Contrary to ongoing, and
now-highly-documented-as-such MSM misinformation and misdirection, Main Street, current efforts underway within our legislative branch regarding regulatory reform, and the banking sector are
not alright.
In fact, to use a technical term when it comes to our economy, things still suck, and more likely than not, they're going to continue to suck for quite some time.
I was going to post this around 1AM, but I decided to take a look at Monday's NY Times first. As luck would have it, there was Paul Krugman's op-ed column, saying many of the same things I'm saying below. So, I'll start with him: "The Banks Are Not Alright."
The Banks Are Not Alright
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Online: October 18, 2009 In Print: October 19, 2009
...Citigroup and Bank of America, which silenced talk of nationalization earlier this year by claiming that they had returned to profitability, are now -- you guessed it -- back to reporting losses.
Ask the people at Goldman, and they'll tell you that it's nobody's business but their own how much they earn. But as one critic recently put it: "There is no financial institution that exists today that is not the direct or indirect beneficiary of trillions of dollars of taxpayer support for the financial system." Indeed: Goldman has made a lot of money in its trading operations, but it was only able to stay in that game thanks to policies that put vast amounts of public money at risk, from the bailout of A.I.G. to the guarantees extended to many of Goldman's bonds.
So who was this thundering bank critic? None other than Lawrence Summers, the Obama administration's chief economist -- and one of the architects of the administration's bank policy, which up until now has been to go easy on financial institutions and hope that they mend themselves.
Why the change in tone? Administration officials are furious at the way the financial industry, just months after receiving a gigantic taxpayer bailout, is lobbying fiercely against serious reform. But you have to wonder what they expected to happen. They followed a softly, softly policy, providing aid with few strings, back when all of Wall Street was on the ropes; this left them with very little leverage over firms like Goldman that are now, once again, making a lot of money.
Krugman continues on to review today's most recent commentary from the Obama administration, upon which I delve into greater detail, down below. He also reminds us of how "Main Street was punished for Wall Street's misdeeds."
He concludes that two things must happen for us to get back on-track: 1.) "Do as much as possible to support job growth," and, 2.) "...we desperately need to pass effective financial reform. For if we don't, bankers will soon be taking even bigger risks than they did in the run-up to this crisis."
Tonight, I'm focusing upon the budding travesty known as "regulatory reform" that's beginning to take shape in congress.
This past Wednesday, Robert Borosage, co-director of the decidedly progressive Campaign for America's Future asked us: "Will We Curb Wall Street's Casino?" Judging from ensuing current events, the answer appears to be: No, the result's looking pretty shamelessly weighted against Main Street and in favor of the status quo. And, in fact, the so-called "regulatory reform" efforts of our nation's legislative branch are, IMHO, on the verge of becoming little more than a sick joke for Main Street--and one with potentially historically tragic consequences, too.
"OVER-THE-COUNTER DERIVATIVES MARKETS ACT OF 2009" (H.R. 3795)
The next day, while the corporate-owned, business MSM reported it with plenty of spin, the House Financial Services Committee voted 43 to 26 to pass H.R. 3795, the "Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009," with the intent--which is far from the reality IMHO--of that legislation being that it would regulate "the often complex and murky world of private over-the-counter derivatives trading," as noted by the CCH Washington News Bureau in, "OTC Derivatives Bill Clears House Panel."
OTC Derivatives Bill Clears House Panel
By Sarah Borchersen-Keto, CCH Washington News Bureau,
Contributing Author, the CCH Federal Banking Law Reporter, Oct 15, 2009.
...The bill will have to be merged with legislation from the House Agriculture Committee, which oversees the Commodities Futures Exchange Commission, before it goes to the full House for a vote.
The Over-The-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009 would not allow regulators to ban abusive swaps. Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said such an approach was seen to be "unsettling," and was therefore struck from the bill.
Included in the bill are provisions that would require that most derivatives be traded on a regulated exchange or electronic platform if the transaction is between financial institutions, with oversight by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission. A broad exemption was made for firms that use derivatives for reducing their commercial risk.
Bold type is diarist's emphasis.
The last thing we'd want to do is "unsettle" Wall Street, right? I mean, we simply can't have that, now can we?
In fact, this first piece of regulatory reform legislation is quite weak, and it comes complete with loopholes that a well-trained housepet could drive a truck through, to the point where some pundits are now warning us that the latest version of this bill -- and many other pieces of legislation relating to putting a saddle on Wall - Street - greed - gone - wild -- could actually weaken a myriad of already-largely-unenforced rules and regulations that have been in place for many years.
Borosage on regulating the derivatives marketplace:
...the five largest American banks -- in rough order of declining solvency: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup -- hold fully 95% of derivatives -- with a notional value of over $290 trillion. In the first six months of the year, they made about $15 billion trading in these things. Not surprisingly, they have leveled their guns at the very notion of a public exchange. They enlisted companies that use derivatives to hedge against foreign exchange risks and the like, arguing that the reforms would raise costs all around. They have largely succeeded in the congressional cloakrooms.
So the bill that the House will consider...allows banks to decide that a deal is so unique that it needn't be posted on the clearinghouse. The best experts in the field -- like Michael Greenberger of the University of Maryland -- warn that the legislation might end up WEAKENING current law. That is no small achievement, because, as we saw in the collapse of AIG, current law is toothless.
Late Thursday morning, after H.R. 3795 was passed, we learned just how lame it was in: "Derivatives Reform Weakened By Two Little-Noticed Amendments."
Derivatives Reform Weakened By Two Little-Noticed Amendments
Shahien Nasiripour
Huffington Post
First Posted: 10-15-09 10:56 AM | Updated: 10-15-09 01:04 PM
Two little-noticed amendments inserted Wednesday into legislation seeking to strengthen regulation of derivatives will allow private industry to continue to set rules and largely self-regulate, tying the hands of regulators who want more say in how these exotic financial instruments are traded.
Offered by Rep. Judy Biggert, an Illinois Republican, the provisions take away power the Obama administration proposed giving to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the regulator in charge of policing most types of derivatives. Rather, the power to supervise how derivatives are traded will rest with the clearinghouses and exchanges that house them. Furthermore, when the exchanges and clearinghouses change or offer up new rules, the CFTC will not be able to review them before they are finalized to ensure, for example, that they comply with existing law. Instead, the rules proposed by private industry will immediately go into effect.
These powers, which the CFTC has lacked since a major deregulatory law was passed in the waning days of President Bill Clinton's final term, would enable the CFTC to exert the kind of authority many have criticized the agency for not using. Unregulated derivatives trading by the likes of AIG and Lehman Brothers nearly caused the collapse of the global financial system.
Bold type is diarist's emphasis.
Nasiripour reported that Biggert's amendments were adopted by the Committee without debate. Over at the House Agricultural Committee the House Financial Services Committee's version of the bill will be reconciled with a similar bill on the Ag Committee's agenda. We're also told by Nasiripour that Frank's office is claiming that "Biggert's amendments 'were accepted to move the debate along.' "
"It's a return to the regulatory environment that led us into the meltdown," said Michael Greenberger, a professor at the University of Maryland Law School and former director of trading and markets at the CFTC. "It would tie the hands of effective regulation by the CFTC to the detriment of economic recovery. The [Obama] administration had it completely right in its proposal."
Well, let's see who's in-charge over at the House Agricultural Committee? Hmmm...that'd be Agriculture Committee Chairman and Minnesota representative Collin C. Peterson. Here's what Peterson's told us about who's actually in charge of this legislative process, via my diary from June 1st: "Another Ranking Member of Congress: 'Banks Run The Place.'"
Another Ranking Member of Congress: "Banks Run The Place"
Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 05:11:40 AM EDT
Gretchen Morgenson has yet another excellent piece in today's NY Times; this time it's about efforts to regulate the credit default swaps industry: "Even in Crisis, Banks Dig in for Battle Against Regulation."
Morgenson tells us that on November 13th, 2008, a month after the nine biggest players in the derivatives market accepted bailout money, these same folks created a lobbying group: "The CDS Dealers Consortium."
The new group has been lobbying intensively this session to limit the amount of regulatory oversight that'll be imposed upon them by Congress with regard to their efforts to put a saddle on the credit default swaps industry.
Cutting to the chase, as it were, as Robert Borosage reminds us (see quote farther down below), JPMorgan Chase, CitiGroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs manage 95% of the derivatives business currently being written in this country. They make a great deal of money at it, too. Hence, Congressman Frank's "unsettling" comment, above.
But, as Morgenson lays it out for us, the reality is that the CDS Dealers Consortium ("CDS" stands for credit default swaps, a type of "derivative security"), little more than a month after our economy imploded in September of 2008, came up with practically all of the substantive legislation relating to reform of the derivatives industry that was in the very bill that Congressman Frank forwarded along to Congressman Peterson just this past Thursday. In fact, as you read Morgenson's column, linked within the blockquote, above, you'll see this CDS trade group even established, and now owns, the very clearinghouses that are being "proposed" by Congress to "oversee" portions of the industry, going forward!
Here's what Nasiripour said of Ag Committee Chair Peterson, last Thursday:
So now both committees have offered competing bills to regulate derivatives. Thus far, though, the version in the agriculture committee still has the Obama proposals. But the bill has yet to be marked up in committee. The committee's chairman, Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), hasn't shown signs that he's all that interested in enacting tougher regulations.
In April, Peterson compared the ease of doing business with the CFTC to the SEC.
"You talk to people that have had dealings with both of them and everyone of them will tell you what a delight it is to work with the CFTC compared to the SEC. It takes years to get anything done in the SEC. They are all focused on did you fill this paper out right. It's all kind of legalese ... where the CFTC is more market-oriented or principle-based or whatever."
The agriculture committee is expected to take up its version next week.
Of course, we can't worry about focusing on folks filling out trading papers correctly, now can we? That would be just asking too much, wouldn't it? I mean, what's more important: an investment banker's time or risking another worldwide financial catastrophe like the kind in which we're immersed now?
Well, of course, the answer, according to Representative Peterson is that it's the investment banker's time that's more important than our economy! (This certainly makes sense to Wall Street!)
Yes, the effort to curtail the very source of much of the cause of our Great Recession appears to be quickly morphing into a total travesty. It should be noted that the White House's proposal for regulating derivatives is still on the table over at the Agriculture Committee, so I'm sure that's a good part of the reason why we saw this just come across the wires tonight over at Bloomberg, as well: "Obama Administration Pushes Back at Bank Lobbying on Regulation."
But, even this story is filled with basic disinformation--apparently from Bloomberg not from the White House I might add--that obfuscates the truth that virtually our entire banking sector, even now, is backstopped to the tune of many trillions of dollars in taxpayer guarantees with regard to many/most of the products that every investment house and bank offers to the public and within the industry to other banks, as well, today. (No, I'm not going review the multitude of programs currently in place via the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, but Roger Ehrenberg covers this a few paragraphs below.)
Administration officials say they recognize a healthy banking sector is critical to the economic recovery and that they're limited in their ability to penalize the firms, particularly those that no longer owe the government money.
Plainly and simply, this is deliberate misrepresentation. (I'm being really, really, really nice here, too.) If you doubt that, then re-read Krugman's piece, at the top of this diary, and ask yourself these questions; and then read the comments from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and derivatives Master of the Universe Roger Ehrenberg:
1.) Why is Tim Geithner telling us that if we audit the Federal Reserve, we'll risk a run on our nation's banking system, even now? Geithner: "Fed Audit Would Be Problematic For The Country."
2.) All--not just some--of these entities are now banks. As such, they're controlled by the banking laws of this country. So, how can our government state otherwise? (NOTE: Checkout Simon Johnson's recent questions about all of this, as well, in: "A Short Question For Senior Officials Of The New York Fed."
3.) Looking further at the poster child for American too-big-to-fail banks, here are some inconvenient insider truths about Goldman Sachs' financial benefits which they've received to date from Main Street, from my diary from August 4th, entitled: "Wall St. on the Fed: 'It's a joke. Everyone picks their pockets.'" In that diary I referenced a story on the Naked Capitalism blog, by publisher Yves Smith, quoting InformationArbitrage.com publisher Roger Ehrenberg: ...Roger Ehrenberg's comments posted at InformationArbitrage.com. Ehrenberg is still young, but prior to retiring from the industry just a few years ago, he was a Wall Street insider and widely recognized as one of the sharpest derivatives traders in the world."
Here's his professional opinion about Goldman's bailout dealings with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department...
What we have is a return to business-as-usual. Except it's worse than that. The US taxpayer has been systematically looted out of hundreds of billions of dollars, yet the press is focused on Andy Hall and his $100 million payday. Whether this is too much pay for Mr. Hall misses the big picture. Yes, the Wall Street pay model is messed up, and I recently provided an alternative approach. But how about the fact that Goldman Sachs is posting record earnings and will invariably be preparing to pay record bonuses, not nine months after the firm was in mortal danger? Whether anyone will admit it or not, without the AIG (read: Wall Street and European bank) bail-out and the FDIC issuance guarantees, neither Goldman nor any other bulge bracket firm lacking stable base of core deposits would be alive and breathing today.
--SNIP--
...When the crisis hit. It stood with the rest of Wall Street as a firm with longer-dated, less liquid assets funded with extremely short-dated liabilities....In exchange for giving the firm life (TARP, FDIC guarantees, synthetic bail-out via AIG, etc.), the US Treasury (and the US taxpayer by extension) got some warrants on $10 billion of TARP capital injected into the firm...
--SNIP--
...There is not a Wall Street derivatives trader on the planet that would have done the US Government deal (with Goldman Sachs) on an arms-length basis. Nothing remotely close. Goldman's equity could have done a digital, dis-continuous move towards zero if it couldn't finance its balance sheet overnight. Remember Bear Stearns? Lehman Brothers? These things happened. Goldman, though clearly a stronger institution, was facing a crisis of confidence that pervaded the market. Lenders weren't discriminating back in November 2008. If you didn't have term credit, you certainly weren't getting any new lines or getting any rolls, either. So what is the cost of an option to insure a $1 trillion balance sheet and hundreds of billions in off-balance sheet liabilities teetering on the brink? Let's just say that it is a tad north of $1.1 billion in premium. And the $10 billion TARP figure? It's a joke. Take into account the AIG payments, the FDIC guarantees and the value of the markets knowing that the US Government won't let you go down under any circumstances. $1.1 billion in option premium? How about 20x that, perhaps more. But no, this is not the way it went down....
--SNIP--
Where we are left today, dear taxpayer, is a lot poorer. Unless you are a major shareholder and/or bonusable employee of Goldman Sachs...Further, such a crisis could have provided the opportunity and the impetus for a re-look at capital markets risks, getting CDS users to support a central credit derivatives exchange and revised capital rules to incentivize better gap management. The banks lobby like hell against these changes, because it cuts into their fees, notwithstanding the systemic benefits such changes could have on the global financial markets. Banks now lobbying with US taxpayer dollars against changes that could protect the US taxpayer from more harm in the future. SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE, yet all anyone wants to talk about are executives getting paid too much. It's called missing the forest for the trees, and it is a fixture of both those trying to sell newspapers (get clicks) and run our Government, and it pisses me off.
So, since when is Goldman Sachs--or any too-big-to-fail bank for that matter--above the law? And, so much for the myth--perpetuated by Bloomberg as recently as over the past 24 hours--that they've repaid what the government provided to them. Nothing could be farther from the truth!
"CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACT OF 2009" (H.R. 3126)
As I noted at the beginning of this diary, Borosage discussed the status of two pieces of legislation, in particular: 1.) our efforts to, supposedly, put a saddle on Wall Street's reckless derivatives trading, a/k/a, H.R. 3795, the "Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009," and 2.) similar efforts to put some teeth into the bill known as the: "Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009," H.R. 3126. This legislation will establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to look out for consumers' best interests as they relate to specific financial products, and the financial services marketplace, in general.
While I've focused upon the first piece of reform legislation today, since it's already been passed by the House Financial Services Committee and forwarded to the Agricultural Committee, many others pieces of regulatory reform legislation sit in the hopper of Barney Frank's Financial Services Committee. This story is just beginning to unfold.
Be sure to stay tuned this week as we will, inevitably, see yet another piece of "reform legislation" that will more-than-likely morph into a document that panders to the powers-that-be on Wall Street.
The writing's already on the wall, unfortunately.
Borosage, explaining what's going to happen if we support the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009, as written in its currently marked-up form at the House Financial Services Committee, today:
The banking lobby is nothing if not shameless. They hope to use the reforms to WEAKEN current law. They are pushing to make the federal standard the ceiling on reform, stripping the power of states to have higher standards. Basically, they are hoping to find a way to shut down the independent investigations of state attorneys general like New York's Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo or Illinois' Lisa Madigan.
How do the banks fend off needed reform? Follow the money. A recent report by Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation shows that the 27 members of the House Financial Services Committee have received over one-fourth of their contributions from the FIRE (Finance, insurance and real estate sector). Ranking Republican Spencer Baucus from Alabama opposes the CFPA, arguing that we don't need "more regulation," we just need "smart regulation." He received a staggering 71% of his contributions from the finance sector over the first six months of this year (and 45% of his total contributions over his career). Democrat Melissa Bean who leads the effort to gut state regulatory authority over the banks has received fully 42% of her contributions for the first six months from the banking sector. Not surprisingly, the champions of reform like Rep. Alan Grayson, Maxine Waters, Keith Ellison, Adam Putman, and Carolyn McCarthy all pull in the lowest percentage from the sector.
--SNIP--
Terrific documentation made available by researchers at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) provides the details. Citigroup received about $341 billion from taxpayers in the bailout, and dispensed $4.9 million for lobbyists in the nine months after the bailout and $5.6 million in campaign contributions in 2008. (Talk about return on investment). Bank of America got $199 billion from the bailout and paid lobbyists $3.6 million in the nine months thereafter, while making campaign contributions of $7.2 million in 2008. Goldman Sachs pocketed a nifty $63.6 billion in bailout fund while setting aside $11.4 billion for bonuses and compensation for the first six months of 2009. (Lobbying fees $1.8 million; 2008 campaign contributions $7.1 million)
While both Frank Rich (See: "Goldman Can You Spare A Dime") and Gretchen Morgenson (See: "Don't Let Exceptions Kill the Rule") concurred on these observations and focused upon these realities in their respective columns in this Sunday's NY Times, numerous other respected pundits have commented upon these harsh truths in recent articles and public statements over the past few days, as well. I'd like to make particular mention of George Washington's guest post on Naked Capitalism from this past Thursday: "Bank Lobbyists Are Not Only Trying to Kill NEW Legislation, They Are Trying to Weaken EXISTING Regulations." IMHO, it's particularly worthy of a few minutes of your time.
So, you're still confused by all of this economic news that you've been watching, listening to and reading for a year or more?
Well, you're not alone...and at least part of your confusion's really not your fault!
THE FAILURE OF THE MEDIA TO PROVIDE WELL-BALANCED REPORTING ON THE ECONOMY
Not surprisingly, the "happy talk" propaganda on our economy has been intense over the past year. And, use of the word, "propaganda," is no longer tinfoil hat talk, either; it's now statistically being laid out for us. You see, the MSM has been downright twisted about news on our economy.
This all according to the latest Pew Media Report on media content regarding MSM stories on our economy over the past year. It's available right here: "Covering the Great Recession."
Covering the Great Recession
October 5, 2009
How the Media Have Depicted the Economic Crisis During Obama's Presidency
The gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression has been covered in the media largely from the top down, told primarily from the perspective of the Obama Administration and big business, and reflected the voices and ideas of people in institutions more than those of everyday Americans, according to a new study by Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Citizens may be the primary victims of the downturn, but they have not been not the primary actors in the media depiction of it.
Summing much of it up in a couple of sentences: Main Street's suffering during our economic downturn was really not the focus of the MSM's reporting. By covering it from the top down, as the Pew folks observed, the media has spent most of their time analyzing the story from the vantage point of the new administration and big business.
(As most of us are living on Main Street, we shouldn't be surprised by this.)
Furthermore, as the Pew folks noted, far too much emphasis has been placed by the MSM on the stock market as an indicator of our economic well-being, when any first-year economics student will tell you that the performance of the market has little to do with the underlying economic fundamentals of our society.
Yves Smith, over at Naked Capitalism provided us with a TREMENDOUS overview of this along with her thoughts on it all in: "MSM Reporting as Propaganda (No One Minds Our New Financial Masters Edition)." In fact, Simon Johnson's partner at their Baseline Scenario blog, James Kwak, shared my sentiments on Yves' diary, and he did a great job condensing Yves' commentary for us on his blog on Friday: "Move Along."
Move Along
James Kwak
Baseline Scenario
October 16, 2009
Yves Smith has a very good post on how hard much of the mainstream media has fallen for the "everything is OK, go on with your lives" theme. She cites the Pew Research Center to show that media coverage of the financial crisis and recession has focused primarily on political battles--stimulus, bailouts, etc.--rather than on problems in the real economy. What's more, economic coverage in general has fallen off since the stock market rebound earlier this year and the Obama administration's "all clear" signal. She also discusses psychological research that shows that people can be easily influenced to believe things that are not true, simply because people around them seem to believe those things.
Smith traces this phenomenon to two main sources: the steady evolution of journalism into a traditional profit-oriented business than can no longer afford to invest heavily in investigative journalism; and the increased ability of political leaders, following the lead of private corporations, to control the message that is transmitted via the media. The Bush administration was allegedly the master of the latter, although the fact that they were so obvious about it sort of undermines that claim. (Although probably their attitude was that they didn't care if the "New York liberal elite" saw how they were manipulating press coverage.) But the Obama administration is no slouch either....
--SNIP--
...And then there is the fact that the financial crisis and the recession are just complicated. On some levels they are simple, but on others -- like the relationship between banking profits and bank lending (there isn't necessarily one), they are complicated. In a situation like that, the person with the biggest megaphone has an advantage -- if he can tell a simple, plausibly believable story. And the administration and the Fed have hit on one: "We were on the brink of the abyss, so we had to do a lot of unpleasant things to pull us back. But now things are back to normal in the financial system, and we're just dealing with an ordinary recession, so things will be tough for a while, but we'll pull through."
Smith and I probably agree on the major problems with this story: it enables the government to avoid tackling the flaws in our financial and political systems that caused the crisis in the first place, and so, in a real sense, nothing has changed; it also minimizes an extremely severe recession and implies that there is little more to be done at this point to help the millions of people who are hurting from it. But that's the message the government is putting out, and there's not a lot that a few people who are crazy enough to spend their free time writing blogs can do about it.....
In other words, you thought you were confused by all of this economic news; when, in fact, you've just been getting the story delivered to you from a rather twisted set of vantage points.
And, yeah, tell me about it, Mr. Kwak...
...there's not a lot that a few people who are crazy enough to spend their free time writing blogs can do about it.....
But, still, some of us are dumb enough to keep on trying to get that story out there...
Yes, there have been many financial train wrecks over the past 20 months. Names like Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Washington Mutual, Citigroup, Bank of America, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac come to mind. But, what's happening now, as it relates to our efforts to fix this corrupt system going forward? That's quite a different matter, altogether.
We CAN do something about this now. Make your voices heard with our President and Valerie Jarrett this week. STAND UP TO WALL STREET. Put some teeth into regulatory reform. Call your congresscritter and let them know where YOU stand.
This financial regulatory reform effort is right now. It is on us. It is on our watch. We CAN prevent another economic crisis by making our voices heard in Washington right now.
WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT THIS?
Contact your congressperson! (Link here: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtm)
Get in touch with the House Financial Services Committee and the House Agriculture Committee right now!
Some related links to organizations fighting for financial fairness and stronger regulatory reform include:
Americans for Financial Reform has very quickly become my favorite activist organization for financial reform. You may join their email list, signup for events and contact them right from the homepage link in this paragraph.
The Center for Media and Democracy (publishers of PRWatch.org)
(They've just launched "The Real Economy Project." Get involved!)
U.S. P.I.R.G. is very much at the forefront of the Wall Street reform effort, as well.
There's a "Showdown In Chicago," on October 25th. Read more about it right here: "Showdown In Chicago To Protest Bankers."