To hear John McCain and other Republicans talk, you’d think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democratic Party. But the troubled mortgage lenders have shown bipartisanship in their political donations. The Kansas delegation’s haul from 1989 to 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics: Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Lenexa, $26,550; Republican Sens. Pat Roberts, $18,000, and Sam Brownback, $17,300; Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, $6,500; and Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Hays, $2,000.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
28 Comments
How much Fannie & Freddie money did Obama and McCain each get?
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008
Name
Office
Party/State
Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J
S
D-CT
$133,900
2. Kerry, John
S
D-MA
$111,000
3. Obama, Barack
S
D-IL
$105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary
S
D-NY
$75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E
H
D-PA
$65,500
6. Bennett, Robert F
S
R-UT
$61,499
7. Johnson, Tim
S
D-SD
$61,000
8. Conrad, Kent
S
D-ND
$58,991
9. Davis, Tom
H
R-VA
$55,499
10. Bond, Christopher S ‘Kit’
S
R-MO
$55,400
11. Bachus, Spencer
H
R-AL
$55,300
12. Shelby, Richard C
S
R-AL
$55,000
13. Emanuel, Rahm
H
D-IL
$51,750
14. Reed, Jack
S
D-RI
$50,750
15. Carper, Tom
S
D-DE
$44,389
16. Frank, Barney
H
D-MA
$40,100
17. Maloney, Carolyn B
H
D-NY
$38,750
18. Bean, Melissa
H
D-IL
$37,249
19. Blunt, Roy
H
R-MO
$36,500
20. Pryce, Deborah
H
R-OH
$34,750
21. Miller, Gary
H
R-CA
$33,000
22. Pelosi, Nancy
H
D-CA
$32,750
23. Reynolds, Tom
H
R-NY
$32,700
24. Hoyer, Steny H
H
D-MD
$30,500
25. Hooley, Darlene
H
D-OR
$28,750
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
so everyone has their fingers in the pie
Technically, none, Max, as the institutions themselves cannot make donations. True for the Kansas Congressional delegation members as well. The donations were from employees of Fannie and Freddie, as well as lobbyists.
Interesting question you raise, though, Max; we’ve read almost ad nauseum about contributions to the Democrats (rightfully, btw), but not about contributions to the GOP as I recall.
I recall reading a piece a while back that if lobbyist contributions were included with those made by employees, officers and directors of the said institutions, Sen. McCain had received $169,000, and Sen. Obama $160,000 from the combination of lobbyists, employees, officers and directors of Freddie and Fannie. I’ll Google for a link, and if none, I’ll so admit; if one (or more) is found, I’ll post the same.
And Obama was given more than all of them.
Did we get a thread on that?
Did we get a thread on the video of the Democrats defending the CEO and these companies?
Just more bias here on the blog from the EDITORS.
Speaking of hearing McCain talk, did you ever have thread about what McCain had warned about this in the past?
“I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform
Act of 2005, S. 190,to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE
regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers
will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the
economy as a whole.”
Max,
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/727/
which substantiates the figures I gave above. Note the “affiliation” argument. I quarrel not with the Sen. Obama got more from the employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their “friends and families” than anyone else but Sen. Dodd. It seems, however, that Sen. McCain has also received substantial contributions from those affiliated with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, when those other than employees are included.
You EDITORS are a sick joke.
Nathan- Are you having a “Midol moment”? It sure seems so.
Gster,
I have been talking about the Editor bias on this blog for years now.
Have anything other than personal attacks?
I didn’t attack you, I merely asked a question. What bias would you prefer for this blog?
Thanks for the update Vaughn.
I’m amazed at the lack of investigation by the press into these bribes to our politicians.
Gster,
Are we playing the “I only asked you a question” game?
Asking a question like that is the same thing as saying that you think I am having a midol moment.
Are you really that dumb?
(Kind of like my question)
I would prefer that there would be no bias here. Or that the EDITORS make some effort at presenting us with a more balanced array of topics without such obvious bias as they already show.
Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae chairman 1999-2004
Contributions to the Democratic Party or PACs since 1983.
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Franklin_Raines.php
List of Obama Donors
http://www.newsmeat.com/campaign_contributions_to_politicians/donor_list.php?candidate_id=P80003338
List of Biden Donors
http://www.newsmeat.com/campaign_contributions_to_politicians/donor_list.php?candidate_id=P80000722
Donors by Geographic Region
http://maps.google.com/help/maps/elections/#fundrace&utm_campaign=en&utm_source=en-ha-na-us-sk-mp&utm_term=obama%20donors
Nathan- No, no and isn’t bias really in the eye of the beholder?
Gster,
Hitler really wasn’t that bad of a guy, unless you happened to be looking at him through the eyes of a Jew.
If you were a white male in the SS I am sure everything was just fine for you under Hitler.
My statement pertained to WEB.
Gster,
Your statement was absurd. I pointed this out by applying the logic of it to a situation where you would hopefully see this absurdity.
I can clearly point out the bias here with hard evidence.
It is not simply in the eye of the beholder.
Fannie and Freddie are not unlike alot of “corporate” contributors that cover their bases with donations to both parties.
The allegiance and “whats in it for me” goes with the highest bidder, in this case where the biggest donations are.
Rx: Take two (2).
Fannie, Freddie and low-income loans did not cause the meltdown. Speculation and McMansions did:
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis
WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that’s what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They’ve specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
The “turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,” the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.
“I don’t remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster,” said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don’t lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.
It’s a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.
This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party’s standard bearer, President Bush, didn’t criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.
Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they’re lending and investing in their communities.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, “it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That’s called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.”
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn’t pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What’s more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don’t, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren’t subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today’s problems.
“Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans,” she said. “The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.”
In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, “that this new lending is good business.”
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
Sure Fannie Freddie didn’t cause the problem.
They just went broke investing in the problem.
Why do you think Fannie/Freddie just got bought out?
#
MaxGrobnik
Posted October 13, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
Sure Fannie Freddie didn’t cause the problem.
They just went broke investing in the problem.
Why do you think Fannie/Freddie just got bought out?
—————————-
That and Fannie/Freddie cooked their books so thoroughly, it was beyond use or recognition.
Bush appointees were responsible for the oversight of FMac & FMae.
To be able under all circumstances to practice five things constitutes perfect virtue; these five things are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness and kindness.