Rep Scott Garrett now oversees House Committee that regulates Hedge Funds

Modbert

Daydream Believer
Sep 2, 2008
33,178
3,055
48
Why is this important? Well, Scott Garrett from NJ is going be the Chairman of the Capital Market Subcommittee on Financial Services regulating Dodd-Frank financial reform including hedge funds.

Source: Rachel Maddow Show

Now, what makes this interesting is the following:

Rep. Scott Garrett rakes in Wall St. cash - NorthJersey.com

Twelve donors tied to one of the nation’s biggest hedge funds contributed more than $150,000 to a political committee in Georgia controlled by Rep. Scott Garrett, the North Jersey Republican likely to have increased power over financial regulations next year.

Two of the donors gave more than $35,000 each. That’s far above the limit of $2,400 per election that individuals could give to candidates, but the contributions were legal because the Garrett committee was a joint entity with several other political action committees, including the National Republican Congressional Committee, which has much higher limits.

"This is clearly to buy influence from a candidate," said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for campaign finance reform with the group Public Citizen. "A wealthy individual loves to throw $150,000 to the feet of an official who has oversight over his business. The purpose is not to make sure we have informed elections, the purpose is to buy influence."

Garrett was an advocate for hedge fund interests before the contributions, however.

During debate over the Wall Street overhaul, he criticized a provision that barred banks from running or investing in hedge funds, known as the Volcker Rule.

As the video talks about in more detail, Garrett got $195,000 in a couple weeks from a single hedge fund. 96% of the money he raised for that one committee came from this one hedge fund.

Conclusion: Scott Garrett is clearly beholden to the hedge funds now, a group that he now oversees. Would you trust Scott Garrett to act in the American People's interests or the Hedge Fund managers interest?
 
Why is this important? Well, Scott Garrett from NJ is going be the Chairman of the Capital Market Subcommittee on Financial Services regulating Dodd-Frank financial reform including hedge funds.

Source: Rachel Maddow Show

Now, what makes this interesting is the following:

Rep. Scott Garrett rakes in Wall St. cash - NorthJersey.com

Twelve donors tied to one of the nation’s biggest hedge funds contributed more than $150,000 to a political committee in Georgia controlled by Rep. Scott Garrett, the North Jersey Republican likely to have increased power over financial regulations next year.

Two of the donors gave more than $35,000 each. That’s far above the limit of $2,400 per election that individuals could give to candidates, but the contributions were legal because the Garrett committee was a joint entity with several other political action committees, including the National Republican Congressional Committee, which has much higher limits.

"This is clearly to buy influence from a candidate," said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for campaign finance reform with the group Public Citizen. "A wealthy individual loves to throw $150,000 to the feet of an official who has oversight over his business. The purpose is not to make sure we have informed elections, the purpose is to buy influence."

Garrett was an advocate for hedge fund interests before the contributions, however.

During debate over the Wall Street overhaul, he criticized a provision that barred banks from running or investing in hedge funds, known as the Volcker Rule.

As the video talks about in more detail, Garrett got $195,000 in a couple weeks from a single hedge fund. 96% of the money he raised for that one committee came from this one hedge fund.

Conclusion: Scott Garrett is clearly beholden to the hedge funds now, a group that he now oversees. Would you trust Scott Garrett to act in the American People's interests or the Hedge Fund managers interest?

Did you complain about Dodd? Or Barney Frank? Didn't think so.
 
Did you complain about Dodd? Or Barney Frank? Didn't think so.

Actually, yes I have. However, your post is irrelevant because not only is it an attempt to make the thread about me but it deflects away from the OP. Instead of trying to name Democrats who have taken money from Wall Street (something I oppose entirely), why don't you respond to the original post?
 
Did you complain about Dodd? Or Barney Frank? Didn't think so.

Actually, yes I have. However, your post is irrelevant because not only is it an attempt to make the thread about me but it deflects away from the OP. Instead of trying to name Democrats who have taken money from Wall Street (something I oppose entirely), why don't you respond to the original post?

You liberals had no trouble with Numerous Senators and Congressmen taking money from sources that would equate, as here, if one is to believe it, to making them obliged to the people giving the money.

All I care about is, WAS IT LEGAL? If so then you are trying to make something of nothing.
 
You liberals had no trouble with Numerous Senators and Congressmen taking money from sources that would equate, as here, if one is to believe it, to making them obliged to the people giving the money.

All I care about is, WAS IT LEGAL? If so then you are trying to make something of nothing.

So you don't care if a Republican is taking money from lobbyists, but you do if Barney Frank and Frank Dodd are. What a hypocrite you are.
 
You liberals had no trouble with Numerous Senators and Congressmen taking money from sources that would equate, as here, if one is to believe it, to making them obliged to the people giving the money.

All I care about is, WAS IT LEGAL? If so then you are trying to make something of nothing.

So you don't care if a Republican is taking money from lobbyists, but you do if Barney Frank and Frank Dodd are. What a hypocrite you are.

Dodd took money ILLEGALLY. And there is rumors Frank did so also.

Once again, did this Representative do ANYTHING illegal? If not you have no story.
 
Dodd took money ILLEGALLY. And there is rumors Frank did so also.

Once again, did this Representative do ANYTHING illegal? If not you have no story.

So you don't care if lobbyists and hedge funds on Wall Street are giving money to Republicans who are overseeing Wall Street? You can answer that with a simple yes or no.
 
You liberals had no trouble with Numerous Senators and Congressmen taking money from sources that would equate, as here, if one is to believe it, to making them obliged to the people giving the money.

All I care about is, WAS IT LEGAL? If so then you are trying to make something of nothing.

So you don't care if a Republican is taking money from lobbyists, but you do if Barney Frank and Frank Dodd are. What a hypocrite you are.

You are the hypocrite, you went all moralistic on me yesterday and gave the purveyors of pain on Cheney a hall pass. ASSwipe.
 
Do I trust Rachel Maddow? No. The source is partisan. I want non partisan, hard, factually accurate information and detail. I'm not stupid. I can think for myself.
 
You liberals had no trouble with Numerous Senators and Congressmen taking money from sources that would equate, as here, if one is to believe it, to making them obliged to the people giving the money.

All I care about is, WAS IT LEGAL? If so then you are trying to make something of nothing.

So you don't care if a Republican is taking money from lobbyists, but you do if Barney Frank and Frank Dodd are. What a hypocrite you are.

Dodd took money ILLEGALLY. And there is rumors Frank did so also.

Once again, did this Representative do ANYTHING illegal? If not you have no story.

Chris Dodd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dodd was cleared you fool
 
Do I trust Rachel Maddow? No. The source is partisan. I want non partisan, hard, factually accurate information and detail. I'm not stupid. I can think for myself.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


then go get your evidence that she has lied about anything?

You cal me a liar and have never once proven a lie by me.

I have proven a lie by you and its in my sig line with post numbers
 
Do I trust Rachel Maddow? No. The source is partisan. I want non partisan, hard, factually accurate information and detail. I'm not stupid. I can think for myself.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


then go get your evidence that she has lied about anything?

You cal me a liar and have never once proven a lie by me.

I have proven a lie by you and its in my sig line with post numbers

Did I call her a liar? No. I said I want facts - all of them. The problem with Rachel - as with the vast majority of the rest of the media... is that they pick and choose which facts they use. There is usually more information than they spoonfeed the public. You can accept the spoonful if that's what you choose. I want the whole fucking meal. That's just me. I like to know all the facts about a situation before I decide what I think.

Fucking idiot.
 

Forum List

Back
Top