense."

He goes on to call Grayson's bill "a good start" toward slashing America's massively bloated defense budget.

"The costs of the war have been rendered invisible," Grayson said on the floor of the House. "There's no draft. Instead, we take the most vulnerable elements of our population, and give them a choice between unemployment and missile fodder. Government deficits conceal the need to pay in cash for the war.

"We put the cost of both guns and butter on our Chinese credit card. In fact, we don't even put these wars on budget; they are still passed using 'emergency supplemental'. A nine-year 'emergency'.

"Let's show Congress the cost of these wars is too much for us."

The bill, H.R. 5353, is currently before the House Armed Services and Ways and Means committees.

This video is from C-Span, broadcast May 20, 2010.



vidlink

War Is Making You Poor

Grayson introduces ‘War Is Making You Poor Act’ to highlight cost of ongoing wars
Today, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) introduced bipartisan legislation called the “War Is Making You Poor Act,” which aims to call attention to a) how much money is being spent to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and b) how budget gimmicks are used to pay for them. Grayson’s legislation would slash the $159 billion request for supplemental war funding and use that money to deliver a tax break for all Americans. Grayson demands the Pentagon use its currently existing $549 billion defense budget to fight the wars. Speaking on the House floor today, Grayson underscored that the point of his legislation is to highlight the costs of the wars:

GRAYSON: So I believe that the thing we need to do is to take that $159 billion that the President has set aside – we’re not saying he has to stop the war, we’re not giving a cut-off date for the war – we’re simply saying you need to fund that out of the base budget of $549 billion. And we take 90 percent of that and give it back to the American people. 

And I think most people would be surprised to learn that that is so much money that we’ve been spending on the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq that every single taxpayer in America will be get his first or her first $35,000 of income completely tax free.

Grayson’s bill, which is currently being co-sponsored by Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Barbara Lee (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), would also cut the federal deficit by $15.9 billion. “There is no longer any need to go beyond the exorbitant base defense budget,” Grayson said. “It is not necessary. Enough is enough.”

Dodd Bill Would Allow Fed To Hide Its Spending

Dodd Bill Would Allow Fed To Hide Its Spending
Ryan Grim, Huffington Post

The Wall Street reform bill headed for a test vote on the Senate floor Monday night will allow the Federal Reserve to continue to pump trillions of dollars into major banks largely in secrecy, the co-author of House language that would open the central bank to an audit charged in a memo to the Senate.

"The Senate has a provision in its reform bill that purports to audit the Fed. But, it really doesn't do anything of the sort. I'm going to run down the details for you, and reprint the legislative language so you can read it yourself," writes Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.).

It would not allow the GAO to look into the Fed's massive purchase of toxic assets, its hundreds of billions in foreign currency swaps with other central banks or its open market operations, among other restrictions.

Grayson and co-author Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) passed legislation through the House that would allow the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the Federal Reserve and, after a delay, release the information to Congress. It was a remarkable victory, with a populist coalition beating back the combined lobbying efforts of the Treasury Department, the Fed and Wall Street banks.

The Senate has been more hostile territory for the Fed audit provision. Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) opposes the Grayson-Paul version, but allowed a much more restrictive audit proposal from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) into his bill.

Grayson, in his memo, outlines the shortcomings of the Senate bill. Walker Todd, who spent some 20 years as a counselor with the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland, reviewed Grayson's analysis and told HuffPost he concurs with it.

The Seante bill would allow an audit of the  TALF program and slightly expands authority to audit emergency lending conducted under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, but restricts it to very specific purposes.

Meanwhile, it would not allow the GAO to look into the Fed's massive purchase of toxic assets, its hundreds of billions in foreign currency swaps with other central banks or its open market operations, among other restrictions.

Fed backers argue that requiring transparency would politicize monetary policy, though monetary policy and the Fed itself are already political -- they regularly lobby Congress, after all -- and would tempt lawmakers to pressure the Fed to inflate the currency to reduce the debt burden.

Merkley said he agrees with Grayson's analysis. "I appreciate Representative Grayson's concerns over accountability at the Federal Reserve. I have been a strong proponent of Fed reform and voted against the re-confirmation of Ben Bernanke because the Fed has been so lax in using its regulatory powers," Merkley said in a statement to HuffPost.

"Moreover, I felt strongly that we need to act now to empower the GAO to audit the extraordinary emergency programs created by the Fed and I succeeded in getting that power into the Senate bill. Rep. Grayson points out, fairly in my mind, that we need to go even further to audit the Fed's standing programs. I agree. While we need to protect the Fed's independence to implement monetary policy, I think the structure and use of their standard programs should be transparent."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) intends to introduce an amendment on the floor effectively adding the Grayson-Paul language to the Senate bill. The language is hereand below is a summary from his office of the amendment:

Support the Sanders Federal Reserve Transparency Amendment to the Financial Reform Bill

The American people have a right to know who received over $2 Trillion in financial assistance from the Federal Reserve.

Since the beginning of the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has provided over $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed loans and other financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the world. Unfortunately, the Fed is still refusing to tell the American people or the Congress who received most of this assistance, how much they received or what they are doing with this money. This money does not belong to the Federal Reserve, it belongs to the American people, and the American people have a right to know where their taxpayer dollars are going.

Therefore, during the consideration of the financial reform bill, we will offer an amendment to increase transparency at the Federal Reserve. Specifically, our amendment:

* Requires the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct an independent and comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve within one year after the date of enactment of the financial reform bill;

* Requires the GAO to submit a report to Congress detailing its findings and conclusion of their independent audit of the Fed within 3 months; and

* Requires the Federal Reserve within one month after the date of enactment to disclose the names of the financial institutions and foreign central banks that received financial assistance from the Fed since the start of the recession, how much they received, and the exact terms of this taxpayer assistance.

* Does not interfere with or dictate the monetary policies or decisions of the Federal Reserve.

59 Senators, 320 Members of Congress, and two federal courts have called on the Federal Reserve to become more transparent.

Our amendment is similar to an amendment that was offered to last year's Budget Resolution that passed the Senate on a bi-partisan vote of 59-39 on April 1, 2009; S.604, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act that now has 33 bi-partisan co-sponsors; and the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (H.R. 1207) that has 320 bi-partisan co-sponsors (a version of which passed the House Financial Services Committee by a vote of 43-28 and was incorporated into the financial reform bill that passed the House last December).

In August of 2009, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York also ordered the Fed to disclose the recipients of this taxpayer assistance as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Bloomberg News. This decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan on March 19, 2010.

The Senate Financial Reform Bill does not do enough to make the Fed more transparent.

While the Senate financial reform bill attempts to address the lack of transparency at the Fed, as currently drafted, much of the information regarding the details of who received this financial assistance could be kept secret forever.

As long as the Federal Reserve is allowed to keep the information on their loans secret, we may never know the true financial condition of the banking system. The lack of transparency at the Fed could lead to an even bigger crisis in the future.

We now know that the lack of transparency in credit default swaps led to the $182 billion taxpayer bailout of AIG; the collapse of Lehman Brothers and precipitated the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

We know who received TARP funding.

Anyone with access to the internet can go onto the Treasury Department's website and find out exactly who received a bail-out from the $700 billion TARP program. The American people have a right to know the same information from the Fed.

The Sanders Amendment does not undermine the Fed's independence.

This amendment does not take away the "independence" of the Fed and it does not put monetary policy into the hands of Congress.

This amendment does not tell the Federal Reserve when to cut short-term interest rates or when to raise them. It does not tell the Federal Reserve what banks to lend money to and what banks not to lend money to. It does not tell the Federal Reserve what foreign central banks they can do business with and which ones it cannot do business with. It does not impose any new regulations on the Federal Reserve nor does it take any regulatory authority away from the Fed.

This amendment simply requires the GAO to conduct an independent audit of the Fed and requires the Fed to release the names of the recipients of more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed assistance.

For nearly nine decades, the GAO has a proven track record of conducting objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, non-ideological, fair, and balanced audits. Through these audits, the GAO helped save the American taxpayers $50 billion last year alone by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government.

Let's not equate independence with secrecy. We cannot let the Fed operate in secrecy any longer. There is simply too much money at stake.

Read Grayson's memo, followed by the legislative language:

Memo to the Senate: Stop Secret Bailouts by the Fed

Sometimes, you just know that you've struck a nerve. I knew it early last year, when a clip of my questioning the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve over the Fed's balance sheet became the most viewed Congressional hearing in YouTube history. The Fed had lent out around $1 trillion, and I wanted to know what happened to the people's money. So did the people.


They were angry at the Fed, and they showed it. And because of that righteous anger, the financial reform bill in the House contains a provision to audit the Federal Reserve fully. If it passes the Senate, we will finally know to whom the Fed lent our money, how much, and what little we got in return.


So it's up to the Senate. The Senate has a provision in its reform bill that purports to audit the Fed. But, it really doesn't do anything of the sort. I'm going to run down the details for you, and reprint the legislative language so you can read it yourself. But the story is simple; if the House version of a Fed audit passes, we will finally know to whom the Fed lent our money. If the Senate version passes, the Fed can continue to make sweetheart loans to whomever it wants, without telling Congress or the public.


The way Congress oversees complicated government agencies is through the Congressional audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO does the actual auditing, and gives that information to Congress, which then holds hearings and makes policy. The House bill grants the GAO the authority to audit the Fed, and then releases that information to Congress with a six-month delay, to prevent traders from gaming the system.


The Senate version only allows the GAO to audit a certain part of the Federal Reserve, its emergency lending facilities. The GAO already has some of that authority. Amazingly, the Senate version forces the GAO to withhold this information from the public, and Congress, for as long as the Federal Reserve chooses.


The details, and the specific legislative language, are below.


Limited Audit Authority


What the Senate bill allows:

- The Senate language slightly expands existing authority to the GAO to audit only the emergency lending authority in section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, but only for specific purposes.


- The Senate language would grant the GAO authority to audit the TALF program.

What the bill does NOT allow:

- The Senate language does not allow audits of the mortgage backed security purchase program, a $1.25 trillion program that at this point comprises the bulk of the Fed's balance sheet. This program includes Freddie and Fannie backed debt.


- The Senate language does not allow audits of possible losses on foreign currency swap lines, of which there were more than $500 billion at the height of the crisis. This includes unlimited credit lines granted to central banks all over the world, solely through at the discretion of Federal Reserve and without the input of any elected official or the State Department.


- The Senate language does not allow audits of open market operations, where there is ample room for errors, market manipulation, and insider trading violations.


- The Senate language does not allow audits of possible losses on securities acquired through non-section 13(3) facilities. This includes looking for possible losses, seigniorage, political conflicts and costs to the Treasury.

Federal Reserve Secrecy

- In the Senate version, all audits must remain redacted. The GAO can't even tell Congress to whom the Fed is lending money, the amounts it is lending, or any details about collateral or assets held in connection with any credit facility.


- The GAO can never release a full version of any audit unless the Federal Reserve first chooses to shut down the audited credit facility.


- Once the Federal Reserve shuts down the authority for the credit facility, the GAO still has to wait a year before it can release details about that facility. If the Fed simply chooses to stop making loans, but does not eliminate the authority to make loans, the GAO has to wait three years before it can release a full report. The Fed can at any point during this period choose to restart the facility, and thereby prevent the release of a full report.

See for yourself. The legislative language in the Senate draft is here.


Sec. 714. Audit of Financial Institutions Examination Council,


Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve banks, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Comptroller of the Currency

(a) In this section, "agency" means the Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (in this section referred to as the `Board'), Federal Reserve Banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

(b) Under regulations of the Comptroller General, the Comptroller General shall audit an agency, but may carry out an onsite examination of an open insured bank or bank holding company only if the appropriate agency has consented in writing. Audits of the Board and Federal reserve banks may not include -

   (1) transactions for or with a foreign central bank, government of a foreign country, or non-private international financing organization;

   (2) deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters, including discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market operations;

   (3) transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee; or

   (4) a part of a discussion or communication among or between members of the Board and officers and employees of the Federal Reserve System related to clauses (1)-(3) of this subsection.

(c)(1) Except as provided in this subsection, an officer or employee of the Government Accountability Office may not disclose information identifying an open bank, an open bank holding company, or a customer of an open or closed bank or bank holding company. The Comptroller General may disclose information related to the affairs of a closed bank or closed bank holding company identifying a customer of the closed bank or closed bank holding company only if the Comptroller General believes the customer had a controlling influence in the management of the closed bank or closed bank holding company or was related to or affiliated with a person or group having a controlling influence.

   (2) An officer or employee of the Office may discuss a customer, bank, or bank holding company with an official of an agency and may report an apparent criminal violation to an appropriate law enforcement authority of the United States Government or a State.

   (3) Except as provided under paragraph (4), an officer or employee of the Government Accountability Office may not disclose to any person outside the Government Accountability Office information obtained in audits or examinations conducted under subsection (e) and maintained as confidential by the Board or the Federal Reserve banks.

   (4) This subsection shall not--

      (A) authorize an officer or employee of an agency to withhold information from any committee or subcommittee of jurisdiction of Congress, or any member of such committee or subcommittee; or

      (B) limit any disclosure by the Government Accountability Office to any committee or subcommittee of jurisdiction of Congress, or any member of such committee or subcommittee.

      (d)(1) To carry out this section, all records and property of or used by an agency, including samples of reports of examinations of a bank or bank holding company the Comptroller General considers statistically meaningful and workpapers and correspondence related to the reports shall be made available to the Comptroller General. The Comptroller General shall have access to the officers, employees, contractors, and other agents and representatives of an agency and any entity established by an agency at any reasonable time as the Comptroller General may request. The Comptroller General may make and retain copies of such books, accounts, and other records as the Comptroller General determines appropriate. The Comptroller General shall give an agency a current list of officers and employees to whom, with proper identification, records and property may be made available, and who may make notes or copies necessary to carry out an audit.

      (2) The Comptroller General shall prevent unauthorized access to Records, copies of any Record, or property of or used by an agency that the Comptroller General obtains during an audit.

      (3)(A) For purposes of conducting audits and examinations under subsection (e), the Comptroller General shall have access, upon request, to any information, data, schedules, books, accounts, financial records, reports, files, electronic communications, or other papers, things or property belonging to or in use by--

      "(i) any entity established by any action taken by the Board described under subsection (e);

      "(ii) any entity receiving assistance from any action taken by the Board described under subsection (e), to the extent that the access and request relates to that assistance; and

      (iii) the officers, directors, employees, independent public accountants, financial advisors and any and all representatives of any entity described under clause (i) or (ii); to the extent that the access and request relates to that assistance;

      (B) The Comptroller General shall have access as provided under subparagraph (A) at such time as the Comptroller General may request.

      (C) Each contract, term sheet, or other agreement between the Board or any Federal reserve bank (or any entity established by the Board or any Federal reserve bank) and an entity receiving assistance from any action taken by the Board described under subsection (e) shall provide for access by the Comptroller General in accordance with this paragraph.

      (e) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Comptroller General may conduct audits, including onsite examinations when the Comptroller General determines such audits and examinations are appropriate, of any action taken by the Board under the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 343); with respect to a single and specific partnership or corporation.'

      (f) REVIEWS OF CREDIT FACILITIES OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.--

      (1) DEFINITION.--In this subsection, the term 'credit facility' means any utility, facility, or program authorized by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the third undesignated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 343), including any special purpose vehicle or other entity established by or on behalf of the Board of Governors or a Federal reserve bank, that is not subject to audit under subsection (e), including--

      (A) the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility;

      (B) the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility;

      (C) the Primary Dealer Credit Facility;

      (D) the Commercial Paper Funding Facility; and

      (E) the Term Securities Lending Facility.

      (2) AUTHORITY FOR REVIEWS AND EXAMINATIONS.--Subject to paragraph (3), and notwithstanding any limitation in subsection (b) on the auditing and oversight of certain functions of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal reserve bank, the Comptroller General of the United States may conduct reviews, including onsite examinations, of the Board of Governors, a Federal reserve bank, or a credit facility, if the Comptroller General determines that such reviews are appropriate, solely for the purposes of assessing, with respect to a credit facility--

       (A) the operational integrity, accounting, financial reporting, and internal controls of the credit facility;

      (B) the effectiveness of the collateral policies established for the facility in mitigating risk to the relevant Federal reserve bank and taxpayers;

      (C) whether the credit facility inappropriately favors one or more specific participants over other institutions eligible to utilize the facility; and

      (D) the policies governing the use, selection, or payment of third-party contractors by or for any credit facility.

      (3) REPORTS AND DELAYED DISCLOSURE.--

      (A) REPORTS REQUIRED.--A report on each review conducted under paragraph shall be submitted by the Comptroller General to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date on which such review is completed.

      (B) CONTENTS.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall include a detailed description of the findings and conclusions of the Comptroller General with respect to the matters described in paragraph (2) that were reviewed and are the subject of the report, together with such recommendations for legislative or administrative action relating to such matters as the Comptroller General may determine to be appropriate.

      (C) DELAYED RELEASE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION.--

      (i) IN GENERAL.--The Comptroller General shall not disclose to any person or entity, including to Congress, the names or identifying details of specific participants in any credit facility, the amounts borrowed by specific participants in any credit facility, or identifying details regarding assets or collateral held by, under, or in connection with any credit facility, and any report provided under subparagraph (A) shall be redacted to ensure that such names and details are not disclosed.

      (ii) DELAYED RELEASE.--The non-disclosure obligation under clause (i) shall expire with respect to any participant on the date on which the Board of Governors, directly or through a Federal reserve bank, publicly discloses the identity of the subject participant or the identifying details of the subject assets or collateral.

      (iii) GENERAL RELEASE.--The Comptroller General shall release a non redacted version of any report on a credit facility 1 year after the effective date of the termination by the Board of Governors of the authorization for the credit facility. For purposes of this clause, a credit facility shall be deemed to have terminated 24 months after the date on which the credit facility ceases to make extensions of credit and loans, unless the credit facility is otherwise terminated by the Board of Governors.

      (iv) EXCEPTIONS.--The nondisclosure obligation under clause (i) shall not apply to the credit facilities Maiden Lane, Maiden Lane II, and Maiden Lane III.

Corporate entity becomes ‘candidate’ for congress

Pretty sure this is just a very clever attempt to portray corporations in the proper light politically. If not, then wow...


Corporate entity becomes ‘candidate’, kicks off bid for Congress

By Stephen C. Webster
Saturday, March 13th, 2010 -- 12:14 pm

When the Supreme Court decided the case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, henceforth allowing corporate soft money to influence U.S. elections, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) cynically opined that it would lead to the election of the "congressman from Wal-Mart."

Turns out, he may be right.

Meet Murray Hill, Inc., the first corporation to run for Congress in the United States.

"Until now, corporations only influenced politics with high-paid lobbyists and backroom deals," the company's YouTube account declares. "But today, thanks to an enlightened supreme court, corporations now have all the rights the founding fathers meant for us. That's why Murray Hill Incorporated is taking democracy's next step-- running for Congress."

Murray Hill, Inc. even has a fan page on Facebook, and a campaign ad. Watch:



Hill says it plans to file as a Republican for the GOP primary in Maryland's eighth congressional district, currently represented by Democrat Chris Van Hollen.

Van Hollen, along with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), introduced legislation in February they hope will help blunt the effect of the court's decision by restoring some of the restrictions on corporate campaign spending. Hill reportedly has "no beef" with Van Hollen, though the position seems more part of the campaign's schtick than anything.

The company, a self-titled "progressive" messaging firm, was launched in 2005 by one Eric Hensal, who used to work with Group360, an advocacy organization in Washington, D.C.

Hill said in a statement that its campaign would put people "second, or even third," according to The Washington Post.

"It's a new day," Hill's ad says. "Until now, corporations influenced politics with high paid lobbyists and backroom deals. However, as much as corporate interests gave to politicians, we could never be absolutely sure they would do our bidding. But today, thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, corporations now have all the rights the founding fathers meant for us. It's our democracy: we bought it, we paid for it and we're going to keep it."

Hill "wanted to run as a Republican because we feel the Republican Party is more receptive to our basic message that corporations are people, too," campaign manager William Klein told the Post.

When the Supreme Court first decided Citizens United, 41 industry leaders signed a letter to Congress urging the end of what they called corporate "bribery."

"Is there a difference between campaign contributions and bribery?" said Alan Hassenfeld, chairman of Hasbro, Inc, who co-signed the letter. "It is long past the time to stop requiring that our elected officials moonlight as telemarketers raising money for their re-election campaigns rather then devoting all their time to solving the problems before this nation."

A blogger with watchdog group The Sunlight Foundation called the decision the "corporate globalization" of U.S. elections, cautioning that allowing corporate funds in elections would also make way for undue foreign influence on U.S. politics.

"It allows corporations to spend all the money they want to buy and sell elected officials through the campaign process," Rep. Grayson said of the Citizens United case. "It allows them to reward political sellouts, and it allows them to punish elected officials who actually try to do what's right for the people."

The Post adds:

Whether or not a corporation ultimately replaces Van Hollen in Congress, Murray Hill's interest has sparked other speculation among the political chattering class in Maryland.
Why not have an accounting firm run for comptroller, the state's chief tax collector? Why not a law firm for attorney general? The winning firm could arrive in office with a full cadre of associates and save taxpayers money.
It remains to be seen whether the attention generated by Murray Hill's bid will be good for its bottom line.