Mick Mulvaney Tells Bankers to Pay Up If They Want Favors From Trump

Mick Mulvaney is the budget director and director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and he has gutted the latter’s role in preventing consumer fraud. Tuesday, he met with lobbyists and executives from the banking industry, promising further steps to gut regulations to prevent them from cheating customers. That’s not even the scandalous part! The scandalous part is that Mulvaney asked the executives and lobbyists to donate more money, and told them the more they donated, the more influence they would have.

Citing the way he and his staff operated when he was in Congress, Mulvaney said:

Seriously? Do any you remember the controversy over whether Mulvaney should be the director of the CFPB?

This is how Trump's looking out for middle class Americans?

Mulvaney's approach to politics and policy is the very definition of the "the swamp." His remarks above aren't the only example of it:

• https://www.housingwire.com/articles/43194-cfpb-considering-ending-public-access-to-bank-complaints

And the excuses of Pay to Play from Trump supporters coming in 4.....3....2.....1

hm, there was a candidate last election cycle who pledged not to take corporate money. but, his name wasn't Donald Trump.

Our political system is like many religious systems, when it's daylight, everything is prim and proper, but when the lights go out, you better find a solid surface to back up against!


Been like this for years, bastards are just getting more brazen!

Mulvaney has recently gutted consumer protections for the payday/title loan industry and the used car loan-shark industry. Both industries prey on the poor and those living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Rexedgar said:

Our political system is like many religious systems, when it's daylight, everything is prim and proper, but when the lights go out, you better find a solid surface to back up against!


Been like this for years, bastards are just getting more brazen!

Click to expand...

Are we to construe your remark as observation or exculpation?

Xelor said:

Are we to construe your remark as observation or exculpation?

Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence.
-- Leonardo da Vinci​

Click to expand...

Construe how you will..........you think posts on this board are likely to change anything?

The full quote, in context:

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you. If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talk to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions. People coming from back home, to tell people in Congress what issues are important to them, is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy, and you have to continue to do it.



https://www.axios.com/mick-mulvaney...ers-d1eef896-0264-44b7-8587-bba6c790460d.html

Barnacle said:

The full quote, in context:

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you. If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talk to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions. People coming from back home, to tell people in Congress what issues are important to them, is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy, and you have to continue to do it.



https://www.axios.com/mick-mulvaney...ers-d1eef896-0264-44b7-8587-bba6c790460d.html

Click to expand...

Shhh... let them run with this. It's funny

(some of the lefties are in outrage over what they construe as partisan reporting of Clinton's FEC scandal but they're oddly silent about complaining on the OPs post).

lol

Barnacle said:

The full quote, in context:

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you. If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talk to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions. People coming from back home, to tell people in Congress what issues are important to them, is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy, and you have to continue to do it.



https://www.axios.com/mick-mulvaney...ers-d1eef896-0264-44b7-8587-bba6c790460d.html

Click to expand...

Whew, makes me feel better........

Rexedgar said:

Construe how you will..........you think posts on this board are likely to change anything?

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
--H.L. Mencken​

Click to expand...

No, but insofar as I bothered to read your post, I'd like to know how you construed the remark(s) when you penned them.

If folks were more often to think about what they read/hear from others and consider the potential meanings and ask for clarification on the contextual or denotational aspects a speaker/writer had in mind, there'd be far less polemical discourse and far more productive exchanges....

Barnacle said:

The full quote, in context:

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you. If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talk to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions. People coming from back home, to tell people in Congress what issues are important to them, is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy, and you have to continue to do it.



https://www.axios.com/mick-mulvaney...ers-d1eef896-0264-44b7-8587-bba6c790460d.html

Click to expand...

Normatively, the blue bit is apropos, but the existential verity of the blue bit doesn't obviate the fact that the red bits are the very opposite of apropos.

Xelor said:

Normatively, the blue bit is apropos, but the existential verity of the blue bit doesn't obviate the fact that the red bits are the very opposite of apropos.

Click to expand...

THIS is why I don't believe a single word in BLUE

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s nominee to be director of the Office of Management and Budget, served in the South Carolina Legislature from 2007 to 2011, when he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Koch Industries has donated $31,000 to Mulvaney’s campaigns. The Club for Growth, whose funders include the Koch network, has been his top donor, giving $85,580. Club for Growth was a sponsor of ALEC’s annual conference this year.

Click to expand...

https://medium.com/lobby99/trump-sets-up-alec-administration-e6d00be457d2

The entire Trump administration is almost 100 percent ALEC controlled, so any nonsense about people "from back home (who) sit in his lobby" is bullcrap.

Rexedgar said:

Our political system is like many religious systems, when it's daylight, everything is prim and proper, but when the lights go out, you better find a solid surface to back up against!


Been like this for years, bastards are just getting more brazen!

Click to expand...

It isn't the general political system. What you are witnessing isn't normal. What was sold to Trump voters was an administration that would drain the swamp. What voters got was the most corrupt administration in history that is buying alligators, with public money, to stock the swamp.

I find no glee in telling voters that bought the lies that we elitist liberals warned you as to what you were going to get.

Rexedgar said:

Whew, makes me feel better........

Click to expand...

Indeed. And don't forget the checkbook!

Checkerboard Strangler said:

THIS is why I don't believe a single word in BLUE



https://medium.com/lobby99/trump-sets-up-alec-administration-e6d00be457d2

The entire Trump administration is almost 100 percent ALEC controlled, so any nonsense about people "from back home (who) sit in his lobby" is bullcrap.

Click to expand...

The ALEC is a piece of work, if you ask me.

From the ALEC's website:

• 
  [*=1]Alumni
  [*=1]Leadership
  [*=1]State Chairs

How the hell can they claim to be nonpartisan? Notwithstanding that one needs but half the fingers on one hand to count the Dems in the group, everyone in it is an elected office holder. There is nothing more existentially partisan than an elected office holder.

I saw "nonpartisan" and thought "who the hell do they think they're fooling by putting that word in there?"

Xelor said:

The ALEC is a piece of work, if you ask me.

From the ALEC's website:

The American Legislative Exchange Council is America’s largest nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism. (Source: The "about" for the group)​

• 
  [*=1]Alumni
  [*=1]Leadership
  [*=1]State Chairs

How the hell can they claim to be nonpartisan? Notwithstanding that one needs but half the fingers on one hand to count the Dems in the group, everyone in it is an elected office holder. There is nothing more existentially partisan than an elected office holder.

I saw "nonpartisan" and thought "who the hell do they think they're fooling by putting that word in there?"

Click to expand...

If by "limited government" they mean limited access by citizens to the ALEC mechanism, then they are fulfilling their mandate.
Few if any other organizations possess the remarkable ability to manufacture finished pieces of gavel ready legislation delivered in as unadulterated form as ALEC. It is a fully functioning shadow legislature operated wholly by unelected individuals who function under virtual relative anonymity.
And that anonymity is largely because the press seldom if ever so much as acknowledges their existence.

Barnacle said:

The full quote, in context:

“We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you’re a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you. If you came from back home and sat in my lobby, I talk to you without exception, regardless of the financial contributions. People coming from back home, to tell people in Congress what issues are important to them, is one of the fundamental underpinnings of our representative democracy, and you have to continue to do it.



https://www.axios.com/mick-mulvaney...ers-d1eef896-0264-44b7-8587-bba6c790460d.html

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the bold somehow excuses the preceding?

If so, you're supporting extortion. Simple. You need a law changed, hand over some money. When the people from "back home" complain, listen to them. The way he makes it sound he there should be a medal for congressmen meeting with constituents. "

Fearandloathing said:

Are you suggesting the bold somehow excuses the preceding?

If so, you're supporting extortion. Simple. You need a law changed, hand over some money. When the people from "back home" complain, listen to them. The way he makes it sound he there should be a medal for congressmen meeting with constituents. "

Click to expand...

"Google’s (GOOGL) lobbying expenditures in the first quarter of this year topped $5 million, as the Internet giant sought to influence federal policymakers on issues including online privacy, competition, online advertising and online sex-trafficking, Consumer Watchdog said Monday.

Google increased its 2018 first-quarter federal lobbying a whopping 42.6 percent, spending $5.02 million compared to $3.52 million spent in the comparable 2017 period. ..."

https://www.etftrends.com/googles-l...eed&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ReadFull

Barnacle said:

"Google’s (GOOGL) lobbying expenditures in the first quarter of this year topped $5 million, as the Internet giant sought to influence federal policymakers on issues including online privacy, competition, online advertising and online sex-trafficking, Consumer Watchdog said Monday.

Google increased its 2018 first-quarter federal lobbying a whopping 42.6 percent, spending $5.02 million compared to $3.52 million spent in the comparable 2017 period. ..."

https://www.etftrends.com/googles-l...eed&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ReadFull

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to tell me, I only speak English and French.

If you are trying to make a case about where $$$ comes from and who it goes to in the Republican Party give up now. There is no ****ing way in this entire universe would I A - Believe you, B - trust the figures and C - not believe you're lying your ass off.

You're the one supports Trump, you're then the one who cannot be believed. Ever. About anything.

And please, quit trying to make it like there's actually someone in the Reublican party who gives a **** about the "common man".

Barnacle said:

Click to expand...

I'm not a lobbyist, but I know a hell of a lot of hoopla is made about how much is spent on lobbying. The specific sums spent are of no matter to me. What is important to me is that for all the recriminations about lobbyists, and for all the inferences "complainers" would have audience members make about how much is spent on "lobbying Congress," I have never come by any enumeration of how however much is spent "lobbying Congress" is actually spent.

I have a neighbor who is a lobbyist, and I asked him about that. Of course, he didn't show me any of his engagement financials (I didn't expect he would. LOL), but what he told me is that the overwhelming majority of money spent "on lobbying" is spent by lobbyists' clients, and it goes to lobbying firms and into the pockets of the firm's partners and employees, not to government officials. It turns out that functionally, lobbying firms are part professional services firm, part event planning firm, part ad agency and part advocacy organization.

• Prof. Svcs. --> This part of the lobbying firm does a lot of serious research and the people doing it are highly paid professions (sometimes on-staff and sometimes contracted) -- attorneys and economists are usually salaried staff, and other professionals are contracted as needed -- who have a lot of experience in their specific and usually very narrowly defined practice area. These folks research laws, write laws and proposed amendments to them, and conduct formal studies (both analytical and empirical). These people are all experts of some stripe, but they're not political/partisan.
• Event Planning --> These guys put together events that create opportunities for the firm's clients to meet with legislators and regulators. They are basically party planners who are super savvy about governmental ethics rules and, perhaps more importantly, the exceptions to the rules. (Interesting tidbit: a lot of these events are, in fact, open to the public because they have to be to meet the ethics rules. The trick for the public is knowing when and where the event is happening. They aren't widely publicized.)
• Ad Agency --> These folks design and place messages in various media outlets: Facebook, Twitter, television, print and radio. The also coordinate direct mail campaigns, and occasionally collaborate with the professional services unit to perform some polling and conduct focus groups.
• Advocacy organization --> These are the so-called "high powered lobbyists." They collaborate with other lobbying firms and organizations that share their client's interests, meet with high level staffers, members of Congress and high level executive branch appointees. These are the people who "own the relationship" with the people who make/pass laws, policy, and regulations. These guys rely on the research provided by the professional services unit. When these guys get a report from the prof. svcs. guys, these guys are the ones (really their staff) who strip out "this" word or that phrase, result, etc. so as to have as strong an argument as possible when presenting it to an official to make the case the lobbying firm's client has asked them to make. Most of these guys are attorneys, but they don't have to be.

So where are those billions going? Well a huge share of it goes to pay for those experts, but what consumes most of the money are the media buys. Some of it is also campaign donations, but given spending limits, donations directly to a Congressperson's campaign committee are "chump change" in comparison to the rest. The thing to keep in mind is that all the money spent is coming from the clients. The exception is when the lobbying firm is an arm of an industry or social advocacy association. In that case, the money comes from the association's members.


Client engages lobbying firm and pays:

• Lobbying firm service fees, which are the billable hours for every lobbying firm employee/partner who performs any work on behalf of the lobbying effort the client wants.
• Expenses:
  • Ads: message cost, subcontracted ad agency professional fees
  • Research: contracted experts, research facilities, equipment, etc.
  • Events: Space, catering, decorations, furniture and fixtures, entertainment, lighting, signage, etc.

If you're getting the sense that a lobbying firm is something of a central overseer of a project, you've got it. It's a project that creates an argumentative "essay" and then "defends" it.