Mac and Mae, $ for McCain AND Obama

Author: Jared Fallon

The new and (improved?) proposed bailout package aiming to help prevent the US from a complete financial crisis is not only shallow in its creation but contains no mystery as to why it received little criticism from either presidential candidates. The bill, H.R.1424, has been wildly criticized for allowing companies to have a soft landing on the backs of US taxpayers. Many people waited in anticipation for both McCain and Obama’s reaction of the proposal but most should have been left disappointed. The central reason for the lack of debate? Both candidates received major financial contributions from the ever-generous Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

There are many different figures available to find the exact amount each candidate has received, but it appears that the most accurate data shows that for the current election John McCain received $169,000 between both companies and their affiliates. Obama received $122,850 directly from various PACs and Mac/Mae employees. Both senators voted for the bill, while pointing towards the future for true accountability for the companies’ actions. Obama stated “There will be time to punish those that set this fire, but now is not the time to argue about how it got set…Let’s do what’s right for the country at this time, because the time to act is now.” This statement was a part of Obama’s speech to beg colleagues to help pass the reform. With Election Day coming and closer and closer it is unlikely that either senator will increase any measure of criticism for the two monoliths. Fortunately, two legislatures are stepping up to bat as we speak.

Both Peter Welch (D-VT) and Benjamin Nelson (D-NE) have proposed 2 plans for accountability – one to prevent golden parachute payments for Mac and Mae execs (H.R.6907) and one resolution to express to the Senate “that the former chief executive officers of Fannie Mae should not receive lavish severance packages at taxpayers’ expense.” (S.RES.658)  Will either of the proposals pass? It is highly unlikely, but the Chief Sponsors’ efforts shouldn’t go unnoticed – trying to a push accountability and criticism in a system that has too much money to receive it from the next President of the United States.