Visa's courtship of Nansy Pelosi

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
We hear so often its the GOP that tries so hard to protect big business...is influenced by back room deals...etc. This article pretty much sums up what many of us on this board have said...GOP and Dem's are just as corruptable. It's really not that the GOP is worse, but partisan blinders prevent many here from seeing the truth: The Dems cater to big business, make backroom deals, and are just as corruptable.

Visa's courtship of Nansy Pelosi

Visa has long bragged about its rewards program for consumers. So when its lucrative swipe fees got caught in the congressional crosshairs a few years back, the credit-card giant developed a special program for then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to feel its influence.

The lobbying campaign, reconstructed by Newsweek through interviews and documents, speaks volumes about the efforts of big business to curry favor, even among perceived enemies. It also shows how such efforts can personally and politically benefit politicians, even ones like Pelosi who set out to suffocate the “culture of corruption” in Washington or ultimately didn’t give Visa what it wanted.

The tale begins in 2007, when the credit-card industry became concerned that the new Democrats who took charge of Congress after the 2006 elections were intent on passing legislation to curtail credit-card swipe fees to vendors, which were worth billions of dollars in revenues in the industry, and to create new protections for consumers.

Visa had never been particularly close to Pelosi, a frequent critic of the financial industry, even though the credit-card giant’s headquarters were in her hometown of San Francisco.

Visa wanted to meet with Pelosi and her top aides to make the case against the swipe fees. That summer Visa’s outgoing CEO, Carl Pascarella, bumped into Pelosi on the street in the San Francisco neighborhood they share, and she arranged for him to contact her Washington office for a meet-and-greet, according to sources families with the encounter.

Around the same time—on July 21, 2008, to be exact—Pelosi’s reelection campaign received a $1,000 donation from Visa’s political-action committee. Two days later, according to Pelosi’s office, the speaker met Pascarella and the incoming Visa chief executive, Joe Saunders, in her Capitol Hill office. The three exchanged pleasantries and no specific legislation was discussed, according to Pelosi’s office.
Aguillen, for his part, also contributed $1,000 to Pelosi and another $1,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee during the first half of 2008.

Separately, Pelosi’s husband, Paul, a major investor in California, got a lucrative phone call—a pre-screen invite in March 2008 to take part in Visa’s $17.9 billion public stock offering, at the time one of the hottest stock offerings in an otherwise soft market. The initial-public-offering price was $44 per share and was limited to institutional investors and a group of specially selected individuals. Almost $18 billion was made available in public stock to preselected investors. Paul Pelosi made the cut.

Paul Pelosi initially bought 5,000 shares at the $44 initial price. Within a couple of days, the shares' value soared to $64. Paul Pelosi purchased 15,000 more shares over the next three months, at much higher prices. The total quantity was valued as high as $5 million, according to the then-speaker’s financial-disclosure form. In late 2008, when the stock market soured, Pelosi sold 1,000 of the first IPO shares for a meager profit of $2,500 to $5,000, records show. He has kept the other 19,000 shares, which now are valued at $95 each.

Several bills affecting credit providers snaked through the House in 2008, including one introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) that would have ended the swipe fees, the small percentage that credit companies like Visa charge with every transaction. Another bill by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), affording significant new protection to credit-card holders, passed the House but did not make it through the Senate. Conyers’s legislation passed his House Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support on Oct. 3, 2008, the last day lawmakers were in office before leaving to campaign for the election, but was not brought to the floor, which Pelosi controlled as speaker.

Pelosi tried for consumer protections in 2008, but the next year she put more muscle behind the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, a bill that gave new protections to consumers and was opposed by the credit-card industry. The bill was entirely devoted to preventing consumer exploitation, and swipe fees were not included, a victory of sorts for the industry.

When confronted earlier this month at a press conference about the delay in swipe fees, Pelosi said the House waited to act on the swipe fees until “we had a president that could sign the bill.” Her spokesman Hammill says it is preposterous to think Visa’s lobbying or the stock purchases had any influence on the speaker’s legislative actions.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
Everyone knows politicians on both sides of the isle are corrupt and liars. It's just that some are unwilling to admit it.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,787
6,035
136
Both sides are bought and paid for, have been for a long time. Get rid of all lobbyists.

The huge growth of lobbyists occurred during Saint Ronnie's reign.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Pelosi is a piece of shit, I have been so confused for years why those fucking morons north of me keep voting her in. Goddamn hippies with blinders on, idealism ruins the world.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,025
47,985
136
While I agree that anyone in Congress is corruptible, I find it strange to use an example of industry pressure to prevent limits on credit card swipe fees, considering the Nancy Pelosi run House passed just such a bill and all.

You can say that they won a delay as the article insinuates, but I would tend to agree with her that Bush would have been unlikely to sign such a bill, so in the end it looks like they really didn't buy much at all?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,879
11,278
136
The American political system...the best money can (and does) buy.

"We the People" have been sold out. It's now about "We the Corporations."
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
While I agree that anyone in Congress is corruptible, I find it strange to use an example of industry pressure to prevent limits on credit card swipe fees, considering the Nancy Pelosi run House passed just such a bill and all.

You can say that they won a delay as the article insinuates, but I would tend to agree with her that Bush would have been unlikely to sign such a bill, so in the end it looks like they really didn't buy much at all?

And the other side of the coin is that the Pelosi household has already profited. Quite a bit.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,072
1,476
126
I don't think you'll find many people in these forums defending Pelosi. Even among liberals. She's always been one of those "do as I say not as I do" people with a sense of entitlement that just makes it hard to like her.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
85
91
Why the Nancy hate? What she did was legal. Members of congress are exempt from insider trading laws... so even if there was some conflict of interest there... we just need to accept it.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Why the Nancy hate? What she did was legal. Members of congress are exempt from insider trading laws... so even if there was some conflict of interest there... we just need to accept it.

No one ever needs to accept it. You have the right to vote for someone other than Pelosi. And most people have the right to run against Pelosi themselves.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Why the Nancy hate? What she did was legal. Members of congress are exempt from insider trading laws... so even if there was some conflict of interest there... we just need to accept it.

And making billions on capital gains from trading credit default swaps is legal too. No big deal? As was waterboarding several years ago?

Im cool with it if you are ;)
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
And the other side of the coin is that the Pelosi household has already profited. Quite a bit.

That's interesting, but like Eskimospy said, I don't see the quid pro quo here. If it didn't influence her legislative action, what is the issue here? BTW, I think in general democrats are corruptible just as are republicans.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I wish justin Raimondo had beat her ass in 96. Too bad the dishonest almost always win and the honest almost always lose.

Still, the reason so many people in SF vote for her is partially because they want to keep their money while trying to make people think that they're trying to help the poor.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
14
81
This we agree on. The problem is, who's going to make this kind of stuff illegal, the very crooks who are profiting from it now??

Maybe people that are bitching about the system being rigged aren't so crazy then?
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,025
47,985
136
And the other side of the coin is that the Pelosi household has already profited. Quite a bit.

I'm really not sure how that's the other side of the coin at all. I'm certain there are lots of cases of bribery/unwarranted influence/whatever that we can come up with, but it seems quite odd to hold up as a totem of government corruption a case where it appears that the corrupting influence had no effect on legislation.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
That's interesting, but like Eskimospy said, I don't see the quid pro quo here. If it didn't influence her legislative action, what is the issue here? BTW, I think in general democrats are corruptible just as are republicans.

If is the key word, no?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
I'm really not sure how that's the other side of the coin at all. I'm certain there are lots of cases of bribery/unwarranted influence/whatever that we can come up with, but it seems quite odd to hold up as a totem of government corruption a case where it appears that the corrupting influence had no effect on legislation.

Appears to whom? You?