Gary Gensler cut deals with Goldman Sachs for 18 years. Now, he's leading the charge for regulatory reform. The New York Times explains:

The proposals championed by Mr. Gensler, if adopted by Congress, would substantially alter what is now a largely unregulated market in over-the-counter derivatives, financial instruments used by companies and investors to protect themselves and bet on moves in variables, like interest rates or currencies, and to speculate.

The proposals include forcing the big banks that sell derivatives to conduct their trades in the open on public exchanges and clear them through central clearinghouses, so that any investor can see the prices that dealers charge their customers. Today, those transactions are bilateral and private.

The banks and their customers might have to post collateral or guarantees to prevent the kinds of panics seen during the financial crisis, in which some investors worried that trading partners might have trouble keeping their side of the contract.

In this way, the clearinghouses would work as circuit breakers in the great web of derivatives trading encircling the globe. Shifting the products, and the risk of default, off the books of the banks and onto these middlemen would ensure that no single bank was too interconnected to fail, the rationale goes.

The banks, for their part, sense a threat to the billions of dollars in profits they earn each year from trading in these complex derivatives.

Many don't understand these complex financial instruments, but, they need reform. They've helped to turn Wall Street into one giant, rigged casino that is designed so that Wall Street firms win, regardless of whether the economy grows or tanks. The Times continues:

Mr. Gensler’s conversion would seem to put him at odds with his mentors, like Robert E. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, and with his former colleagues on Wall Street.

“Wall Street’s interest is not always the same as the public’s interest,” he says now. “Wall Street thrives and makes money in inefficient markets, and I am creating efficiencies in the market...”

“I disagree with anyone who says derivatives did not play a part in the crisis,” he said in defense of more oversight. He added: “Like San Francisco after the earthquake, we had a calamity, and now we need building codes.”

Regulatory reforms create efficient markets that champion economic growth and protect Main Street interests. Now is our chance to pass it.

If you haven't already seen it... even Heidi Montag supports the CFPA!

It's happening. The teeth are being slowly pulled out of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The LA Times explains:

The move this week to downgrade a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency to lure bipartisan support instead appears to be undermining the Obama administration's effort to overhaul the nation's regulation of the entire industry.

The overhaul, aimed at preventing a repeat of the economic meltdown that helped send the nation and world markets into a deep recession, now might be moving closer to the junk heap of congressional bills than to a significant new law.

Creating a powerful and independent consumer agency, which is strongly opposed by the financial industry and Republicans, has been the major roadblock in drafting a bill that could pass in the Senate. Desperate to surmount that hurdle as this year's legislative clock winds down, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) floated the idea this week of putting the new agency in the Federal Reserve.

Although the move would gain some Republican support, it has led to howls of protests from many Democrats and consumer advocates that threaten to derail any compromise. And for good reason.

America is suffering from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We let the banksters call the shots and they did - to the tune of record profits for them and a lack of jobs and opportunity for us. Now, they're trying to strip the teeth out of an organization that will protect us from their excesses. The LA Times continues:

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), another supporter, said Wednesday that many House Democrats were unlikely to agree to give the Fed more consumer authority.

"It's somewhere between bad and terrible," Sherman said of the proposal. "For a number of my colleagues . . . that might just kill it."

Dodd's proposal might not even get through his own committee, potentially adding further delay in a mid-term election year in which major legislation is unlikely to get through Congress if not finished by the summer.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said he and some colleagues on the Banking Committee would try to amend the legislation to add a stand-alone consumer agency outside the Fed or any other banking regulatory body.

"There's quite a bit of disappointment with the Fed," Reed said Wednesday. "I think the best approach is an independent entity."

The banksters and their obstructionist friends are at it again. It's time for us to pressure our Senators to look out for Main Street, not Wall Street.

Accountable America Chairman Tom Matzzie submitted the following must read piece to the Huffington Post today. It outlines Accountable America's call for a stronger, more effective and more active Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC):

Have you heard of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission? If not, that's because this Commission with responsibility for investigating the financial crisis has so far failed to get to work. Last May Congress passed legislation creating the Commission with a broad mandate and specific powers including subpoena, public hearings, cross examination of witnesses under oath and even criminal referrals.

Where are the hearings? Where are the subpoenas? Where are the criminal referrals? Millions of people are out of work because of the casino economy setup by some in the financial sector.

So far, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission isn't living up to expectations. It has been eighteen months since the market crashes, fifteen month since the Madoff frauds were exposed, nearly ten months since Congress created the Commission and eight months since commissioners were appointed.

To date the Commission has held one public hearing with witnesses and then a forum recently with professors and academicians. No victims have had a chance to talk. No subpoenas have been issued. There is no real way for the public to give input.

With one in six Americans looking for work, the Commission can't be allowed to whitewash the failure and complicity of the SEC and other government regulators. The Commission needs to assign blame where blame is due, and bring the wrongdoers to justice.

It didn't have to be this way. The hopes for the Commission harkened back to the Pecora Commission of the 1930s whose findings led to passage of Glass-Steagall, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Others were thinking of the role the 9/11 Commission played in pulling together a scrupulous accounting of the terrorist attack.

The victims of the hit and run economic crimes of this period expect and deserve much more. Years from now, there will be ample time for a leisurely stroll through the history of this crisis. Now is the time for action--investigations, prosecutions and more.

That's why a group I lead as Chairman, Accountable America, is working with victims of the Bernard Madoff frauds and others to push for investigation with teeth. Accountable America is sponsoring TV, radio and print ads, and organizing phone banks and public events.

Many Madoff victims see the lackluster government response so far as yet another form of financial abuse. One indirect Madoff investor, Suzanne Webel, who lost her life savings, said:

"We were robbed first by Madoff...and now by the government for failing to respond to our plight. We want the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to get to the bottom of this mess - we want a hearing on our issues and a commitment to compensate ALL victims fairly."

Accountable America sent a letter to Commission Chairman Phil Angelides and Vice-Chairman Bill Thomas, urging them to get serious about achieving their mandate. The letter aired several concerns:

* The Commission has made no commitment to hearing from the victims of Madoff frauds, other failed institutions or the broader financial crisis - despite a specific Congressional mandate to investigate these frauds. Victims deserve a full airing of their concerns.

* The Commission has not issued a single subpoena for current or former regulators who were either asleep at the switch or complicit in the financial crisis. Among many others, former S.E.C. Chairman Christopher Cox, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and former Chairman Alan Greenspan should all be subpoenaed and cross-examined.

* Testimony from academic experts is not enough. Too much time has been spent preparing for academic study instead of conducting investigations - which are the true intent of the Commission's Congressional mandate.

* The schedule and pace of work is too slow. Since July 2009, the Commission has only met in public three times. The first hearing with witnesses occurred just a month ago. If specific members of the Commission are dragging their feet or unwilling to work at an appropriate pace, they should be called to account publicly.

* The American people deserve clearer notice of the date, time and place of the Commission's meetings. The time of day for the most recent forum was announced only two days before it was held, and its location had inadequate space for the public. The Commission should announce a draft schedule of hearings with dates and locations for the rest of the year and ask for public input.

* Not a single subpoena has been issued. This is one of the Commission's most powerful tools, and it should not be left unused.

* If the reason for inaction is lack of resources, the Commission should publicly ask for what they need. Their work is too important to fall victim to indolence or red tape.

With the Commission's report due in December, there is still time to get on track -- but the clock is ticking.

Reflecting on his work in 1939, Ferdinand Pecora wrote:

Had there been full disclosure of what was being done in furtherance of these schemes, they could not long have survived the fierce light of publicity and criticism. Legal chicanery and pitch darkness were the banker's stoutest allies.

Pecora's singular focus on truth-finding did justice to victims and safeguarded America's economy for decades to come.

Chairman Angelides and the other nine members of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission have a choice to make.

They can continue to conduct a toothless, academic exercise that holds no one accountable.

Or they can learn the lessons of the past and bring the disinfecting power of sunlight to the shadowy corners of our financial system where greed lies in wait to strike again.

The clock is ticking. It's time for action.

Today, U.S. Judge Burton Lifland ruled that a proposed "money-in, money-out" formula to determine claims for the thousands hurt by Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The ruling means, according to Reuters, that "investors' claims should be based on how much money they put into the firm minus how much they took out over the years."

The ruling is expected to be appealed, but it highlights the confusing nature of our protection laws. Tom pointed this pointed in the aforementioned Reuters article:

"The court's ruling underscores how weak and confusing our investor protection laws are today," said Tom Matzzie, president of Accountable America, a group pressing for deeper reform in the financial industry. "Very little has changed from before the Madoff frauds until today."