Former Tennessee congressman Harold Ford Jr.'s northern exposure

Ford's investor-friendly positions as chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council make him an ideal vehicle to protest Obama's "fat cat" insults and Schumer's post-crisis interest in financial regulation. Is that what you're looking for, New York?

By Jason Horowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 15, 2010; C01

Harold Ford Jr. has gone viral.

"You can judge from the editorials in the city, and just the response in the city and in the state that people don't want party bosses telling anyone that you can't run," Ford said in a phone interview between meetings in New York on Thursday afternoon. "People want an independent strong voice representing New York in the Senate."

The former Tennessee congressman has reintroduced himself as public muller of a primary challenge against New York's low-polling junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand (D). Ford has resided in New York for less time than many of the grad students taking his "political reality" class at New York University and he has no discernible support from the Democratic establishment. His conservative record on gay rights, abortion and gun control is so out of step with the party's primary voters that it makes Gillibrand's right-leaning record look progressive. Ford, the son of Tennessee's first black congressman, took a job as a Bank of America Merrill Lynch executive, and has cultivated a core constituency of Wall Street donors, many of whom are frustrated with President Obama's regulatory crackdown and what they see as a sudden cold shoulder from Sen. Chuck Schumer. Yet for all those moneyed ties, Ford has raised nothing -- literally, zilch -- to rival the millions of dollars in Gillibrand's coffers.

But as a shoestring publicity campaign for the Harold Ford brand, his 2010 media blitz has all been something to behold.

The New York political media, famished for a competitive political contest, has been more than willing to entertain this outsider as a potential contender for Gillibrand's seat. Ford, a talented 39-year-old with a book, titled "More Davids Than Goliaths," coming out a few weeks before the U.S. Senate primary this September, has cast his nascent primary challenge as that of a principled Democratic insurgent, staring down Schumer and Obama administration officials who have protected Gillibrand from opponents in the party.

In the interview, Ford said that the notion that he was doing this for publicity was "insulting to voters."

New Yorkers, he said, deserve a candidate who would fight for their interests, tax breaks and a health-care overhaul beneficial to the state, which he believes is not being done now. "Independence and jobs" were his echoing watchwords. "That's not about publicity," Ford said "That's real."

So, too, is the tacit approval of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who privately boosted Caroline Kennedy's Senate bid after Hillary Clinton was appointed secretary of state. A year later, Bloomberg appears less invested though decidedly comfortable with letting his loyal operatives make a few bucks; his pollster Doug Schoen and campaign manager Bradley Tusk are advising Ford.

Like Bloomberg, Ford defends Wall Street bonuses as critical to the city's tax base. When asked in the interview whether he himself had received a bonus from his employer, his spokesman, Davidson Goldin, interrupted, as he did on other topics not related to Ford's rationale for running, which the media handler understood to be the sole focus of the interview. At that point in the interview, Ford stayed silent, but Goldin later offered that Ford's "salary is set by contract."

While Ford refused to compare himself to politicians who ultimately dropped their primary bids against Gillibrand, he acknowledged that his has been received differently.

"Maybe it's the benefit of time. People have had the opportunity to experience some of the policies passed in Washington," said Ford, adding, "and there is dissatisfaction with Senator Gillibrand."

Gillibrand, who has sat back and waited for intervention on her behalf from Schumer or the White House, is getting more involved.

"The notion that 'Tennessee' Harold Ford is an independent outsider is completely contrived," said Jefrey Pollock, Gillibrand's political adviser. "But his extreme views against reproductive rights, against marriage equality and against immigration are all too real. Kirsten Gillibrand is not backing down from this fight."

* * *

For Ford's rebel rationale to have any credibility, he needed a villain. He found one in Schumer, his former benefactor who raised money and campaigned for Ford during his narrow defeat to Bob Corker in the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Tennessee. Schumer has successfully swatted away Gillibrand's would-be primary challengers, and Ford argued that party pressure on him not to run "exacerbated" the situation and sped up his timetable.

"The only person Chuck Schumer has to blame is himself and his fellow Washington insiders for having the gall to interfere with a free election," said Goldin, Ford's spokesman. "And for blocking an independent Democrat from running."

But according to a source in Schumer's office familiar with conversations between Schumer and Ford, the senator called Ford after a November Politico story reported that the Memphis native was exploring his chances against Gillibrand. They agreed to a face-to-face meeting to discuss Ford's New York political future. But on the morning of the meeting, the New York Times reported that Ford was "weighing" a challenge to Gillibrand. In the days that followed, the Times reported the substance of the meeting under the headline "Schumer Urges Ford Not to Run."

"The only person the senator has talked to about Ford not running was Ford himself," said a person close to Schumer, who was granted anonymity to discuss the private conversations. The Schumer intimate suggested that Ford exploited his meeting with Schumer to build up his insurgent story line.

"He has not talked to anyone else because he has no interest in feeding this David-versus-Goliath fairy tale that seems to be the only thing the Ford campaign has going for it right now," the person close to Schumer said.

The Ford camp denies any such setup.

The White House and leaders in Washington have been less careful about fueling the Ford phenomenon. During a White House briefing on Jan. 11, press secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated the administration's support for Gillibrand. But then by telling reporters to "stay tuned" for administration efforts to knock Ford out, Gibbs may have unwittingly boosted Ford's status as an anti-establishment comer.

On Jan. 12, Ford sat down again for dinner with Schoen, the Bloomberg pollster, at the apartment of Richard Plepler, an HBO executive who is taking a leading role in promoting Ford's potential candidacy, according to a source with knowledge of the dinner who was granted anonymity to speak of the private meeting. Ford has also kept in daily touch with Tusk, Bloomberg's reelection manager.

"I'm involved a lot and Mayor Bloomberg is not," said Tusk, who said he is providing free advice for now but would sign on with Ford if he runs. As might be expected in New York politics, Tusk is himself a former aide to Schumer. "I deeply admire and respect Chuck and always have," he said. "But Gillibrand is her own entity."

Tusk argued that while Ford is not a household name among regular New York voters yet, he "has the ability to be known. The ability to raise money and the ability, clearly, to do press."

* * *

The one constituency with whom Ford does have high name-recognition is the city's top Democratic bundlers. "At least among my friends, Harold has an extremely strong base," said Orin Kramer, an investor at Boston Provident whose early support for Obama imbued him with gravity in the New York donor firmament. While Ford has yet to raise a cent for the race, Kramer said he would have financial support if he in fact ran.

"People regard him quite properly as an extraordinary political talent," Kramer said.

"We bonded with him years ago and he is one of our friends," said Robert Zimmerman, another influential fundraiser and Democratic National Committeeman. But according to several of these bundlers, it's not all about friendship. A show of support for Ford's potential candidacy also sends a message to Washington.

Ford's investor-friendly positions as chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council make him an ideal vehicle to protest Obama's "fat cat" insults and Schumer's post-crisis interest in financial regulation.

"Mr. President, you did what you need to do, we now have to do what we have to do," said one prominent member of New York's Democratic donor universe, who was granted anonymity to freely reflect the sentiments of his peers. The donor said Wall Street needed to elect Ford as a "champion for New York's economy and financial services sector," because Schumer "is preoccupied with being majority leader and a national leader, and our junior senator is a second vote for Chuck."

("Nobody stands up for New York's economy more than Senator Schumer," said Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon. "But that doesn't mean doing whatever the banks want even when they're wrong.")

Many of these donors are simply underwhelmed by Gillibrand, whose garrulousness is much noted, and have not embraced her as they did Clinton before her. Gillibrand has expressed irritation at her inability to crack into the uppermost echelons of the fundraising circuit, namely into the sprawling Fifth Avenue apartment of the first couple in Democratic Party fundraising, Steven Rattner and Maureen White.

Rattner, the Bloomberg confidant and money manager, former Obama car czar and Times reporter who remains close with the paper's owner, Arthur Sulzberger, has gushed about Ford in print. According to one Gillibrand supporter, the senator has ascribed the reason for her discord with the couple to a broken-off relationship with White's younger brother more than a decade ago.

"If I got mad at every girlfriend one of my five brothers ever dated, I'd be mad at a lot of people," White said. "The only relevant part of that story is I've known her longer than most people.

"I'm not enthusiastic about Kirsten for a very simple reason," White continued, "New York State needs someone great. It's not clear to me that she has the talent to follow in the footsteps of Robert Kennedy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan or Hillary Clinton."

If Ford gets elected, White said, "he'll be a national presence for New York State from day one."

* * *

In 2006, Schumer, then chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and architect of the Democratic takeover of the chamber, recruited Ford as the nominee to fill the seat vacated by Tennessee's Bill Frist. Schumer called him "a great candidate" and helped Ford raise millions of dollars for a bruising and tight contest against Corker, a Republican. The contest is perhaps most remembered for a racially charged ad aired by the Republican Party at the end of the election, in which a winking blonde said she met the unmarried Ford at a Playboy party. Schumer released funds to keep Ford ads airing on television until Election Day. But he fell just short.

Soon after his defeat, Ford started spending substantial time in New York City and became an official resident in 2008. Like Bloomberg, he got to know the benefit circuit, squiring around his now-wife, Emily Threlkeld, an executive with the fashion designer Carolina Herrera and the stepdaughter of Wall Street grandee Anson Beard -- as well as the table-hopping nightspots, like Graydon Carter's Waverly Inn.

An interview in the New York Times on Jan. 13 revealed the chasm between Ford and his recession-weary constituents more starkly. He preferred the Giants over the Jets because he was closer to their owner. He had been to Staten Island only by helicopter. He got pedicures.

For now, at least, Ford is counting on media interest in a competitive race and the strength of his anti-establishment message to keep his campaign going, whatever the ultimate goal.

"I'm considering it more and more seriously every day," he said.

A Squeeze on Credit Card Customers Ahead of New Rules

Note from Greetings: Check those card statements, folks... no matter how great your credit. Last minute antics by the credit card companies before the new laws come into effect.

By ANDREW MARTIN and LOWELL BERGMAN

Banks are struggling to make money in the credit card business these days, and consumers are paying the price. Interest rates are going up, credit lines are being cut and a variety of new fees are being imposed on even the best cardholders.

One recipient of new credit card terms is Anita Holaday, a 91-year-old in Florida, who received a letter last month from Citibank announcing that her new interest rate was 29.99 percent, an increase of 10 percentage points.

“I think it’s outrageous they pursue such a policy,” said Susan Holaday Schumacher, Ms. Holaday’s daughter, who pays her mother’s bills. “That rate is shocking under any circumstances.”

While the average interest rates charged by banks are lower than Ms. Holaday’s, her situation is not all that unusual. The higher rates and fees reflect the grim new realities of the credit card industry — the percentage of uncollectible balances has hit a record even as a new law may further limit the cards’ profitability.

Banks began raising interest rates and pulling back credit lines about a year ago as delinquencies crept upward and regulators discussed reforms. As banks have become more aggressive in making changes, lawmakers have accused them of trying to impose rate increases before many of the new rules take effect in February.

On Monday, the Federal Reserve provided new evidence of the banks’ actions. About 50 percent of the banks responding to the Fed’s survey said they were increasing interest rates and reducing credit lines on borrowers with good credit scores. About 40 percent said they were imposing higher fees. The banks also said they were demanding higher minimum credit scores and tightening other requirements.

A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts, released late last month, concluded that the 12 largest banks, issuing more than 80 percent of the credit cards, were continuing to use practices that the Fed concluded were “unfair or deceptive” and that in many instances had been outlawed by Congress.

In response to voter complaints, the House of Representatives voted last week to make the law effective immediately. The bill now goes to the Senate, where a vote has not been scheduled. The Senate Banking Committee chairman, Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, meanwhile, is pushing legislation that would freeze interest rates on existing credit card balances until the law takes effect.

Whatever the starting date, the law makes it much harder for banks to change interest rates on existing balances, and requires more time and notice before a new rate can go into effect.

In their defense, banking officials say they have no choice but to raise rates and limit credit. Because of the new rules and the prolonged economic malaise, they say it is now far riskier to issue credit cards than it was just a few years ago.

“We sell credit; we don’t sell sweaters,” said Kenneth J. Clayton, senior vice president for card policy at the American Bankers Association. “The only way to manage your return is through the price of the product or the availability.”

The nation’s largest banks are scrambling to figure out a new business model that fits within the new rules and current economic conditions. Those banks made handsome profits over the last decade by charging high interest rates and penalty fees to a small group of customers who routinely paid late or exceeded their balances.

Already, banks are shifting to a model in which a smaller pool of Americans will be eligible for credit cards, and customers with cards will probably pay more for the privilege through annual fees and higher interest.

Meanwhile, the banks are in the process of shedding customers considered too risky. That means tens of thousands of Americans will no longer be able to splurge on Nike gym shoes or flat-screen televisions unless, of course, they have enough cash to pay for them.

Still, even consumer advocates have said that the banks were too quick in the past to give out credit. “You know, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you keep borrowing and borrowing in order to consume now, eventually you crash and burn,” said Martin Eakes, chief executive for the Center for Responsible Lending. “That’s what we’re facing.”

In the 12 months that ended in September, the number of Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover card accounts in the United States fell by 72 million, according to David Robertson, publisher of The Nilson Report, an industry newsletter. There are 555 million accounts still in the marketplace, he said.

In roughly the same time period, banks lowered credit limits by 26 percent, to $3.4 trillion, from $4.6 trillion, according to an analysis of government data by Foresight Analytics.

Interest on credit card accounts, meanwhile, has increased to an average of 13.71 percent, up from 11.94 percent a year ago, according to federal records.

As to credit card charge-offs — industry lingo for uncollectible balances — the number tracks the unemployment rate and, therefore, is hovering at around 10 percent.

For the banks, this is uncharted territory. In the modern financing era, credit cards were long a profit center, producing tens of billions in annual profits with a default rate that hovered around 4 percent until the recession.

“We know we are going to lose a lot of money next year in cards, and it could be north of $1 billion in both the first quarter and the second quarter. And that number will probably only start coming down as you see unemployment and charge-offs come down,” Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, said in an earnings call last month.

Banking officials said that because the new law limits their ability to reprice credit as a customer’s risk profile changes, they will instead have to price for future risk at the start, when a cardholder applies for a new card.

That means fewer applicants will be approved for new credit cards, and those who are accepted will increasingly be charged annual fees or variable interest rates, rather than fixed rates. Currently, about 20 percent of credit cards charge annual fees, a percentage that is rising, said Bill Hardekopf, chief executive of LowCards.com. Current cardholders, too, will be affected.

Asked to explain its rate increases, Citibank issued a statement saying the “actions are necessary given the losses across the industry from customers not paying back their loans and regulatory changes that eliminate repricing for that risk.”

Ms. Holaday Schumacher did not accept that explanation. She said she haggled with Citibank to try to get her mother’s bills forwarded to her house in Washington and, during the process, two bills were inadvertently paid late, resulting in the rate increase.

“How unbelievably unfair for an older person who might not understand what this is all about,” she said. Citibank declined to comment on the account.

Still, many of the nation’s banks are trying to repair their tarnished reputations with consumers.

American Express and Discover Financial, for instance, have vowed to stop charging fees when cardholders exceed their credit limits. JPMorgan has started a program that can help consumers categorize their spending and pay down their balances more quickly.

And Bank of America is promoting a line of consumer products so simple that the terms and conditions fit on one page. The BankAmericard Basic Visa, for instance, has no rewards and a single interest rate.

Andrew Rowe, Global Card Services strategy executive at Bank of America, said the new products represented a sea change in the bank’s attitude toward consumer products. Instead of benefiting from consumers who displayed risky behavior by penalizing them with fees, the bank is now trying to help them break those bad habits, he said.

“We succeed if our customers succeed,” he said. “That’s the paradigm shift.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, for one, said he would welcome consumer products that were simpler and less risky. But, he added in an interview with the PBS documentary program “Frontline”: “It’s a bit of a late conversion. It would have been nice to happen earlier.”

Edmund L. Andrews contributed reporting.

Chutzpah on Steroids

By BOB HERBERT, NY Times

Washington

What is up with the banks and the rest of the financial industry? The people running this system remind me of gangsters who manage to walk out of the courthouse with a suspended sentence and can’t wait to get back to their nefarious activities.

These malefactors of great wealth (thank you, Teddy) developed hideously destructive credit policies and took insane risks that hurt millions of American families and nearly wrecked the economy. Then they were bailed out with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, money that came from the very people victimized by the industry’s outlandish practices.

Now the industry is fighting against creation of an agency that would protect taxpayers and ordinary consumers from a similarly devastating onslaught in the future. And at the same time they are scrambling to raise credit card interest rates and all manner of exploitive fees to build a brand new superstructure of questionable profits on the backs of the taxpayers who came to their rescue.

We’re reaching a whole new level of chutzpah here.

The Obama administration wants to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would shield individuals and families from deceptive practices and outright fraud by banks and other businesses offering credit cards, mortgages, home loans and other forms of consumer finance.

Everything we’ve learned in this recession tells us we need such an agency. As Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner described it, “This agency will have only one mission: to protect consumers.”

Protecting the consumer is, of course, anathema to the industry. So it’s preparing for war. The Times’s Edmund Andrews neatly summed up the matter when he wrote that “banks and mortgage lenders are placing top priority on killing” the president’s proposal.

The proposed agency developed from an idea offered some time ago by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor who currently chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel, which has been monitoring the financial industry bailouts. She is a strong contender to lead the proposed new agency.

Ms. Warren told a Congressional committee last month about the stark difference between the warm and fuzzy advertising approach used by lenders competing for consumer dollars and the treachery that is so often hidden in the fine print.

“Giant lenders compete for business by talking about nominal interest rates, free gifts and warm feelings,” she said, “but the fine print hides the things that really rake in the cash. Today’s business model is about making money through tricks and traps.”

It should be clear by now that it is often the goal of financial institutions to see that the consumer is not well informed. “In the early-1980s,” said Professor Warren, the average credit card contract was about a page long. “Today, it is more than 30 pages. ... I am a contract law professor, and I cannot make out some of the fine print.”

She added, “Study after study shows that credit products are designed in ways that obscure the meaning and trick customers.”

There is nothing free or fair about a market in which one side uses double talk and mumbo jumbo to obscure important information and deliberately dupe the other side into making decisions against its own interests.

When I think of the banking industry fighting to kill this proposed agency, it brings to mind the decades in which tobacco companies insisted that cigarettes were safe, and those days long ago when the auto companies fought against seat belts, and all the dopey arguments that were made against protecting the public from unsafe drugs and kitchen appliances that might burst into flames, and so on.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has concluded that Americans spend approximately $55 billion each year on closing costs that they don’t fully understand. As Ms. Warren noted, “Mortgage lenders furnish reams of unreadable documents shortly before closing, often leaving people with no practical option but to take whatever terms the lender has filled in.”

The family home is the largest purchase most Americans ever make. Paying it off can take much of a lifetime. Everything about that contract should be crystal clear to the buyer.

I had a breakfast interview with Ms. Warren on a variety of subjects last week. On the day of the meeting, USA Today had a front-page article that began: “Even as regulators crack down on abusive mortgage and credit card practices, another type of lending threatens to mire consumers in a credit trap.”

The article detailed the ways in which banks are wringing huge profits from overdraft fees that often are sky high and in many cases are handled in ways that are exploitive, if not predatory.

The malefactors of great wealth view an informed consumer as Public Enemy No. 1. The last thing in the world that they want is a fair marketplace, which is why the Consumer Financial Protection Agency can’t come fast enough.

S.D. senators wary of credit card reform plan

May 14, 2009

LEDYARD KING
Argus Leader Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Both of South Dakota's senators are expected to vote against a sweeping credit card reform bill unless significant changes are made to protect industry jobs in the state.

Democrat Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune told reporters Wednesday they've been talking with Senate banking committee leaders about the need to ensure that the roughly 20,000 workers in South Dakota tied to the industry don't lose their jobs.

"I'm hopeful that there will be language that protects South Dakota jobs," Johnson said. "This is a bipartisan bill, so the possibility of blocking this is not great."

Johnson and Thune sided with 58 other senators Wednesday in a procedural vote against an amendment to cap interest rates on credit cards at 15 percent.

The Senate bill is considered to have stronger protections for consumers than legislation that passed the House last month and than Federal Reserve regulations that would take effect July 1, 2010.

It would give consumers 45 days' notice before rate increases and allow them to pay by phone without additional fees. It would prohibit rate increases in the first year after an account is opened, prohibit interest charges on paid-off balances from billing in the previous cycle and protect young people from aggressive solicitations.

President Obama strongly supports credit card reform and wants legislation on his desk by Memorial Day weekend.

Thune, Johnson and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, the lone Democrat to vote against a House credit card reform bill last month, say the Federal Reserve rules should be given a chance to take effect because they were crafted after years of careful study and treat both lenders and borrowers fairly.

Thune said the plan in Congress is "swinging the pendulum too far in one direction. It will put a lot of jobs in South Dakota in jeopardy if it passes in its current form. We're trying to work with the sponsors of the bill to see if we can get some of those issues addressed."

The three members of South Dakota's delegation also say the Senate and House versions would penalize responsible consumers and restrict access to credit at a time when America's struggling economy needs a boost.

Contributing: Nicole Gaudiano, Gannett Washington Bureau. Contact Ledyard King at lking@ gannett.com.

Carper helps banks kill credit card rate cap

Kaufman also votes against 15% limit to protect consumers

By NICOLE GAUDIANO
News Journal Washington Bureau, Delawareonline

WASHINGTON -- A plan for a national cap on credit card interest rates was defeated Wednesday by the Senate.

The proposal to cap rates at 15 percent would have been a significant change for Delaware, which hasn't had usury laws on the books since they were abolished in 1981.

"In a free-enterprise system, I'm not sure that [interest rate caps are] what we need to do," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. He and Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., were among 60 senators who voted to block a vote on the measure, offered as an amendment to a larger credit card reform bill.

However, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said Wednesday's vote shouldn't be interpreted as a rejection of the concept. An analysis of which rate caps would be appropriate for which institutions under which financial circumstances would be helpful, he said.

"It's a confusing issue, except for the fact that most of our constituents and millions of Americans would like to see some restraint," Dodd said. "I don't know how you possibly could explain why some institutions get away with rates that are literally triple digits."

The American Bankers Association opposes rate caps, as well as the overall credit card reform legislation, expected to come up for a vote in the Senate this week. It says the bill would jeopardize access to credit. But consumer groups say it would put an end to abusive practices.

The Senate bill is considered to have stronger protections for consumers than either legislation that passed the House last month or Federal Reserve regulations. It would give consumers 45 days' notice before rate increases and allow them to pay by phone without additional fees. It would prohibit rate increases in the first year after a credit card account is opened, prohibit interest charges on paid-off balances from billing in the previous cycle, and protect young people from aggressive solicitations.

Unlike the House bill or Fed regulations, the bill would prohibit retroactive interest rate increases until an account is 60 days past-due. It also would be implemented in nine months. The House bill would take effect in a year. The Fed's regulations would take effect by July 1, 2010.

President Barack Obama has strongly advocated credit card reform and has asked to have legislation on his desk by Memorial Day weekend