From an email exchange with Roger...
Here is your real culprit. Phil Gramm is the biggest crook of the 2008 Financial Crisis. I will put him up against your Donald Trump any day in a measure of Treason. We can talk very plainly about Phil Gramm now that he is a "Banker" in vocation as well as avocation (works at UBS).
I am deleting the part about the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which I don't seem to understand as well as I thought.
All of this is from Wikipedia.
Phil Gramm is largely responsible for Financial Crisis 2008.
Glass–Steagall Act 1933 was repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. Anyone can comment on the deregulations and causes of the crisis.
Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton — the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — was significantly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis. The Act is most widely known for repealing portions of the Glass–Steagall Act, which had regulated the financial services industry. The Act passed the House and Senate by an overwhelming majority on 4 November 1999.
Gramm responded in March 2008 to criticism of the act by stating that he saw "no evidence whatsoever" that the sub-prime mortgage crisis was caused in any way "by allowing banks and securities companies and insurance companies to compete against each other."
Gramm's support was later critical in the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which kept derivatives transactions, including those involving credit default swaps, free of government regulation.
In its 2008 coverage of the financial crisis, The Washington Post named Gramm one of seven "Key Players In the Battle Over Regulating Derivatives", for having "[p]ushed through several major bills to deregulate the banking and investment industries, including the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley act that brought down the walls separating the commercial banking, investment and insurance industries".
Have you heard that the McCain-Feingold Act actually did the opposite of what it was supposed to. It was supposed to be finance reform the way I remember it. Now there is discussion on the internet that it actually opened up financing on either a narrow issue (unlimited) or a PAC (unlimited)... I wish I had something simple to read on it. But what I saw didn't get to the point very well. Apparently the FEC (Federal election Commission) doesn't see any problems with 527 Organizations (So is this "Regulatory Capture?"). I guess I have to make my own conclusions regarding 'hard money', 'soft money' and 527 Organizations.
The U.S. Congress passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA) (Pub.L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, enacted October 22, 1986) to simplify the income tax code, broaden the tax base and eliminate many tax shelters and other preferences. Referred to as the second of the two "Reagan tax cuts" (the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut of 1981 being the first), the bill was also officially sponsored by Democrats, Richard Gephardt of Missouri in the House of Representatives and Bill Bradley of New Jersey in the Senate.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act
"....Subsequently, political parties and "watchdog" organizations have filed complaints with the FEC concerning the raising and spending of soft money by so-called "527 organizations" — organizations claiming tax-exemption as "political organizations" under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 527), but not registering as "political committees" under the Federal Election Campaign Act, which uses a different legal definition. These organizations have been established on both sides of the political aisle, and have included high profile organizations such as the Media Fund and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. 527s are financed in large part by wealthy individuals, labor unions, and businesses. 527s pre-dated McCain–Feingold but grew in popularity after the law took effect. In May 2004, the FEC voted to not write new rules on the application of federal campaign finance laws to 527 organizations. Although the FEC did promulgate a
new rule in the fall of 2004 requiring some 527s participating in federal campaigns to use at least 50% "hard money" (contributions regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act) to pay their expenses, the FEC did not change its regulations on when a 527 organization must register as a federal "political committee"-prompting Representatives Shays and Meehan to file a federal court lawsuit against the FEC for the Commission's failure to adopt a 527 rule. In September, 2007, a Federal District Court ruled in favor of the FEC, against Congressmen Shays and Meehan..."