It was a sad day for corporations in the financial, insurance, and real estate sector--like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce & the Financial Services Roundtable--who spent a combined total of $321 million lobbying against federal reforms such as limits on bonuses and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). These groups were concerned that oversight legislation to help rein in greed on Wall Street might actually....rein in greed on Wall Street. "We remain concerned that this legislation will have significant and harmful unintended consequences for consumers, businesses, and the overall economy," the groups wrote in a letter to House members last week.

Thankfully, the House Financial Services Committee didn't feel nearly as sympathetic towards the creators of unfair financial products that scam consumers and taxpayers as they feel for themselves. A recent poll found that nearly 75 percent of Americans believe that the greed and risky decisions of banks and financial companies led to our financial crisis--and our lawmakers agree. Yesterday, the House voted 39 to 29 to move forward with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, to help put a stop to the dangerous and deceptive products and practices that got us into this mess. The House Financial Services Committee also approved legislation that would impose new rules for credit cards by Dec. 1, moving up the date from mid-February. Democratic supporters said moving up the date was necessary because lenders were using the grace period to hike interest rates.

The American Bankers Association joined the Chamber of Commerce in expressing their disapproval for the legislation, saying it would continue to try to make its case against the agency as the legislation moves to the House floor in coming weeks and, eventually, to the Senate. "We still have major concerns with some principal areas" including "the very broad, ill-defined authority that is granted to this new agency that could be used to justify essentially any regulatory action," said Floyd Stoner, ABA vice president for congressional relations.

Creating the CFPA as part of Obama's broader plan to clamp down on Wall Street is an important step towards preventing much of the reckless lending that contributed to last year's near-collapse of the market. "It's been a year since the financial world collapsed and it is now clear that the greed and excess of big banks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their allies could have and should have been prevented," said SEIU's Anna Burger. "Chairman Frank and the Financial Services Committee stood up on behalf of American families by passing legislation to create a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency--and to prevent business as usual to continue."

According to a recent poll, nearly 75 percent of Americans believe that the greed and risky decisions of banks and financial companies led to our financial crisis.And there's much more to be done. We believe that to be successful, the CFPA must be strengthened to include:

• oversight of auto dealers who receive lucrative compensation in financing auto loans;
• the authority to examine the books of all financial institutions, no matter what size, without cumbersome barriers;
• fixes to the current compensation system which pressures and incentivizes workers to push and sell bad and unneeded products to consumers as a condition of employment; and
• the full authority to stop the sale of credit-related insurance policies that are virtually worthless.

That's why when the American Bankers Association meets in Chicago next week, more than 5,000 taxpayers from 20 states will be there to demand an end to Wall Street's appetite for greed.

Upon hearing the news that bailed-out insurer AIG plans to reward top executives $2.4 million in bonuses next week, SEIU's first reaction was...sheer and utter disbelief. As in, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING US. How is it possible that the same company that received the largest of all taxpayer bailouts, at a total cost of $173 billion to the American people, would decide it's a good idea to reward themselves for doing such a fantastic job of losing more money?

In a Fox News Sunday interview last month, Chamber president Thomas Donohue defended the bonuses. In his answer to interviewer Chris Wallace's question, "So are you saying if AIG wants to give million-dollar bonuses, so be it?" Donohue said:

I'm saying if -- AIG is in a lot of trouble, but I'm saying if it took the right people to fix AIG, you're going to have to pay them. Same thing right here in this network. You know, if you lost your -- you couldn't pay your very best people, I'm not sure they'd stay. They'd probably go to another network.

Never one to stand quietly on the sidelines while other financial services and business lobbies are publicly flaunting their corporate greed and lack of accountability, the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) made a particularly striking 'contribution' earlier in the week to the recent wealth of outrageous "are you kidding me?!" behavior, in an appearance on C-Span, no less. When asked by the host what the Roundtable would support instead of Obama's Consumer Financial Protection Agency to increase consumer protection, FSR's Senior VP for Gov. Affairs Scott Talbott answered "We're not for any regulation."

While Talbott went on to then describe ways he thought the system could be enhanced, his admission confirms what we already knew: That big bank executives, credit card and financial services companies will stop at nothing [even humiliating themselves on television!] to maintain the same haphazard, practically non-existent regulation that helped tank our economy in the first place. "Even as average Americans scrimp and save, there continues to be this poisonous culture in corporate America, that says that greed and corruption and 'what's in it for me' are all acceptable," said SEIU president Andy Stern.

In spite of being crowned the "Bailout King," it seems abundantly clear that insurance giant AIG's executives are still not making business decisions with consideration as for how they would improve the lives of their new investors -- us. So SEIU is offering AIG some advice from the viewpoint of the people whose hard-earned money went to bailing them out: Halt the millions in bonuses you're seeking to give to top executives, AIG. A fundamental duty to shareholders has been violated, and it's time for both AIG and the U.S. Chamber to give up their roles as chief defenders of the broken system.

• Represents more than 90 companies in the 5.9 million-worker finance and insurance industry, including the nation's largest banks and insurance companies. FSR member companies have received an estimated $213.8 billion in taxpayer funds as a part of the bailout.
• The leadership of the FSR includes Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, U.S. Bank, State Farm Insurance, and Bank of New York Mellon Corporation.

• $43.9 million from 2000-2008 ($22.4 million spent from 2006-2008).

Worker pay

• The industry's median hourly wage for bank tellers is $11.01 per hour, or $22,901 annually, just above the federal poverty guidelines for a family of four.
• Bank tellers at BofA: $10.50;8 Chase: $10.42;9 Wells Fargo: $10.20

• FSR member companies including Bank of America have been criticized for awarding billions in bonuses after receiving taxpayer bailout money.
• JPMorgan Chase CEO: $27.8 million (1,283 times Chase teller median wage); BofA CEO: $24.8 million (1,138 times BofA teller median wage); Wells Fargo Chairman: $22.9 million (1,078 times Wells teller median wage).

• Workers at several leading FSR members lack affordable healthcare and are forced to rely on public health programs instead. BofA, Wachovia, U.S. Bank, State Farm Insurance, SunTrust, Regions Bank, and Citizens Financial have at different times had large numbers of employees enrolled in taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP.
• For BofA alone, the estimated cost to taxpayers is $50 million annually.

• FSR member companies such as Citigroup, BofA, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon, and Fidelity Investments have announced more than 100,000 job cuts since November 2008, including one of the largest layoffs in U.S. history.
• Between 2004 and 2008, 151,120 financial services workers filed unemployment claims following mass layoffs. Bank of America alone announced over 34,000 jobs between 2004 and the summer of 2008 as it shed workers following acquisitions.

• Between 2000 and 2007, financial services companies failed to pay proper overtime to at least 31,000 workers, resulting in Department of Labor-administered settlements worth $59.4 million. Among the largest settlements: a $5.7 million deal at Wachovia and a $3.6 million deal at FSR Chairman-elect Richard Davis' U.S. Bancorp.
• In 2006, FSR members Citigroup and UBS settled class action lawsuits regarding overtime for up to $98 million and $89 million, respectively.

FSR Lobbying on Employment, Taxpayer, and Consumer Practices

The measure would make it easier for workers to bargain with the employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions by ensuring that they can exercise a free choice to join together in a union without management interference or intimidation.

• The FSR lobbied against the Employee Free Choice Act in every quarter of 2008 and has made joining with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to defeat it a top priority for 2009.
• The FSR has invited Adam Putnam, a Republican spokesperson against the Employee Free Choice Act, to address its conference in March.

• The FSR fought for the financial industry bailout and its members have benefited handsomely from taxpayer support, receiving over $213.8 billion in taxpayer funds.
• Yet the FSR has resisted calls for TARP recipients to limit executive compensation and accept new lobbying rules.

• The FSR has fought common sense approaches to re-regulating the mortgage market and avoiding future meltdowns. The association has opposed reforms that protect borrowers from predatory lending practices, allow a judge to modify mortgages in bankruptcy and require the licensing of all mortgage brokers and loan officers.
• Prior to the crisis, the FSR sought rule changes which undermined existing state and federal predatory lending laws. Attorneys general from seven states charged that the new rules would create a "'race to the bottom'... at the expense of consumer protection."
• The FSR also fought legislation which would make Wall Street firms which packaged and sold mortgage-backed securities liable for illegal lending practices.

• As part of a long-standing, informal coalition opposed to further credit card regulation, the FSR has fought consumer-friendly legislation such as the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights. The law would have prohibit excessive fees, prevent arbitrary interest rate increases, and shield cardholders from misleading terms.
• The FSR also lobbied against the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would prohibit abusive private arbitration arrangements in consumer, employment and franchise agreements.

• The FSR has long advocated Social Security privatization, in which Americans would privately invest some of their Social Security contributions (and pay financial services firms to manage their accounts).
• While the 2004 Republican Party platform promised investment options "with no risk to the investor," the current financial crisis demonstrates just how imperiled many retirement age Americans would be if their Social Security contributions were individually invested in the stock market.

Despite efforts by the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR)--the lobbying organization for banking and financial industries--to keep the location of their spring meeting secret, a group of spirited protesters found them yesterday in Washington, D.C. at the luxury hotel Park Hyatt in Georgetown.

"How did they get in here?" That's what the woman staffing the FSR spring meeting wanted to know. She and meeting attendees like Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf were clearly agitated and miffed when they realized that a group of outraged taxpayers entered the posh hotel where the meeting was being held.

Dressed in black with shirts that read "Bailout Watchdog Team" and name tags that read "Taxpayer," the spirited protesters marched into the hotel like they belonged there. And seeing how FSR members have taken more than $203 billion in bailout money as TARP recipients, it seems like the taxpayers who found the "secret" meeting place had every right to be there.

But that's not how FSR saw it. They freaked out when the crime scene tape went up and the giant eviction notice was delivered to the FSR lunch area, along with hundreds of pink slips for the bank executives who have gotten bailouts while taxpayers keep getting sold out. The protest caught the attention of financial executives.

Throughout the lobby, hallways and restaurant, you could hear guys in suits chattering about the "Bailout Watchdog Team" and crime scene tape. When last seen, CEO Stumpf was engaged in an animated discussion with the FSR staffer in charge of making sure that the security team showed the taxpayers to the door.

FSR had originally planned to hold its spring meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Beach Resort in Naples, FL, that includes three miles of white-sand beaches, a 51,000 square-foot spa, golf course, three pools, and six restaurants; where rooms start at $530 per night. What changed their minds into moving the meeting to an 'undisclosed location' in Washington, DC, you may be wondering. The answer: labor coalition Change to Win found out about the bank CEOs' plans to meet in Florida on the taxpayer's dime to continue to push their anti-worker agenda and wasted no time blowing the whistle on FSR's egregious misuse of U.S. taxpayer's bailout funds.

Change to Win chair and SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger wrote a letter to FSR President and CEO Steve Bartlett, in which she outlined why the meeting was a bad idea and urged him to reconsider. Here's a quick excerpt:

Any private use of taxpayer funds to influence the political process, whether by individual TARP recipients or the industry association they fund, raises serious questions. But partisan political activity by the Roundtable and its members with respect to Employee Free Choice crosses the line and constitutes an indefensible abuse of taxpayer money. It violates the intent of Congress, conflicts with Obama Administration policies prohibiting government contractors from using federal funds to oppose union organizing and throws a body blow to the working men and women who are paying for the bailout and whose economic security has already been ravaged by the excesses of your members.

The Roundtable's decision to move their three-day meeting-whose invitees included Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., FDIC chair Sheila Bair, and SEC chair Mary Schapiro-made in response to Burger's letter was first reported in the Los Angeles Times.

If you've been following our blog, you've no doubt heard about last year's anti-Employee Free Choice call sponsored by Bank of America. As you'll remember, just three days after receiving its first set of bailout funds - $45 billion in total - participants on the call were encouraged to send "large contributions" to groups working to block passage of the bill.

Since that time, a number of groups have followed Bank of America's path. Rather than focusing on paying the American people back, they've instead used their resources to lobby against measures that would improve the lives of their new investors - us.

Here's a quick look at a few of these groups, in addition to Bank of America:

AIG

The American International Group has received the largest of all taxpayer bailouts, at a total cost of $173 billion to the American people, who now own approximately 80% of the group.

More than $90 billion of AIG's bailout funds went towards paying numerous domstic and foreign banks, such as Bank of America and Citigroup. Both of these groups are part of a huge lobbying effort against laws that would benefit working families, such as Free Choice.

The Financial Services Roundtable

The Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) a special interests group that represents more than 90 companies in the finance and insurance industry, including the nation's largest banks and insurance companies. Their leadership includes Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and U.S. Bank.

In total, member companies have received an estimated $213.8 billion in taxpayer money. You could buy a lot of round tables with that kind of money.

In every quarter in 2008, the RSF has lobbied against the Employee Free Choice Act. And this year, they've banded together with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to make its defeat their top priority in 2009.

Citigroup

Since last year, Citi has received a total of $45 billion in taxpayer bailouts.
Following Bank of America's lead, they hosted a conference call to build opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. The call, led by a senior executive at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was held on March 11th.

Just a day before the call, Citigroup cited Free Choice as the reason to downgrade Wal-Mart's rating, leading to speculation that the move was politically motivated to try to paint the bill as anti-business.

Burger King

Goldman Sachs is one of the largest shareholders of Burger King, and along with private equity firms TPG and Bain Capital, control the Burger King board through seats on its executive committee. Goldman Sachs has received $10 billion in taxpayer bailouts.

Burger King's second largest franchisee is a unit of Cerberus Capital Management, the same private equity firm that also owns Chrysler. Chrysler has received $5.5 billion in taxpayer bailouts.

New analysis of lobbying disclosures shows that the corporate lobbying effort against the Employee Free Choice Act is being waged largely by industry trade associations and front groups rather than by individual companies. (PDF of this report here)

Indeed, when several of the companies that have been active against employee free choice have come under criticism, they have been quick to issue statements to distance their firms from any anti-worker position.

At a time when a majority of the public favors the Employee Free Choice Act and millions of Americans are struggling while high CEO pay and corporate bonuses persist, it appears that companies are reluctant to be out front themselves against a measure that would ensure workers the freedom to gain a voice on the job for improvements.

Instead, the dirty work is being done primarily by eight business associations that are together waging a massive assault against the bill while most of their member companies keep their own names clean.

Industry associations take the lead

• The following eight trade associations were among some of the biggest spenders in lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act in 2008: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, Food Marketing Institute, Financial Services Roundtable, Business Roundtable, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and American Hotel and Lodging Association.
• Yet the officers of these associations have largely remained silent on Employee Free Choice. Out of 37 companies which hold leadership positions on the boards of the eight industry associations above, only 8 have ever independently lobbied on the Employee Free Choice Act and representatives from only 11 have made statements on Employee Free Choice.
• Even more striking, less than 4% of the more than 1,500 companies associated with the eight industry associations have ever independently lobbied on Employee Free Choice.
• While individual companies outspent trade associations in lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act and other pro-worker legislation in 2007, in 2008 trade associations surged ahead, filing lobbying expenditure disclosures which mention Employee Free Choice totaling $141 million ⎯ $36 million more than individual companies.

Individual companies take cover

Burger King
"Burger King Corp. (BKC) believes unions serve a purpose in some workplaces and a number of its guests, vendors and franchisees have positive union membership experiences. BKC is not anti-union. BKC and its franchisees serve a diverse consumer base and, therefore, aim to remain neutral on political issues." (Source)
⎯ Statement issued February 20, 2009 after report, video, and protests exposed efforts by Burger King to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act and shed light on other poor employment and consumer practices at the fast food company. Burger King is a member of the National Restaurant Association and the National Retail Federation.

Principal Financial
"Contrary to incorrect reports issued today, The Principal Financial Group has not taken a position on the Employee Free Choice Act, nor do we plan to take such a position. The Principal represents the interests of millions of employees and hard working Americans who participate in its employee benefit plans; as well as 35,000 employer clients, 42,000 retirement plan sponsors and its own 15,000 employees. ... We have been a frequent advocate on issues of critical importance to unions and the financial services industry, such as civil rights and pension plan funding."
(Source)
⎯ Statement issued on February 24 after Change To Win Chair Anna Burger sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asking that Principal Financial not be considered for federal TARP money given the company's lobbying disclosures showing $2.4 million in federal government lobbying expenditures in 2008 across many issue areas, including employee free choice. Principal is a member of the Financial Services Roundtable.

McDonald's
"We regret our internal effort to keep our franchisees informed on all aspects regarding this legislation has been leaked to the press and mischaracterized as an anti-union campaign. This was not our intent. McDonald's is not engaged in an anti-union campaign. In fact, we pride ourselves on being the restaurant organization for all people -- especially during tough economic times like these. As such, we try to not take sides in political issues, because we know our customers come from all walks of life, and represent diverse opinions and backgrounds."
(Source)
⎯ Statement issued on December 22 after reports leaked that McDonalds Corp. had urged its franchisees to "contact your U.S. senators and representatives to oppose" the Employee Free Choice Act.

Key facts that may be contributing to the companies' strategy to oppose employee free choice through trade associations and distance themselves

• Today average CEO pay is 344 times higher than average pay for workers. In 1980, CEO pay was 42 times higher. In other words, the average CEO today takes home as much in one day as the average worker is paid in a year.
• By next year, median household income is projected to drop to a level lower than it was 10 years ago.
• 73% of adults favor passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (Hart Research Associates, 12/08)

Lobbying Machine
At-a-glance numbers on the combined lobbying forces of the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Restaurant Association, Food Marketing Institute, Financial Services Roundtable, Business Roundtable, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and American Hotel and Lodging Association:

• Spent $138.4 million on lobbying in 2008 ($258,000 per member of Congress). All 8 groups lobbied against the Employee Free Choice Act.
• Hired 44 lobbying firms in 2008 (359 total lobbyists including both firms and association lobbyists).
• Used at least 34 different front groups and/or affiliates to push their agenda.
• Lobbied on hundreds of bills last year (The Financial Services Roundtable alone lobbied on 91 different bills; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's lobbying disclosures fill 641 pages).
• The five associations with PACs gave 82% of their PAC contributions to Republicans from 2000 to 2008.

* PDF copy of report here