Share

Freddie Mac Secretly Paid Republican Firm to Kill Regulation

by:   |  The Associated Press

photo
Doug Goodyear, a McCain campaign official, is the chief executive for DCI group, a public relations and lobbying firm in Washington. DCI was paid $2 million to kill Republican-sponsored legislation that would have reined in Freddie Mac three years before its collapse and government bailout. (Photo: Mary Altaffer / AP)

    Washington - Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

    In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).

    DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

    Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

    In the midst of DCI's yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to allow a vote.

    "If effective regulatory reform legislation ... is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole," the senators wrote.

    Unknown to the senators, DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents.

    In the end, there was not enough Republican support for Hagel's bill to warrant bringing it up for a vote because Democrats also opposed it and the votes of some would be needed for passage. The measure died.

    McCain was not a target of the DCI campaign. He signed Hagel's letter.

    The Republican senators targeted by DCI began hearing from prominent constituents and financial contributors, all urging the defeat of Hagel's bill because it might harm the housing boom. The effort generated newspaper articles and radio and TV appearances by participants who spoke out against the measure.

    Inside Freddie Mac headquarters, the few dozen people who knew what DCI was doing referred to the initiative as "the stealth lobbying campaign," according to three people familiar with the drive.

    Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin oversaw DCI's drive, according to the three people.

    "Hollis's goal was not to have any Freddie Mac fingerprints on this project and DCI became the hidden hand behind the effort," one of the three said.

    Freddie Mac acknowledged that the company "did retain DCI to provide public affairs support at the state and local level." DCI said it complied with federal and state laws and regulations in representing Freddie Mac.

  

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

It is wrong to blame

It is wrong to blame government deregulation policies for causing the recession when the government was responsible for making the laws that regulated the lending policies of the banking industry. They permitted banks to lend without a credit check or down payment on mortgages, and stood idly by as predatory lenders reaped a harvest. This was not letting free market forces rule but only giving special interests the freedom to rip off potential home owners.

Truthout needs to research

Truthout needs to research and publish the names of the senators if this article is to have any teeth. It is no secret to some of us that this crisis took years in the making. Knowing the specifics might prevent such demagoguery in the future. It is fatalistic to say that this is so big no one could prevent it at a future time. Once we had banks and mtg. companies regulated. I wish I had been smart enough to realize the consequences of deregulation. But our elected officials certainly must have known the possible consequences of deregulation.

If the 1933 Glass Steagall

If the 1933 Glass Steagall Act was still in force during the 1970's through today, neither Reagan's Saving and Loan deregulation Scam (see Keating Five) or Bush's Enron like meltdown of the securities bank's 'off balance sheet' derivatives (see Enron) would be possible. Ditto the the casino stock market trading with other peoples money, the cheap credit for inflated housing' bubble"scam, the devaluing of the dollar in international markets or the dice and slice mortgage bundling scams would not have been possible. Ignorance of last 100 years of US economic and social history is not really smart, responsible or honest. Although a reactionary and studied ignorance seems a hall mark of supply side trickle down economists, over paid CEO's and all the big and little free monopoly, rigged markets, free trade true believers. America is not a privately owned corporation, at least not quite yet. But at the rate we are deregulating our constitution it soon will be. And predictably, most Americans will be little more than suckers, they will not be owners and they will not be stockholders.

Fast and furious, the

Fast and furious, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Isn't that deregulation?

Isn't that deregulation? Even if it was only a specific thing deregulated, it was still deregulated.

So, what your saying is that

So, what your saying is that a bunch of Republicans, led by Senator Hagel, wrote a letter warning of the looming financial crisis led by the risks posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that "All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it." Then you try to link a member of John McCain's campaign to this story, as if it was the "Republican Form" that caused this problem? Wow. Utterly incredible. As your article correctly states, it was the Republican Party that wanted more regulation and the Democrat party that opposed it in EVERY WAY. This ENTIRE Economic crisis we now face was caused almost entirely by the Democratic Party telling Fannie and Freddy to guarantee loans to unqualified people...... And Barak Obama is going to fix this by..... injecting MORE government regulation into the free market? LOL. Amazing.

I've been studying economics

I've been studying economics for the last 6 years and I firmly agree with Melvin Polatnick (below).

As much as I would love to

As much as I would love to blame the GOP for the whole subprime mess, I think Bryan nailed it: the Dems were totally opposed to the resolution. The voting record was part of the AP release. And the Dems were the main force behind the CRA. I support more regulation, and desperately want the Dems to win. But I would not bark up this particular tree any more than you have.

This ia an Associated Press

This ia an Associated Press article, so don't bash TruthOut! Furthermore, no one can say that regulation caused the current financial problem. Instead, the current situation was caused by a lack of regulation on new financial instruments which were created to enhance the profits and manage risks in the mortgage industry. In order for financial exposures to managed across all markets globally, a set of accepted parameters need to be applied to these popular derivative instruments. A good example is the credit default swap (CDS). Many banks are in the red due the failure of CDS. There are many other factors as well, but even less regulation is not the answer.

It was Bill Clinton who got

It was Bill Clinton who got rid of what was left of the Glass Steagell Act. "The United States has only one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican." Gore Vidal

First of all, Bryan, this is

First of all, Bryan, this is not Truthout saying anything, this is the Associated Press. Second, we're talking about 2005. The Republicans were in charge of Congress. If they had wanted more regulation, they could have gotten more regulation just like they got everything thing else they wanted in the first part of this decade. (and we all know Republicans are always for more regulation, right?) I know several folks in finances who are familiar with the first part of the story and wondered why the Republicans didn't pursue the issue instead of letting it drop. It looks like now we know why.

Any move toward linking

Any move toward linking McCain to an unsavory character certainly touches a nerve with some people--more than likely the same ones who like to harp on Ayers and Obama's former minister. Incidentally, I've always wondered about that anti-black segment of society's lowest gutter-curs who try to identify Obama as Muslim and at the same time go all hoo-haw over the minister of the Christian church he attended. And hey! Has anyone heard anything at all recently about that notorious Keating 5 of which McCain was a member?