New Banking SuperPac

by Jeff Sovern

The American Bankers Association already has its BankPac, which ranks ninth in spending in the current election cycle, and there's also the Credit Union National Association, which has spent even more than BankPac, but that's apparently not enough for some bankers.  They have created a SuperPac, Friends of Traditional Banking.  Its website explains:

Everyone knows that traditional banks didn't cause the economic crisis, but that didn't stop Congress from heaping massive new regulations on them and their customers.

The American Banker has more:

"Congress isn't afraid of bankers," adds Roger Beverage, the president and CEO of the Oklahoma Bankers Association. "They don't think we'll do anything to kick them out of office. We are trying to change that perception."

* * *

[Independent Community Bankers of America] President and CEO Cam Fine is enthusiastic about the effort.

"I am for any PAC that is going to defeat our enemies," Fine says. "I agree with Howard [Headlee, president and chief executive officer of the Utah Bankers Association] on this. More power to him. I hope he raises a lot of money and hammers these guys."

* * *

"Clearly there are Members of Congress who have absolutely no reservations about kicking traditional banks in the teeth, and we are tired of it," says Headlee. "We've got to be able to defend the folks who have the courage to stand up for us as well."

Where are the SuperPacs--or ordinary Pacs, for that matter--for consumers?

Who Owns Data About You?

David Lazarus at the LA Times makes the claim that you do, and that businesses like Facebook don't (or, at least, shouldn't). As he puts it:

The FTC also wants Congress to enact laws giving consumers the right to know what sort of information private-sector data brokers are amassing about them. Such companies create files on millions of people based on information from public databases and other sources, and then sell those files to marketers and other business interests. Consumers should indeed be able to find out what's being bought and sold in connection with their names, so lawmakers should act on the FTC's proposal. But I'd take this whole thing a big step further. I propose a law explicitly declaring that a person's personal information belongs to that person, not to the companies it's shared with. Aside from whatever uses are required for routine order fulfillment, no use of anyone's information would be authorized without that person's upfront consent. Businesses of course would be gob-smacked by the very thought of losing control over customers' data, and would no doubt fight aggressively to maintain the status quo. The depth of Facebook's pockets would become clear very quickly. (emphasis added)

Michael Helfand Paper Reads Concepcion Narrowly

Michael A. Helfand 

of Pepperdine has written Purpose, Precedent, and Politics: Why Concepcion Covers Less than You Think, 4 Yearbook on Arbitration & Mediation (2012).  Here's the abstract:

This article sketches some possible limitations on the impact AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion will have going forward. While many have seen the Supreme Court’s decision as simultaneously signaling an end to the viability of class action lawsuits and undermining principles of federalism, there may be reasons to believe that it will not have implications quite so far reaching. Specifically, this article proposes three reasons why Concepcion’s impact may be limited. First, the decision lends itself to a more narrow reading, which simply demands that courts take the entire of an arbitration agreement into account before deploying common law defenses to render them invalid. Second, Justice Thomas’s concurrence may limit the precedential value of Concepcion by narrowing the Court’s holding to cases where the defense speaks to the revocation of an otherwise valid agreement as opposed to where the defense speaks to a failure of the agreement’s formation. Third, state courts may demonstrate increasing willingness to chip away at Concepcion by narrowly construing its holding. Such a willingness may flow from a recognition that Concepcion’s five-justice majority is deeply divided on the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act to state courts, making it unlikely that the Court would ever reverse state court decisions that employed aggressive use of state laws to invalidate an arbitration agreement.

Jeff Gelles on the Affordable Care Act

Here.  I also like Paul Krugman's analogy to Medicare; if the ACA is unconstitutional, how can Medicare be constitutional?  It's not like people can opt out of paying into Medicare.

President Obama Signs STOCK Act

President Obama today signed the STOCK Act. STOCK stands for "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge."  On March 23, after both houses of Congresses had passed the legislation, the New York Times explained the gist of the Act:

The bill prohibits members of Congress from trading stocks and other securities on the basis of confidential information they receive as lawmakers. It makes clear that the insider trading ban in federal law applies to members of Congress and their aides and to officials in the executive and judicial branches of the federal government. In addition, the bill requires lawmakers to disclose the purchase or sale of stocks, bonds, commodities futures and other securities within 45 days of transactions, rather than once a year as they now do. The information will be posted on the Web.

The bill was prompted by a devastating 60-minutes report on congressional insider trading.

American Banker Articles on Debt Collection Practices

by Jeff Sovern

The American Banker has run a couple of pieces on debt collection practices here and here.  The headline of one article says a lot by itself: Bank of America Sold Card Debts to Collectors Despite Faulty Records.  The articles have in turn drawn attention from Joe Nocera of The New York Times ("Why People Hate the Banks"), and a couple of my favorite bloggers, Ed Mierzwinski ("Banks Still Run Amok"), and Bob Lawless at Credit Slips ("One Answer to Why People Hate Banks").

My comment will be modest. The American Banker states:

B of A was not making "any representations, warranties, promises, covenants, agreements, or guaranties of any kind or character whatsoever" about the accuracy or completeness of the debts' records, according to a 2010 credit card sales agreement submitted to a California state court in a civil suit involving debt that B of A had sold to CACH.

* * * It also stated that some of the claims it sold might already have been extinguished in bankruptcy court. B of A has additionally cautioned that it might be selling loans whose balances are "approximate" or that consumers have already paid back in full.

When a debt collector attempts to collect a debt that it knows might already have been paid back in full or extinguished, or the balance of which is approximate, and states the amount of the debt to the consumer--which surely debt collection requires--wouldn't that be a false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of the debt, in violation of section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act? 

 

Fannie and Freddie Making Charitable Contributions

Over at Credit Slips, Adam Levitin has this interesting post on Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's continuing charitable largesse despite being insolvent and in receivership. Levitin thinks that corporate giving may be a bad idea at any time because it arguably benefits corporate managers (and obviously some charities) at the expense of shareholders. But why, he asks, in light of Fannie and Freddie's circumstances, is this charitable money continuing to pour out of Fannie and Freddie (to the tune of $219 million from 2008 to 2011)?

A Guide for Sports Fans: Fair Use in Posting Video Clips from Games

by Paul Alan Levy

Inspired by last week's set-to with Major League Soccer about its DMCA takedown of a video clip that showed the league in a bad light, I have posted a Guide to Fair Use for fans' reference.  Indeed, given the churlish insistence by the league's president that they have the right to do similar takedowns in the future, maybe this is free legal advice for MLS about what they had better NOT do next time.

(Prior) Republican Support for the Individual Mandate

This column by Ezra Klein provides more detail about Republican support for the individual mandate before politics intervened.

Mark Budnitz on the Development of Consumer Protection Law

Mark Budnitz has posted The Development of Consumer Protection Law, the Institutionalization of Consumerism, and Future Prospects and Perils, 26 Georgia State Law Review 1147 (2010) to the web.  Here is the abstract:

The article examines major developments in the statutes, regulations and Supreme Court cases that have regulated consumer financial services since 1969. Major victories and defeats in the battle for laws protecting consumers are described. Consumer protection law is analyzed within the context of consumerism and its role as a movement for social change and law reform. The article describes the development of a permanent organizational structure for engaging in consumer law reform. This development has resulted in the institutionalization of consumerism and its values have become embedded in society’s values, better ensuring its survival. Finally, the article explores the prospects of the continued development of strong consumer protection law and the perils it faces in the future.