Thanks to the Huffington Post for recording another revolting develpment in the continuing saga of our elected and supposedly Democratic representatives siding with industry against ordinary consumers.
In this case it is investors who are getting no help and whose interests are being sacrificed. A last-minute amendment in committee is likely to exempt half of business from the audit requirement that was supposed to keep future Enron situations from being able to persist. It's a massive step backward in the effort to provide transparency and regulation of securities.
A House panel voted Wednesday to permanently exempt more than half of all publicly traded companies from a seven-year-old post-Enron measure designed to prevent fraud.
The vote came in the form of an amendment, offered by Reps. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) and John Adler (D-N.J.), to the Investor Protection Act of 2009, a bill otherwise intended to protect investors from fraud and manipulation.
Huff Post: House Panel Votes to Exempt
Ten Democrats on the committee voted with Republicans to attach the amendment to the bill as it goes to the House floor.
Every time we relax and think that our Democratic majorities will allow Congress to do the people's work, here comes another low ball like this one.
Of the 42 Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee, 10 voted in support of the measure: Adler, Joe Baca of California, Steve Driehaus of Ohio, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Gary Peters of Michigan, Dan Maffei of New York, Melissa L. Bean and Bill Foster of Illinois, Travis Childers of Mississippi, and Walt Minnick of Idaho. The remaining Democrats -- including committee Chairman Barney Frank -- composed the 32 dissenting votes.
Former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt was among those opposed to the amendment, telling the Huffington Post: "This is something the Republicans could never have accomplished, and what a bitter irony it is that the Democrats...are emasculating the best piece of legislation of the past 20 years."
This regulatory legislation had been eagerly anticipated, and even expected. With this amendment its effect has been severely diluted. I'd think that somewhere in 75 million dollars business owners should be able to find money for an audit, but industry lobbyists argued it was "too burdensome". Not as burdensome as having all your investments stolen by unscrupulous businessmen like Kenny Lay, in my opinion.
Here's another troublesome issue: according to amendment sponsor Adler, he talked to the White House three times about his amendment, and they were fine with it.