Are the banks buying off Obama's SEC, continuing a decades-long practice w/ the WH?

[brentspeak]

Obama's SEC isn't the first White House SEC that appears to be in rigged collusion with Wall Street, but it seems to to be continuing the past 20-30 years practice of arranging sweetheart settlements for banks that have caused far more in damages than they are paying out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081604807.html

Judge balks at SEC's settlement with Citigroup

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Tuesday, August 17, 2010

A federal judge refused on Monday to accept a $75 million settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup, marking the second time this year that a judge has questioned whether the agency had exacted the proper sanction from a major bank.

During a hearing on the settlement, Judge Ellen S. Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia raised questions about the SEC's investigation into Citigroup, and how it decided on the size of the penalty and on the individual executives who also face sanctions, according to lawyers who were present. She asked why company shareholders must ultimately bear the price of the sanction, and why the agency charged only two executives with wrongdoing when more senior executives were involved.

snip

The judge's action is the latest setback for the agency as it tries to show it can hold major Wall Street firms and their executives accountable for actions that might have fueled the financial crisis. Last year, a federal judge in New York pilloried the SEC over its settlement with Bank of America of charges that the bank did not disclose mounting losses and plans to pay billions of dollars in bonuses to employees.

In rejecting the SEC's initial $33 million Bank of America settlement, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York was incredulous about the agreement. He said it suggested "a rather cynical relationship between the parties" in which the SEC would get to say it was penalizing a big bank and Bank of America could avoid a protracted fight with one of its regulators.

[midnight]

1. The more I hear/read about these bank dealings, the more

confounded I am that the American tax payer seems to be operating without any real consumer protectionism.

[Hansel]

2. No. 4/5 ths of the current SEC commission was appointed by GW Bush.

So it's not exactly Obama's SEC. But you have never been one to let facts get in the way of a perfectly good attack.

[brentspeak]

3. Obama's hand-picked SEC Commission chair was the same Wall St. stooge on Clinton's SEC

who helped thwart proper regulation of the derivatives market:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_L._Schapiro

In October 1993, Schapiro gave a speech in Lugano, Switzerland, "The Derivatives Revolution and the World Financial System," concerning potential regulation of the unregulated derivatives market in which she cited "the benefits to financial innovation that may result from a more flexible regulatory paradigm," and stated that she was "not convinced that consolidated regulatory supervision of securities firms and their affiliates is necessary or appropriate at this time."

And as SEC commissioner, Schapiro alone is responsible for the sweetheart negotiated settlements with BoA and Citi. Eliot Spitzer rakes her over the coals http://www.slate.com/id/2249403">here.

Obama appointed Schapiro as SEC chair. She calls the SEC shots. Therefore, this is Obama's SEC.