How About Some Regulation For Washington?


In the midst of attempting to take copious financial regulatory measures, officials in Washington might be forgetting something very key: regulating themselves. The Wall Street Journal today has one of those articles that I really hate to read. It provides a discouraging update to the news that Countrywide -- formerly the largest U.S. mortgage company -- had a special VIP club, in which some public officials enjoyed benefits not provided to average Americans. This serves as the perfect example of why we should be worried about the too cozy relationship between finance and Washington. But it gets worse.

The WSJ reports:

The discovery that Countrywide Financial Corp. recorded phone conversations with borrowers in a controversial mortgage program that included public officials -- and that those recordings have been destroyed -- has prompted new congressional calls for more information about the program.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is trying to subpoena the remaining records of Countrywide's VIP loan program. So far, the committee's chairman, New York Democratic Rep. Edolphus Towns, has turned down that request.

Of course, one of those VIPs was none other than Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. How is there any reasonable basis for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to ignore this program? Isn't looking into such problems exactly the kind of thing it should be doing?

There were many causes of the financial crisis. One major cause was regulatory measures being insufficient or unenforced. Another important one was credit being too easy. The government plays a part in both of those aspects of the market. Couldn't it matter if officials were a little too sympathetic to making sure mortgage companies had all the advantages they needed to overheat the market?

As a result, I'd suggest another important regulatory goal: better transparency between the financial industry and Washington officials. Bureaucrat or Congressman, staffer or speechwriter, any influential public official should have virtually no privacy when it comes to their financial affairs. Government oversight should be able to demand full records of any deals, whether investments, real estate or business. This goes far beyond the question of whether public officials ought to receive special perks. It speaks to the fact that such fringe benefits can directly or indirectly affect the market, and ultimately, the American people.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Daniel Indiviglio was an associate editor at The Atlantic from 2009 through 2011. He is now the Washington, D.C.-based columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. He is also a 2011 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow through the Phillips Foundation. More

Indiviglio has also written for Forbes. Prior to becoming a journalist, he spent several years working as an investment banker and a consultant.
Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Why Did I Study Physics?

In this hand-drawn animation, a college graduate explains why she chose her major—and what it taught her about herself.

Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus


Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion


What If Emoji Lived Among Us?

A whimsical ad imagines what life would be like if emoji were real.


Living Alone on a Sailboat

"If you think I'm a dirtbag, then you don't understand the lifestyle."


How Is Social Media Changing Journalism?

How new platforms are transforming radio, TV, print, and digital


The Place Where Silent Movies Sing

How an antique, wind-powered pipe organ brings films to life


The Future of Iced Coffee

Are artisan businesses like Blue Bottle doomed to fail when they go mainstream?



More in Business

Just In