fbpx

Other People’s Money

In a very fine investigative article in the Washington Examiner, Sean Higgins reports on “Obama’s Big Bank Slush Fund.” As part of their “settlements” with the feds over alleged misdeeds, big banks routinely agree to make donations to various “fair housing” outfits, to the tune of several hundred millions of dollars. For reasons described in the article, these transfers reduce the advertised settlement value. Technically, settlement proceeds must be deposited in the U.S. Treasury. However, both the enforcers at DoJ and the targets are better off if they negotiate some arrangement that makes the banks pay a bit less and allows DoJ to make friends. So over the years, DoJ has cranked up a bunch of clever diversion strategies.

Bob Goodlatte, Republican Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, is looking into this. Maybe the recipients of all the largesse are doing worthwhile things, he says; but if so, Congress should appropriate the money. That would indeed be a very good idea; but it’s not going to happen. For one thing, the Warren-Sanders crowd likes to yap that big banks are “too big to jail” and are getting sweetheart deals; but if that’s what it takes to keep the Dems’ “non-profit” friends in shoes, that’s what their congressional sponsors will defend. Furthermore this is only the tip of a pretty sizeable iceberg—a vast array of slush funds through which the banks and the feds sustain the “fair housing” complex. Some of the funds are simply protection money, paid by the banks’ PR departments; others come from “settlements,” as here; still others come from programs established by Congress, such as the CFPB’s “Victims’ Fund” (officially, the Civil Penalty Fund). It’ll take some effort to drain this swamp—and who even wants to?

It’s no exaggeration to say that the advocacy “community” is simply an appendix to the government-financial complex. Come to think of it, though: that’s also true of the banks.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on January 28, 2016 at 11:21:37 am

And State AG's have begun to pull the same scam on various industries.

Oh, well, full employment goals must be achieved - especially for Democrat supporters and NGO's (Nearly Government Organizations).

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on January 28, 2016 at 16:50:02 pm

This is just a refinement of the Community Reinvestment shakedown during the Clinton Administration. Bank mergers were almost always met by community organizer groups protesting the merger on the grounds that the banks involved were not adequately complying with CRA requirements. These protests could drag out regulatory review of proposed mergers, delays which could jeopardize concluding the mergers. Remarkably, the protests disappeared when banks entered into commitments to make more loans in particular areas, with the protesting groups--for a fee--helping the banks find borrowers. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act required public disclosure of these CRA shakedown deals, which afterwards became less common.

read full comment
Image of Wayne Abernathy
Wayne Abernathy
on January 29, 2016 at 07:09:40 am

Thank you for this.

read full comment
Image of aez
aez
on January 29, 2016 at 11:39:27 am

[…] to make large constributions to left-leaning, “Democratic-friendly” organizations. At the LibertyLawSite blog, Michael Greve summarizes Higgins’s findings and puts them in […]

read full comment
Image of “Obama’s Big Bank Slush Fund” | The Locker Room
“Obama’s Big Bank Slush Fund” | The Locker Room

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.