OFA and Communications

President Barack Obama and his fellow Progressives are reorganizing their Obama for America group into a tax-exempt group to be called Organizing for Action, whose purpose is to generate grass roots support for President Barack Obama’s policies and goals over the next four years.  This is relatively old news; John McKinnon and Colleen McCain Nelson have one description of this in a recent Wall Street Journal article.

The problem with this, IMNSHO, is not so much the potential for this group to facilitate Obama’s working his will on our nation.  It’s more centered on the Republicans’ reaction to it.  As McKinnon and Nelson write,

At a House GOP retreat this week, Republican leaders discussed their concern that Mr Obama’s group would be used to generate grassroots activism for Democratic issues.

Well, duh, as the kids say.  You guys are incompetent communicators.  Instead of whining that the Progressives are planning on talking to folks and generating grassroots support for their policies and goals (how unfair is that!?), you should be asking yourselves why you’re not talking to folks and generating grassroots support for your own policies and goals.

Then,

Republicans also say Mr Obama could overplay his hand by appearing to be more focused on campaigning than governing.  A spokesman for Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell [R, KY] said the OFA announcement is “the next step” in a pattern of the administration campaigning while in office that Mr McConnell has criticized repeatedly.

Catch up and pay attention, Mitch.  That “campaign instead of governing” plaint was a major beef of Republicans all last summer and fall—and before.  Nobody cares.  Except the Progressives, for whom it’s been working for the last few years.

Quit bellyaching and start talking and start governing.  You control the House of Representatives.  You’re a powerful minority in the Senate.  Start acting like it.

An Out of Control CFPB?

But we knew that would be the case with a budget funded by on-demand calls to the Treasury and a deliberate lack of Congressional oversight.  Here are three examples, from Skadden Arps, the “second best global law firm,” according to Spirit of Enterprise.  In each case, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau imposed enforcement orders that charged both restitution payments and civil penalties for the miscreancies that wanted restitution.  Those miscreancies generally centered on “deceptive marketing and sales practices” and “deceptive debt collection practices.”

Capital One: Required to pay $140 million in restitution and a $25 million civil penalty.  The penalty was nearly 18% of the restitution.

Discover Bank: Required to pay $200 million in restitution and a $14 million civil penalty.  The penalty was 7% of the restitution.

American Express: Required to pay $85 million in restitution and a $27.5 million civil penalty.  The penalty was 32% of the restitution.

Assuming the restitution amounts are reasonable assessments of the severity of the banks’ misbehaviors, those civil penalties seem to bear no relation at all to the…crimes.  They seem, in fact, to be capricious and out of control—just a grabbing of what an unaccountable bureaucrat felt like taking.

Skadden’s complete report (it’s long and wide-ranging) can be seen here.