close X
08/8/2017

Documents Reveal Special Interest Groups Lobbied HUD for Mortgage Settlement Funds

Groups committed to “revolutionary social change” sent proposals, met with high-level HUD officials

The Obama-era appears to have been a flush time for a number of favored special interest groups seeking hand-outs. It now appears that the previous administration’s pattern and practice of circumventing the congressional appropriations process to funnel money to third-party groups may have been more widespread than we thought. Beginning in 2013, the federal government entered into a number of settlements with major banks to resolve claims related to the issuance of residential-mortgage-backed securities. These settlements included billions of dollars in “consumer relief” payments that should have gone to the alleged victims, but instead were funneled to third-party organizations, including to those favored by the Obama administration.

CoA Institute has been investigating these settlements for several years and has recently uncovered documents indicating that some of these third-party organizations were directly lobbying high-level Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) officials for a piece of the settlement pie. These documents are consistent with prior records discovered by the House Judiciary Committee regarding similar lobbying of Department of Justice (“DOJ”) officials.

In May of 2015, the House Judiciary Committee wrote a letter to the DOJ requesting information and documents relevant to the residential-mortgage-backed securities settlements.  The information they received suggested that some third-party organizations were advocating for provisions that included mandatory donation requirements from which they would benefit.

One of the communications the House Judiciary Committee received was an email sent on November 8th, 2013 from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) to the DOJ.  In the email, LCCHR urged the DOJ to include funds in the JP Morgan settlement promoting community restoration and specifically seeking investment in Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement (VOICE) and their Metro Industrial Areas Foundation (Metro-IAF) affiliates. The DOJ also provided the House Judiciary Committee with an email from VOICE leadership to the head of legislative affairs at the DOJ.  VOICE asked to set-up a meeting to make the argument that grants to community equity restoration funds be mandatory in all future settlements.

Commentators have noted that groups like VOICE and their IAF affiliates have “a commitment to what [they] call ‘revolutionary social change’” promoted through their own training institutes. One “objective of the training is to help leaders see the connection between their local issues and the broader national IAF objectives and associated progressive causes.”

CoA Institute recently received documents from HUD that are similar to those that the House Judiciary Committee received from the DOJ two years ago.  CoA Institute filed a FOIA request for information on HUD’s involvement in the mortgage settlements.  After filing a complaint against HUD for failing to disclose its role in the mortgage settlements, COA received documents including the segments below from HUD. The HUD documents reveal communications between HUD and VOICE, the same organization that had been lobbying the DOJ to receive settlement funds.

For instance, the following is an email between senior policy advisor Michelle Maiwurm, then working for Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), and Damon Smith, then Principal Deputy General Counsel at HUD, discussing opportunities for third parties, such as VOICE, to submit proposals for the settlement agreement.

The lead organizer at VOICE, Martin Trimble, responds to a meeting with HUD officials Lelaine Bigelow and Damon Smith earlier that day and attaches the fund proposal.

 

Here are the relevant portions from VOICE’s proposal for the VOICE/Metro IAF National Community Equity Restoration Fund mentioned in the previous email correspondence.

The parallel evidence discovered from documents submitted to the House Judiciary Committee and those provided to CoA Institute helps explain why Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently prohibited DOJ from entering into settlement agreements that provide for payments to non-governmental, third-party organizations that are not parties to the dispute. In order to ensure this problem won’t reoccur in a future administration or with other agencies, however, Congress should pass the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017. This bill would prevent all agencies, not just DOJ, from entering into these slush-fund agreements, would remove agencies’ ability to divert funds to politically-aligned third-parties and would allow them to be disbursed to actual victims of the alleged violations or deposited in the Treasury, as required by law.

Josh Schopf is Counsel and Cara Brown is Law Clerk at Cause of Action Institute, a Washington, D.C. non-profit oversight group advocating for economic freedom and individual opportunity.

 

 

 

Media, Blog Learn More
08/2/2017

It’s Time to End Ex-Im Bank’s Taxpayer Subsidized Corporate Welfare

When the federal government subsidizes a private company, we all lose. Such subsidies, often referred to as “corporate welfare” by critics, tend to benefit big companies, while stifling innovation and making it more difficult for smaller companies to compete. The Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im Bank, is perhaps the highest profile example of this process.

The Ex-Im Bank claims to facilitate exports of U.S. goods and support American jobs. To do this, the Bank finances American businesses—freeing them from the need to obtain private loans—so that they can compete internationally. This may sound good in the abstract but its implementation imports all the hazards of corporate welfare.

In April, President Trump disappointed supporters of free trade when he seemingly changed his position on the Ex-Im Bank. As a candidate in 2015, Trump said the Ex-Im Bank was “unnecessary” and contradictory to free enterprise. However, three months after his inauguration, he called the Bank “a very good thing” claiming that “it actually makes money.” In his first budget proposal, President Trump decided to keep it. He also intends to nominate two board members, which will permit the bank to enter into full operation, meaning more and bigger loans from the taxpayer.

On the bright side, President Trump has nominated former Rep. Scott Garrett to head the Bank. In the past, Garrett has been an outspoken critic of the Ex-Im Bank, which hopefully means that should he be confirmed, he will limit its operations and advocate for reform. It can only be seen as a positive sign that the big businesses who benefit most have already come out in opposition to his nomination.

The Ex-Im Bank claims to “level the playing field” for domestic products and help small businesses compete internationally. But federal subsidies to politically-favored companies hurt both international competition and market efficiency. If a business can’t get a private loan, resources should be allocated elsewhere to companies that can better compete, without taxpayer-subsidized assistance. Artificially propping up private industry is not the role of the federal government.

Many economists recognize the failures of the Ex-Im Bank. But supporters, most prominently the companies that get these cheap loans, argue it is acceptable to sacrifice quality, efficiency and competition to help prop up American jobs. However, the biggest recipients are generally in good positions to sustain themselves and do not need these funds to retain American jobs.

Most beneficiaries of the Ex-Im Bank’s loans are, in fact, not small businesses. The largest recipient, by far, is Boeing, which takes a whopping 40 percent the Bank’s financing.  The top 10 recipients, which include Caterpillar, General Electric, and other behemoth companies (and which frighteningly includes “unknown”), makes up 75 percent of the Bank’s expenditures.

Boeing has repeatedly threatened job losses if the Bank goes away. In 2015, the company cautioned that ending the Ex-Im Bank would lead to the loss of thousands of employees because otherwise it would be unable to compete with the European company, Airbus. Congress gave in and re-instated the Bank—and Boeing went ahead and cut 4,000 jobs anyway. Re-instatement of the Bank did nothing to save those jobs, but it did line the pockets of shareholders (18 of which are members of Congress). Companies like Boeing don’t need subsidized loans to stay afloat. Faced with the possibility of the Ex-Im Bank closing, for example, the government and Standard & Poor released reports that found Boeing would do fine without the aid. The other largest recipients are similarly financially sound.

Free and open trade breeds competition and efficiency, whereas corporate subsidies set up a system of reliance, barriers to entry and inefficiency. If you’re playing with the house’s money, you’re much more likely to chase the river and make poor decisions. For example, in 1987, the Ex-Im Bank’s investments were so bad that it requested a massive federal bailout. After the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, it needed a $3-billion bailout just to stay afloat. The bank had some gains and some losses in the 1990s. Although there was an overall profit of $5 billion since 1990, the low interest rates brought in much less money than it could have and defaults may result in a net loss in the future.

A federal budget agency found that the Ex-Im Bank’s current budget is on pace to cost taxpayers $2 billion over the next decade. Yet we continue to throw more and more taxpayer money at an unnecessary corporate welfare regime, benefitting not the free market but favored players.

Federal policies should create an even playing field for industry and a friendly environment for entrepreneurship to flourish. Only about two percent of all exports are subsidized by the Ex-Im Bank. If 98 percent of the market can export without needing any help from a corporatist bank, the other two percent should manage fine. The Bank helps line the pockets of politically-connected businessmen and gives little aid to the average person. It is time for the president and Congress to end it for good.

Tyler Arnold is a communications associate at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
07/31/2017

Senator Grassley Claims the Trump Administration is Rejecting the DOJ’s Opinion on Responding to Congressional Records Requests

At the end of last week, Senator Chuck Grassley’s office published a press release that claimed the White House “has committed to voluntarily answer all congressional inquiries, not just those from committee chairmen.” The White House’s response has seemingly resolved the Judiciary Committee Chairman’s concern that the Administration had wedded itself to what Senator Grassley described as a “nonsense” legal opinion issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”).

Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) previously reported on the OLC opinion, arguing that the Trump Administration may be charting a course into newer and less transparent waters. The opinion was technically correct in emphasizing that individual Members of Congress lacked constitutional authority to conduct formal, compulsory oversight.  But the OLC also provided a distorted view of the law by implying that federal agencies could ignore requests, or provide limited responses on a discretionary basis, simply because of a Member’s political affiliation or position in leadership.

In response to a rebuke from Senator Grassley, who requested that the White House rescind the OLC opinion, White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short clarified that the opinion did not, in fact, “set forth Administration policy,” but only “legal advice consistent with the research of the Congressional Research Service.” Mr. Short further indicated that “[t]he Administration’s policy is to respect the rights of all individual Members, regardless of party affiliation,” and to “use its best efforts to be as timely and responsive as possible . . . consistent with the need to prioritize requests from congressional Committees, with applicable resource constraints, and with any legitimate confidentiality or other institutional interest of the Executive Branch.”  Steven Engel, the Administration’s current nominee for head of OLC, has promised to revisit and clarify aspects of the OLC opinion.

Whether the White House’s response to Senator Grassley is a “commitment of cooperation” is yet to be seen. The Administration’s actual policy for responding to congressional inquiries is unclear, as CoA Institute’s ongoing efforts to investigate the General Services Administration demonstrate. Mr. Short’s letter and Mr. Engel’s confirmation hearing promises leave enough doubt as to the exact contours of the President’s transparency agenda.  The fact remains that Executive Branch officials have publicly acknowledged a “new policy,” which appears consistent with the OLC opinion.  Until more details about that policy emerge, it will be hard to evaluate whether, or to what extent, the White House has reversed course.

Ryan P. Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

Blog, Media Learn More
07/26/2017

The GSA Has No Records on its New Policy for Congressional Oversight Requests

Last month, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) detailed how it intended to investigate rumors of the Trump Administration directing federal agencies to ignore “oversight requests” from Democratic legislators.  Reports of the “new policy” sent the transparency community into a frenzy, particularly as they came on the heels of an opinion letter from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel that corroborated much of the scuttlebutt. As part of its investigation, CoA Institute sent a FOIA request to the General Services Administration (“GSA”) seeking access to various records concerning the agency’s policies or procedures for handling congressional oversight requests, congressional requests for information, and congressional requests from individual Members for the disclosure of agency documents.  We also requested copies of records evidencing any White House directives on pre-production consultation or review of requests from Congress or under the FOIA.

Last week, the GSA provided its final response.  The response leaves much to be desired, as the agency released only two documents.  The first is a February 20, 2015 order regarding congressional and intergovernmental inquiries; the second is a previously-secret April 15, 2009 White House memo that CoA Institute first made publicly known in June 2013.  The GSA did not find (or at least did not produce) anything pertaining to the Trump Administration’s new policy to respond only to Republican congressional leadership.

The General Services Administration’s failure to locate relevant records is curious because its acting administrator, Timothy Horne, previously testified before Congress that “the [Trump] Administration has instituted a new policy that matters of oversight need to be requested by the Committee chair.”  Admittedly, he clarified that the White House itself hadn’t distributed a finalized, written version of its policy, but it stands to reason that the GSA would still have some record of its effort to formalize whatever oral directions were issued by the White House.  Similarly, to the extent the GSA may now be processing any congressional disclosure requests under the FOIA, the agency should have records concerning those policies and procedures.  None were given to CoA Institute.

We have filed an appeal challenging the adequacy of the General Services Administration’s search efforts.  And we are still waiting for the Office of Personnel Management to respond to a similar request.  In the meantime, CoA Institute remains committed to holding the Executive Branch accountable to one of the most important principles of good government: transparency.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Media, Blog Learn More
07/26/2017

Occupational Licensing Laws are Holding Americans Back

Occupational licensing laws are intended to protect consumers from unsafe services provided by unqualified individuals. Doctors and pilots, for instance, are licensed to guarantee that no one unqualified operates on someone or flies a plane. But recently, the practice of requiring a license has moved beyond consumer protection in highly skilled, high risk occupations, and has morphed into a barrier to entry, protecting established companies from outside competition. As states move to require licenses for more occupations, the consumer is not protected, but harmed by fewer choices, higher prices, and a shift away from customer focus.

A system that guarantees inefficiency

A license requirement disincentivizes individuals from pursuing careers in affected fields. That’s because obtaining a license requires time and money, which limits the number of individuals who would otherwise enter the marketplace. Faced with diminished competition, the negative impact on the consumer is amplified because existing businesses then have less incentive to provide a better service.

Growing trend

In the 1950s, occupational licensing laws only affected five percent of the American workforce. By 2015, nearly one in three workers now need a license to work. Far removed from simply guaranteeing safety, licensing has encroached into non-professional occupations that do not require extensive training.

These laws include licensing requirements for: hair braiding, locksmithing, packaging, auctioneering, being a florist, selling caskets, interior designing, teeth whitening, fortune telling and being a shampooer. Most consumers would unlikely be alarmed to find out their hair was braided by a renegade licenseless hair braider, or that their fortune teller failed to predict they needed a license to practice.

Costly and unnecessary

Not only do many occupational licenses seem unnecessary, but the requirements are often excessive and odd. The publication Rare reported that in Idaho, regulations make becoming a barber more difficult than a bounty hunter. In Washington, D.C., shoe-shiners are required to purchase a $337 permit. Becoming an interior decorator in Florida takes about six years. Sign language interpreter? Several states require a license for that too.

Per the Mercatus Center, preschool teachers, on average, must receive 1,728 days of training and pay more than $100 in fees to get their teaching license. Athletic trainers must pay, on average, $400 in fees. Other occupations that require more than $100 in fees include: Earth driller, cosmetologist, barber, skin care specialist and veterinary technologist. These licenses also require more than 100 days of training or experience.  These examples raise the question: who exactly is supporting this bureaucratic red tape?

Keeping people out of jobs

Unsurprisingly, the groups that lobby for the regulations tend to be the same groups that benefit from the lack of competition. The National Review reported that individuals with a certificate or license make, on average, $200 more per week than someone without one. Furthermore, the unemployment rate for individuals without a certificate or license is much higher than the unemployment rate for someone with one. For individuals who graduated from high school, but did not attend college, the unemployment rate for someone without a certificate or license is almost double that of someone who has one (5.9 and 3.1 percent, respectively). For individuals who did not graduate high school and have no certificate or license, unemployment is 8.2 percent, while for individuals with a certificate or license, it is 5.1 percent. These legal requirements are holding down the poor while artificially keeping unemployment higher than it otherwise would be.

The heavy licensing burden is an ever-growing problem. It is holding back Americans who are already in tough situations. Unnecessary licensing laws should be scaled back. If it turns out society erupts into chaos with unlicensed florists and fortune tellers, then we can re-examine the issue.

Tyler Arnold is a communications associate at Cause of Action Institute

Media, Blog Learn More
07/21/2017

Following CoAI’s Letter, DOJ Rejects Unlawful Slush-Fund Settlement Project in Harley-Davidson Enforcement Action

On July 20, 2017, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a substitute consent decree in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Act enforcement action against Harley-Davidson, Inc. removing a requirement that Harley-Davidson fund a so-called Emissions Mitigation Project (“Project”).[1]  About three weeks earlier, on June 1, 2017, Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to EPA requesting all documents and records related to the selection of the Project, and the American Lung Association  as the Project’s implementing entity.[2]  In conjunction with that request, we also sent a letter to EPA Administrator Pruitt asking him to reconsider the unlawful mitigation Project, because it lacked a sufficient nexus to the underlying violation.[3]  As we stated, the Project appeared to be a continuation of Obama-era practices that used consent decrees to funnel funds to favored non-governmental organizations.[4]

Fortunately, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a policy directing U.S. attorneys to end this practice on June 5, 2017.[5]  DOJ attorneys cite Sessions’ memorandum as a reason for rejecting the Emissions Mitigation Project and filing the new consent decree, because the original Harley-Davidson agreement failed to connect the alleged violation—excess gas and nitrogen oxides emissions nationally—to the Project—replacing wood-burning appliances in the northeast.[6]

CoA Institute applauds DOJ’s revised consent decree, which is consistent with our assessment that the Emissions Mitigation Project violates the “sufficient nexus” requirement necessary for ensuring that agencies do not abuse their enforcement power at the expense of taxpayers.

Travis Millsaps is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute

[1] Consent Decree, United States v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., No. 16-cv-01687 (D.D.C. filed July 20, 2017), ECF No. 6.

[2] FOIA Request EPA-HQ-2017-007905, Envtl. Prot. Agency (June 1, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2tk7YY4.

[3] Letter from Travis G. Millsaps, Counsel, Cause of Action Inst., to Hon. Scott Pruitt, Adm’r, Envtl. Prot. Agency (June 1, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2uesJGh.

[4] Blog Post, Cause of Action Inst., Cause of Action Institute Applauds AG Sessions’ Termination of Settlement Fund Payouts to Third-Party Groups (June 7, 2017), https://causeofaction.org/cause-action-institute-applauds-ag-sessions-termination-settlement-fund-payouts-third-party-groups/.

[5] Memorandum from Jeff Sessions, Attorney Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to U.S. Attorneys et al. (June 5, 2017), available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/971826/download.

[6] Consent Decree, supra note 1, at 2–3; Memorandum from Jeff Sessions, supra note 5; see also Letter from Travis Millsaps to Scott Pruitt, supra note 3, at 2–3.

Media, Blog Learn More
07/19/2017

CoAI Submits Statement for the Record to Congress: Hearing on “Exploring the Successes and Challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Act”

Cause of Action Institute submitted a Statement for the Record today to the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.  The subcommittee is holding an important oversight hearing on domestic fisheries management and opportunities for reform of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The statement highlights concerns with the federal government’s current efforts to expand industry-funded at-sea monitoring throughout the Atlantic region.  It also follows CoA Institute’s filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in Goethel v. Department of Commerce, which specifically concerns the legality of the Northeast multispecies sector at-sea monitoring industry funding requirement.  Learn more about David Goethel’s fight here.

Ryan Mulvey is Counsel at Cause of Action Institute.

Blog, Media Learn More