Category: Chris Dodd

Dodd Caps Executive Compensation to TARP Companies

I’m very happy to see that my former boss, Senator Chris Dodd, has gone out and done the right thing over administration objections. The New York Times reports:

A provision buried deep inside the $787 billion economic stimulus bill would impose restrictions on executive bonuses at financial institutions that are much tougher than those proposed 10 days ago by the Treasury Department.

The provision, inserted by Senate Democrats over the objections of the Obama administration, is aimed at companies that have received financial bailout funds. It would prohibit cash bonuses and almost all other incentive compensation for the five most senior officers and the 20 highest-paid executives at large companies that receive money under the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

The stimulus package was approved by the House on Friday, then by the Senate in the late evening.

The pay restrictions resemble those that the Treasury Department announced this month, but are likely to ensnare more executives at many more companies and also to cut more deeply into the bonuses that often account for the bulk of annual pay.

The restriction with the most bite would bar top executives from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay. Any bonus would have to be in the form of long-term incentives, like restricted stock, which could not be cashed out until the TARP money was repaid in full.

The provision, written by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, highlighted the growing wrath among lawmakers and voters over the lavish compensation that top Wall Street firms and big banks awarded to senior executives at the same time that many of the companies, teetering on the brink of insolvency, received taxpayer-paid bailouts.

“The decisions of certain Wall Street executives to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers have seriously undermined public confidence,” Mr. Dodd said Friday. “These tough new rules will help ensure that taxpayer dollars no longer effectively subsidize lavish Wall Street bonuses.”

Top economic advisers to President Obama adamantly opposed the pay restrictions, according to Congressional officials, warning lawmakers behind closed doors that they went too far and would cause a brain drain in the financial industry during an acute crisis. Another worry is the tougher restrictions may encourage executives to more quickly pay back the government’s investments since, in a compromise with the financial industry, banks no longer have to replace federal funds with private capital. That could remove an extra capital cushion, further reducing lending.

The key with Dodd’s provision is that it sets the caps retroactively and not just moving forward. A lot of corporations who took billions from the taxpayer coffers and spent substantially on their executives, and not on getting the economy moving forward, are going to have to give the money back. This is meaningful accountability and it shows that the US government will not tolerate rewarding people who ran their companies into the ground and then came begging for cash from Uncle Sam.

This is an important part of the stimulus legislation. It would be deeply disappointing if the administration tried to cut it out or nullify it in any way.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

One of the things that was most frustrating working for and with Chris Dodd during the course of the FISA fight is that while the blogosphere and a few rare liberal pundits (Keith Olbermann comes to mind) gave Dodd credit for standing up to the Bush administration and defending the rule of law, the mainstream press basically ignored his role in delaying retroactive immunity for telecom companies that illegally spied on Americans. Most big outlets focused their coverage of the Democratic Senate’s actions on FISA focused on Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy (as Judiciary chair), Jay Rockefeller, and Intelligence and Judiciary committee members like Ron Wyden, Russ Feingold, and Sheldon Whitehouse. While these were all key players in the legislative process, none of them did what Dodd did (while some actively fought against Dodd’s principled and lawful stand). I attribute the refusal of organizations like the New York Times and Washington Post to give Dodd his due were based on the fact that he wasn’t on either of the relevant committees and was running a presidential campaign. They just didn’t want to give him coverage, so instead of practicing good journalism, they largely ignored Chris Dodd’s role in trying to single-handedly stop bad FISA legislation.

I write all of this as preface to a piece by Ryan Singel of Wired’s Threat Level blog that came out yesterday. In writing about the current legal fight going on over the validity of the legislation passed last summer over Dodd’s objections, Singel ends up giving Dodd the greatest degree of credit for his work I have seen coming from any mainstream media outlet. Here is the first portion of Singel’s post:

The constitutionality of retroactive immunity for telecoms that helped Bush spy on Americans got its day in court Tuesday, a little less than a year after senator Christopher Dodd all but shuttered Congress with an ultimately futile one-man stand against the idea.

Tuesday’s courtroom showdown in San Francisco lacked the fireworks of Dodd’s fiery oration, but the judge handling the case gave some indication that he may take over as the one-man anti-immunity crusader.

“In essence that gives the attorney general carte blanche to immunize anyone.” Walker said, wondering what odd creature Congress had fashioned. “What other statute is like this statute?”

Lawyers for the Electronic Frontier Foundation told Walker that Congress had no right to give the attorney general a magic wand to make cases against the telecoms go away just by telling the judge a little bit about what happened. The group is suing AT&T for helping the government spy on Americans’ internet and phone usage.

“We have a right to an injunction against the telecoms,” EFF’s legal director Cindy Cohn said. “They are the gatekeepers … They have an independent duty to protect Americans’ privacy.”

A Democratically-controlled Congress bowed to election-year political pressures in the summer, legalizing much of the formerly lawless spying and creating a get-out-jail-card for the telecoms being sued for helping with the spying. [Emphasis added]

Dodd never got the credit he deserved outside the liberal blogosphere. It’s great to see that some journalists haven’t forgotten Chris Dodd’s role in the FISA fight. I’m glad Ryan Singel took the time to write Dodd into this post; he didn’t have to, but it was the right thing to do. Credit where credit is due to both Dodd and Singel.

Dodd on Ending the Primary and the Media’s Role In Prolonging It

Via TRex, my guy Chris Dodd is speaking out with an eye towards resolving the Democratic nominating process.

Look, we’ve got five more months to go before the Democratic convention at the end of August and, candidly, we cannot go five more months with the kind of daily sniping that’s going on and have a candidate emerge in that convention. My hope is that it will be Barack Obama, but if it’s Hillary Clinton, she too will suffer, in my view, from this kind of a campaign that I think is undermining the credibility and the quality of the two candidates that we have. We have two very strong candidates. So I’m worried about this going on endlessly and to a large extent, Linda, the media, a lot of these cable networks, are enjoying this. It’s what is keeping them alive financially. The fact that this thing is going on forever, back and forth every day, all night — I don’t think it’s really helping the candidates or the political institutions.

Asked about the solution to ending the race:

Dodd: Well, the solution is — look, we’ve got a contest coming up in Pennsylvania and one in North Carolina and Indiana very quickly afterwards. In my view, the outcome of those three races will determine — I think the race has been determined, anyway, at this point. I think it’s very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can’t be the nominee of the party. I think that’s a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are.

But certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion. And in the absence of doing that — and that’s not easy, and I realize it’s painful. But the alternatives, allowing this sort of to fester over the months of June, and July and August, I think, are irresponsible. I think you have to make a decision, and hopefully the candidates will respect it and people will rally behind a nominee that, I think, emerges from these contests over the next month. That’s my suggestion. That’s what I would do. [Emphasis added]

Dodd has endorsed Obama and though he’s honest about that support here, I think he’s also recognizing a reality of the numbers that the Clinton campaign has largely resisted. I agree with Dodd that if there is a way for the Democratic Party’s national leaders – Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Chris Van Hollen – to step into the process and bring it to a resolution that gives clarity as to who our nominee is based on the results of the primaries, they do have an obligation to do so and failing to do so would be “irresponsible.” Keep in mind that Dodd was the DNC Chair from 1995-1997, so he knows what he’s asking of the Party’s leadership and I am certain that he does not take this challenge lightly.

I also think Dodd’s media analysis here is incredibly sharp. Here it is again:

the media, a lot of these cable networks, are enjoying this. It’s what is keeping them alive financially. The fact that this thing is going on forever, back and forth every day, all night — I don’t think it’s really helping the candidates or the political institutions.

I don’t recall any elected Democrat putting this sort of argument forward. It sounds more like Digby or Eric Boehlert than, say, the final two candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. If more Democrats had this sort of analysis, what campaigns choose to make issues with each other (such as who must be fired today and who must be denounced) might look different than the way things currently work. Kudos for your sharp analysis Senator Dodd.

Dodd on Cuba

Senator Dodd has an op-ed in the Miami Herald today on US-Cuba policy. Of note, Dodd lays out a vision for steps the US government could take to hasten the democratization of Cuba.

We should:

  • Act decisively to end trade sanctions. This means repealing the ill-conceived Helms-Burton and Cuba Democracy Acts, as well as amending the Trade Sanctions Reform Act. With the embargo lifted, our businesses will have access to Cuban markets, our struggling farmers will find more buyers for their crops, and Cuba will gain extensive exposure to American culture.
  • Break down the artificial barriers keeping Cuban Americans apart from their families in Cuba. Lifting caps on remittances and travel restrictions will speed the influx of democratic values — and reduce an unnecessary hardship on Americans who want merely to assist their families overseas. Currently, the mail doesn’t even travel regularly between the United States and Cuba, let alone passengers. As we lift travel restrictions, we should also begin negotiating regularly scheduled flights.
  • Open an American embassy in Havana. If we want any influence over Cuba during this crucial time, we must practice robust diplomacy.There’s no better way to do that than having skilled diplomats pressing our interests in Havana, at all times and in person.

Ending sanctions, connecting families and strengthening diplomacy — this new policy of Cuban engagement is the most constructive response to Castro’s demise. Some in the Bush administration might call such a policy ”soft” — but that represents the same mind-set that thought we could bomb our way to democracy in the Middle East.

For far too long, American isolation has cemented a Cuban dictatorship. Today, that dictatorship may finally be starting to crack; how we seize this opportunity will determine whether it crumbles.

Patrick Doherty of The Havana Note writes:

The real question is whether one of the candidates for president will pick up on Sen. Dodd’s argument that the U.S. embargo is really the backbone of the Castro regime. Simply removing that crutch, he argues, will do more to advance U.S. interests than just about anything else. If that’s the case, any candidate in favor of sustaining the embargo, even conditioning U.S. policy on democratic change on the island, is really just being played by Havana.

I think this is right. Dodd put forward the most ground-changing vision for US-Cuba policy during the presidential campaign. He’s continuing to offer the clearest vision for how we must proceed. I hope Senators Obama and Clinton embrace Dodd’s stance on Cuba. It would be a welcome contrast to John W. McCain’s continued love for a policy that has been a failure for 50 years.

Infrastructure, Obama, & Dodd

Harry Moroz has a post on the DMI Blog about the need for a national infrastructure bank as a means of building a lasting system for improving, maintaining, and creating our infrastructure:

The National Infrastructure Bank is a first step in creating a coherent vision of American infrastructure. First, the use of bonds – rather than a pay-as-you-go system that relies on yearly revenues – allows the federal government to develop a stable, long-term strategy for economic growth based on infrastructure improvements. Such a financing stream is less subject to political whims and to revenues, which fluctuate with the economy and with legislative action (and inaction). Second, federal funding for infrastructure – in particular, for the transportation system – is often diverted by state governments to other (sometimes) worthy, yet non-infrastructure, projects. Puentes of Brookings points out that the Government Accountability Office has called the federal transportation fund a “cash transfer, general purpose grant program,” and that “the U.S. code neuters the federal role and states specifically that the appropriation of highway funds ‘shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which projects shall be federally financed.’” The National Infrastructure Bank would ensure that federal funds are used by state and local governments for specific infrastructure projects, rather than diverted to make up for, say, underfunded federal mandates.

Perhaps most importantly, the selection criteria required by the National Infrastructure Bank would encourage the federal government to undertake projects that are significant to the country’s long-term well-being: rather than stop-gap measures to repair existing problems, such projects would take into account new challenges like climate change, the growing importance of urban areas, and the need for more affordable housing, while at the same time confronting the more typical concerns associated with economic growth (increased air, highway, and port traffic). A database with details about each infrastructure project and its funding would provide at least some public oversight.

The National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007 (S. 1926), introduced by Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel, would go a long way towards solving America’s infrastructure construction needs. David Sirota recently noted that Barack Obama had unveiled a similar plan for an infrastructure bank, with the duel goals of adding two million new jobs and building a better giving America the system of roads, bridges, and tunnels that we deserve. Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton, are now both co-sponsors of the Dodd bill,  S. 1926,  a sign that there is will at the top of the Democratic Party for better using money currently spent rebuilding Iraq to rebuild America.

Dodd for Obama

Video via Scarce.

A bit over a month ago I wrote a post on the upsides of Dodd as a vice presidential pick for Barack Obama. I thought it’d be worth going through the upside of that again today.

Dodd’s experience would be a tremendous asset for any of our nominees. From two and a half decades on the Foreign Relations Committee and extensive work negotiating ends to wars in Latin America and Northern Ireland, to one of the longest resumes of landmark domestic legislation with his name on it, to longtime experience monitoring the financial sector, Dodd brings tangible experience as a guy who gets things done in Washington. If a large part of Obama’s critique of DC partisanship preventing our government from getting substantive results for the good of the country, Dodd stands clearly as an example of someone who has been able to build bipartisan consensus around progressive Democratic principles. That strikes me as valuable.

A post-Cheney VP will have to redefine the role of the office (as well as reaffirm its existence as part of the executive branch). But that doesn’t mean that we need to regress to Dan Quayle contradicting school children on the spelling of “potato.” I don’t see inherent harm in structuring an administration in such a way that the other elected member of the executive branch plays a formative role in governance outside the halls of the Senate.

If I were Barack Obama, I would establish the role of his VP in advance of being elected and use it as a hammering point on the campaign trail. In the case of Dodd, the natural role would be as the person tasked with bottom lining the success of Obama’s legislative agenda. Obama and his policy team should pick what they want to get done in his first term and then hand the ball off to Vice President Dodd to get it done. Be up front about it: Dodd will quarterback Obama’s legislative agenda and he will get it done.

I think it’s an easy sell (but then again, I’m something of a partisan). In Obama’s narrative, change is a means to secure results. The Dodd campaign was largely framed around his career of getting results, so he could slot in on the back-end of the Obama message with relative ease while not taking away from the primacy of Obama’s change candidacy. In this scenario, Dodd is Obama’s answer to how he will ensure that an Obama presidency can bring change. Obama will be able to answer questions of his ability to get results in DC with extreme confidence, “What, are you kidding me? Dodd’s my guy – together we’ll get it done. I trust him and he’s extremely well respected on both sides of the aisle in DC. If you don’t think VP Dodd will get it done, you don’t know a one thing about Washington.”

In short, I agree with [Douglas Burns of the Iowa Independent] that Dodd probably adds a tremendous amount to an Obama ticket. I’m not going to go into the comparative merits of Dodd over any other Democrat out there (though I cringe at Burns’ list including two prominent Republicans, Dick Lugar and Bobby Jindal). This is an exercise in pure political speculation.

I’ll say now what I said a month ago: I do not know if Dodd would seek or accept a spot on Barack Obama’s ticket (or Hillary Clinton’s). This is just my analysis of what makes Dodd an attractive VP pick for Obama and what role Dodd could play on the campaign trail and in an Obama administration.

A look at some of the likely downsides of Dodd as the lower-half of an Obama-Dodd ticket can be seen here, though I’m mostly rebutting likely Beltway press narratives.

Update:

Dodd on being VP:

Dodd told ABC News he has no interest in the second slot on the Democratic ticket.

“Who would want to be vice president?” Dodd chuckled.

But remember the rule for vice presidential candidates is they’re not allowed to every show the slightest interest in the job until it’s offered to them, remarkably out of the blue as if no one had realized that the VP would have to be selected from a small number of qualified Democrats. It’s profoundly silly, but that’s those are the rules and Dodd is playing by them.

Update II:

Here’s the full video of Dodd’s speech

Obama on the Constitution, Dodd

Yes, please:

We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.

The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law.

It’s time to reject torture without equivocation. It’s time to close Guantanamo and to restore habeas corpus. It’s time to give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to track down and take out terrorists, while ensuring that their actions are subject to vigorous oversight that protects our freedom. So let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States.

Finally, it’s time to once again inspire this nation to rally behind a common purpose – a higher purpose. Throughout his campaign, Senator Dodd spoke eloquently about the need to turn the page to a new era of public service. That is the legacy of his own family – the legacy of a father who stood up to the Nazis at Nuremberg, and a young man who enlisted in the Peace Corps after he heard President Kennedy’s call to service on a cold Inauguration Day.

Hat tip to Dean Barker for highlighting this passage. I’d read the full speech earlier today but had only linked to it. This passage was definitely worthy of more attention, though.

Dodd to Endorse Obama Today

And he’ll be hitting the campaign trail with Obama.

After a prolonged silence through most of the primary season, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd is rejoining the presidential race on somebody else’s team — Sen. Barack Obama’s.

The Connecticut senator, whose own presidential campaign failed to draw enough attention to propel him past the first contest in Iowa, is expected to announce his endorsement of Obama this morning, according to a Democratic official close to Dodd. He’ll then campaign with Obama in Ohio.

Obama’s campaign hopes that the March 4 primaries in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island will be the victory that clinches the Democratic nomination for him. When he faces Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in another debate tonight — the last before these pending primaries — he’ll do it with Dodd in his corner.

It’s unclear what Dodd’s task will be with the campaign or whether he’ll be hitting those last two New England states still awaiting primaries next week. But if Obama eventually gets the nomination, Connecticut’s two senators will be in opposing campaigns. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is one of Republican Sen. John McCain’s staunchest allies.

What I find particularly interesting is that Dodd is first former Democratic presidential candidate to endorse. Biden, Richardson, Edwards, and Kucinich have all withheld their endorsement until now. In contrast, I think every Republican presidential candidate of note who dropped out of the primary, quickly endorsed another candidate.

Eric Kleefield of TPM Election Central says Dodd will be campaigning with Obama in Ohio.

Update:

The text of Dodd’s email to supporters is here. Obama’s speech accepting Dodd’s endorsement is here.