silverberg, kirstin
Kristen Silverberg (born 1970 or 1971)[1] was the United States Ambassador to the European Union from July 2008 until January 2009. She was nominated by President George W. Bush on April 24, 2008 and confirmed by the United States Senate on June 27, 2008. She was succeeded by William Kennard who was nominated by President Barack Obama on August 6, 2009 and confirmed by the United States Senate on November 20, 2009.
Contents
Career
Silverberg was previously Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations for the United States government. In that role, she was in charge of theBureau of International Organization Affairs, a part of the State Department.
Prior to her appointment to the State Department, Silverberg served in the following positions in the White House:
- Special Assistant to the President in the Office of the Chief of Staff
- Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
- Deputy Assistant to the President and Advisor to the Chief of Staff [2]
Silverberg also served as Senior Adviser to Paul Bremer when he was Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq—reportedly “because she was interested in the work, and not at the behest of the White House.” [3] She has been described as a “rising star” [4] in the White House, and as “one of the White House’s most trusted behind-the-scenes aides.” [3]
Prior to coming to work for the White House, Silverberg served as a law clerk, first to Appellate Court Judge David B. Sentelle, and later to Supreme CourtJustice Clarence Thomas.
She currently sits on the advisory board for Washington, DC nonprofit America Abroad Media.[5]
Personal life
Silverberg was born in 1970 or 1971 in Alpine, Texas[6] to Rhoda and Eric Silverberg.[1] Silverberg is a graduate of Harvard University and The University of Texas School of Law(1996). She wrote an article (PDF) in 2002 encouraging fellow alumni to seek legal careers in government.
On May 24, 2008 she married Paul V. Lettow at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center in Austin, Texas; Lettow is the son of Charles F. Lettow,[1] who since July 2003 has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.[7]
References
- ^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Silverberg#cite_ref-nytwed_1-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Silverberg#cite_ref-nytwed_1-2) Kristen Silverberg, Paul Lettow, a May 2008 wedding announcement from The New York Times
- :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Biography of Kristen Silverberg from the White House website
- ^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Silverberg#cite_ref-loot_3-1) Bush Concerned by Iraq Looting, but Confident in Plan from The Washington Post
- :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Iraq Hits a Flashing Red Light from The Washington Post
- :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://americaabroadmedia.org/user/64/Kristen_Silverberg
- :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ U.S. Ambassador to the EU Kristen Silverberg from the website of the U.S. Mission to the European Union
- :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Biography of Charles F. Lettow from the website of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
External links
- Biography from the U.S. State Department website
==
preceded in un post by cb gray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Holmes heritage
==
ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER Read Bio
Kristen Silverberg Kristen Silverberg
Kristen Silverberg
ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER Read Bio :
bs
Kristen Silverberg serves as a Member of the Beacon Global Strategies Advisory Board. with panetta
Ambassador Kristen Silverberg is General Counsel and Senior Advisor at The Institute of International Finance (IIF). She previously served as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union from 2008 to 2009 BOLTON and as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs from 2005 to 2008.
Prior to her time at the State Department, she held a number of senior positions at the White House, including Deputy Assistant to the President and Advisor to the Chief of Staff.
She served in 2003 in Baghdad, Iraq for which she received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service.
Ambassador Silverberg formerly practiced law at Williams and Connolly, LLP in Washington, DC and served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
She attended Harvard College and the University of Texas School of Law, where she graduated with High Honors.
Ambassador Silverberg serves on the Board of Directors of Vorbeck Materials and has been recognized by the World Economic Forum as a Young Global Leader.
General Counsel and Senior Advisor at The Institute of International Finance
U.S. Ambassador to the European Union (2008-2009)
Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (2005-2008)
Deputy Assistant to the President and Advisor to the Chief of Staff (2004-2005)
July 12, 2005
Press Contact: Jodi Bart, UT Law Communications, (512) 471-7330.
Kristen Silverberg, ’96, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary of State (International Organization Affairs) in the Bush Administration
AUSTIN, Texas — Kristen Silverberg, a 1996 graduate of The University of Texas School of Law, has been nominated by President Bush to be Assistant Secretary of State (International Organization Affairs).
Silverberg currently serves as Deputy Assistant to the President and Advisor to the Chief of Staff in the White House, where she helps coordinate the development of Administration policy. She previously served as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. Until October 2003, she served as Senior Advisor to Ambassador L. Paul Bremer in Baghdad, Iraq. Before her service in Iraq, she served as Special Assistant to the President in the Office of the Chief of Staff.
Before joining the Bush administration, Silverberg was a policy advisor on the 2000 presidential campaign in Austin. She earlier practiced law at Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C. She also served as a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Judge David Sentelle. Silverberg received her bachelor’s degree from Harvard.
Related Link:
"A Path to the White House" by Kristen Silverberg (UTLAW magazine, Summer 2002): http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/Silverberg.pdf
==
==
may not be compl
in lAW SCHOOL, I IMAGINED THAT I
would spend the bulk of my
career in private practice. I envisioned
participating in heady oral
arguments or, on occasion, vindicating
my client’s position at trial. Although
my time in private practice was
invaluable, and although I have many
friends from law school who are still
flourishing at firms, I think that more
young lawyers would do well to consider
government employment. I cannot
speak to the countless opportunities
available to lawyers in state and
local government, but my experience
as a member of the Bush administration
policy staff has been priceless. Without
attempting to provide an exhaustive
guide to seeking government
employment, I will briefly describe a
few “hows” and “whys” of jobs with
the federal government, based on
my limited personal experience.
Why Government?
Even on the worst days, working in
government can provide an invaluable
perspective on this unique time
in our nation’s history. I will never
forget returning to the West Wing on
the night of September 11, after the
terrible confusion of that day, to see
the members of senior staff quietly
preparing for the extraordinary task
ahead. And there was no more compelling
moment to me than watching
the president leave for New York after
the National Prayer Service. Some
members of the White House staff
describe poignant memories of the
meeting with the families of Flight 93
or of the president’s September 20
speech to the nation. No one hopes to
work for an administration during a
time of national crisis, but having lived
through it, I’m not sure that anything
but government service could have
affected and inspired m
inspired me in quite the
same way.
Most of my colleagues, not surprisingly,
sought jobs with the administration
because they hoped to play a
role in positively shaping public
policy. My job in the chief of staff’s
office, for example, allows me to
participate in discussions of administration
policy on a host of issues,
including financial regulation, health
care, budget, and welfare. Our office
helps to ensure that decisions are
well developed before they reach the
president for final decision, so a
colleague and I act as roving “trouble
shooters” on behalf of the deputy
chief of staff, participating in discussions
of pressing issues and helping
to crystallize them for decision by the
president. For everyone involved in
policy development, the job is endlessly
challenging and rewarding
because the decisions facing the
policymakers inevitably involve difficult
value judgments, the resolution
of which will have far-reaching effects
on the lives of real people.
Many White House staffers helping
to shape administration policy on
these issues are playing critical roles
early in their careers.
For example,
Mark McClellan, 38, (grandson of former
UT Law dean W. Page Keeton),
serves on the Council of Economic
Advisors and manages Medicare policy
for the administration. Among
other things, he leads an interagency
group responsible for developing proposals
to provide prescription drugs to
senior citizens and negotiates health
legislation on the Hill. UT Law grad
Rebecca Beynon,33, handled a broad
range of regulatory issues as a lawyer
in the Office of Management and
Budget and now develops administrative
policies to implement the president’s
Faith-based and Community
Initiative.
For someone committed to
public policy, there are few opportunities
to participate so actively in
helping to guide our national choices.
There are, of course, less lofty reasons
to pursue a government job. For
one, in many cases, government jobs
allow far more civilized and predictable
work schedules than equivalent
positions in the private sector.
Many of my friends with senior-level
jobs at federal agencies can routinely
leave work by 7:00 p.m., long before
any of the law firm associates in town
get paroled. Jobs on Capitol Hill,
which can be hectic when Congress is in
session, come with lengthy vacations
over the August recess.
One word of caution—those who
value comfortable work schedules
should not consider White House
employment. This White House,
despite its family-friendly reputation,
starts early in the morning and stays
active quite late at night. It is still
dark when the White House staff, led
by the National Security team, begin
arriving on the “18 acres” (Secret
Service jargon for the White House
complex.) Chief of Staff Andrew Card
is at his desk by 6:15 a.m. (I arrive,
caffeine in hand, much later.) When
my day ends, typically at 9:30 or 10:00
p.m., my boss, Deputy Chief of Staff
Joshua Bolten, is often still hard at work.
In addition, working in proximity
to people who are making history
can be exciting and valuable training.
The most interesting days at the
White House for any young staffer
are the days when we meet with the
president. On the television show
The West Wing, President Bartlet engages
in long, casual conversations
with his staff about, for example,
the best way to baste a turkey. In one
episode, President Bartlet filled out
an aide’s tax forms. But in the real
White House, there is no more valuable
commodity than the president’s
time, and staff are expected to use it
wisely.
Chief of Staff Andrew Card
will screen requests to see the president
by asking, “Do you want to see
the president or do you need to see
the president?” As a junior staffer, I
rarely need to see the president (or,
more precisely, he rarely needs to
see me), so I have yet to overcome
my tendency to become tongue-tied
and awkward during meetings. I
have, however, watched many of my
colleagues with more administration
experience comfortably provide
the president with strong views
on an issue. And I know that sometime
later in life, I will confidently
face down a corporate executive or
court of appeals judge, knowing that I
cut my teeth in a much more intimidating
environment.
How to Get an Interesting
Job in the Government
One common path to a job in the
White House is participation in a
presidential campaign. In this White
House, most of the senior staffers
were active supporters of the president
and vice president during the
2000 campaign; many were loyal supporters
long before 2000.
Failing good foresight, stay flexible.
White House press secretary Ari
Fleischer worked on Elizabeth Dole’s
campaign before she withdrew. His
work for the opposition so impressed
Karen Hughes that he was quicklypicked
up by the Bush campaign and is now one
of the president’s trusted advisors.
I was hired to work in the White
House after I had moved back to
Austin to volunteer for the policy staff
of the Bush campaign. My experience
in Austin impressed upon me
the importance, for campaign staff,
of demonstrating a willingness to put
in long hours on occasionally unglamorous
jobs. Immediately after the
election, a campaign colleague and I
volunteered to get on a plane from
Austin to Florida, as did many of our
[NEXT STEPS
Best book about White House
operations: The White House Staff:
Inside the West Wing and Beyond, by
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr. (Brookings
Institution Press, 2000)
Best book about a presidential
campaign: What It Takes, by Richard
Ben Kramer (Random House, 1992;
Crown Publishing Group, 1998)
Best Web site on the White
House: www. whitehouse.gov
Best book about the White
House by a former White House
staffer: The Haldeman Diaries:
Inside the Nixon White House by H.R.
Haldeman (Putnam, 1994)
Best book by a current White
House staffer: The Apprentice, by
Lewis Libby (Graywolf Press, 1996)
1 8 U T LAW Summer 2002]
contemporaries in the White House.
That painful month spent watching
the ballot count helped us to earn the
trust of the campaign staff and develop
long-lasting relationship with our
future colleagues in the administration.
Other experiences, in addition to
working with a campaign, may lend
themselves to future employment with
the federal government.
My time at
Williams & Connolly undoubtedly
made me a more qualified candidate
for a position with the policy staff, which
requires that I navigate a broad range of
legal issues, as did my job at the firm.
And dozens of the younger lawyers in
the White House and the Justice
Department are alumni of judicial clerkships,
which frequently serve as farm
teams for like-minded administrations.
Forget the Money
During my clerkship, my co-clerks
and I would pass long hours discussing
how we would spend grotesquely
high signing bonuses from D.C. law
firms. So it was with some compunction
that I accepted an annual salary at
the White House that was less than my
anticipated law firm bonus. I haven’t
regretted the decision for a minute,
and I urge anyone presented with an
exciting opportunity in government
to think twice before turning down
that experience for a more comfortable
salary.
Many government jobs are oncein-a-lifetime
opportunities. Getting
hired depends, in large part, on being
in the right place at the right time.
Many Republican lawyers spent the
Clinton years desperately looking forward
to the time when they could take
drastic pay cuts to enter public service.
As one law school classmate told
me, short-term financial comfort is
important, but it is equally important
to “build equity” in yourself. There is
no substitute, in my experience, for a
job you love.
Kristen Silverberg, ’96, is a special assistant to
the president in the White House Office of the
Chief of Staff. Before joining the Bush administration,
she clerked for Judge David Sentelle
and Justice Clarence Thomas and practiced law
at Williams & Connolly in Washington DC
==
People from Brewster County, Texas"
The following 14 pages are in this category, out of 14 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
B
Carl W. Bauer
C
Gabe Cazares
John Coleman (news weathercaster)
Susan Combs
F
Billy Faier
G
Pete Gallego
M
Amanda Marcotte
O
Eric O'Keefe jrnlist
S
Larry J. Sechrest
Kristen Silverberg
T
Bake Turner
W
Clayton Williams
Clayton W. Williams, Sr.
Betsey Wright
==
datadump:
in lAW SCHOOL, I IMAGINED THAT I
would spend the bulk of my
career in private practice. I envisioned
participating in heady oral
arguments or, on occasion, vindicating
my client’s position at trial. Although
my time in private practice was
invaluable, and although I have many
friends from law school who are still
flourishing at firms, I think that more
young lawyers would do well to consider
government employment. I cannot
speak to the countless opportunities
available to lawyers in state and
local government, but my experience
as a member of the Bush administration
policy staff has been priceless. Without
attempting to provide an exhaustive
guide to seeking government
employment, I will briefly describe a
few “hows” and “whys” of jobs with
the federal government, based on
my limited personal experience.
Why Government?
Even on the worst days, working in
government can provide an invaluable
perspective on this unique time
in our nation’s history. I will never
forget returning to the West Wing on
the night of September 11, after the
terrible confusion of that day, to see
the members of senior staff quietly
preparing for the extraordinary task
ahead. And there was no more compelling
moment to me than watching
the president leave for New York after
the National Prayer Service. Some
members of the White House staff
describe poignant memories of the
meeting with the families of Flight 93
or of the president’s September 20
speech to the nation. No one hopes to
work for an administration during a
time of national crisis, but having lived
through it, I’m not sure that anything
but government service could have
affected and inspired m
inspired me in quite the
same way.
Most of my colleagues, not surprisingly,
sought jobs with the administration
because they hoped to play a
role in positively shaping public
policy. My job in the chief of staff’s
office, for example, allows me to
participate in discussions of administration
policy on a host of issues,
including financial regulation, health
care, budget, and welfare. Our office
helps to ensure that decisions are
well developed before they reach the
president for final decision, so a
colleague and I act as roving “trouble
shooters” on behalf of the deputy
chief of staff, participating in discussions
of pressing issues and helping
to crystallize them for decision by the
president. For everyone involved in
policy development, the job is endlessly
challenging and rewarding
because the decisions facing the
policymakers inevitably involve difficult
value judgments, the resolution
of which will have far-reaching effects
on the lives of real people.
Many White House staffers helping
to shape administration policy on
these issues are playing critical roles
early in their careers.
For example,
Mark McClellan, 38, (grandson of former
UT Law dean W. Page Keeton),
serves on the Council of Economic
Advisors and manages Medicare policy
for the administration. Among
other things, he leads an interagency
group responsible for developing proposals
to provide prescription drugs to
senior citizens and negotiates health
legislation on the Hill. UT Law grad
Rebecca Beynon,33, handled a broad
range of regulatory issues as a lawyer
in the Office of Management and
Budget and now develops administrative
policies to implement the president’s
Faith-based and Community
Initiative.
For someone committed to
public policy, there are few opportunities
to participate so actively in
helping to guide our national choices.
There are, of course, less lofty reasons
to pursue a government job. For
one, in many cases, government jobs
allow far more civilized and predictable
work schedules than equivalent
positions in the private sector.
Many of my friends with senior-level
jobs at federal agencies can routinely
leave work by 7:00 p.m., long before
any of the law firm associates in town
get paroled. Jobs on Capitol Hill,
which can be hectic when Congress is in
session, come with lengthy vacations
over the August recess.
One word of caution—those who
value comfortable work schedules
should not consider White House
employment. This White House,
despite its family-friendly reputation,
starts early in the morning and stays
active quite late at night. It is still
dark when the White House staff, led
by the National Security team, begin
arriving on the “18 acres” (Secret
Service jargon for the White House
complex.) Chief of Staff Andrew Card
is at his desk by 6:15 a.m. (I arrive,
caffeine in hand, much later.) When
my day ends, typically at 9:30 or 10:00
p.m., my boss, Deputy Chief of Staff
Joshua Bolten, is often still hard at work.
In addition, working in proximity
to people who are making history
can be exciting and valuable training.
The most interesting days at the
White House for any young staffer
are the days when we meet with the
president. On the television show
The West Wing, President Bartlet engages
in long, casual conversations
with his staff about, for example,
the best way to baste a turkey. In one
episode, President Bartlet filled out
an aide’s tax forms. But in the real
White House, there is no more valuable
commodity than the president’s
time, and staff are expected to use it
wisely.
Chief of Staff Andrew Card
will screen requests to see the president
by asking, “Do you want to see
the president or do you need to see
the president?” As a junior staffer, I
rarely need to see the president (or,
more precisely, he rarely needs to
see me), so I have yet to overcome
my tendency to become tongue-tied
and awkward during meetings. I
have, however, watched many of my
colleagues with more administration
experience comfortably provide
the president with strong views
on an issue. And I know that sometime
later in life, I will confidently
face down a corporate executive or
court of appeals judge, knowing that I
cut my teeth in a much more intimidating
environment.
How to Get an Interesting
Job in the Government
One common path to a job in the
White House is participation in a
presidential campaign. In this White
House, most of the senior staffers
were active supporters of the president
and vice president during the
2000 campaign; many were loyal supporters
long before 2000.
Failing good foresight, stay flexible.
White House press secretary Ari
Fleischer worked on Elizabeth Dole’s
campaign before she withdrew. His
work for the opposition so impressed
Karen Hughes that he was quicklypicked
up by the Bush campaign and is now one
of the president’s trusted advisors.
I was hired to work in the White
House after I had moved back to
Austin to volunteer for the policy staff
of the Bush campaign. My experience
in Austin impressed upon me
the importance, for campaign staff,
of demonstrating a willingness to put
in long hours on occasionally unglamorous
jobs. Immediately after the
election, a campaign colleague and I
volunteered to get on a plane from
Austin to Florida, as did many of our
[NEXT STEPS
Best book about White House
operations: The White House Staff:
Inside the West Wing and Beyond, by
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr. (Brookings
Institution Press, 2000)
Best book about a presidential
campaign: What It Takes, by Richard
Ben Kramer (Random House, 1992;
Crown Publishing Group, 1998)
Best Web site on the White
House: www. whitehouse.gov
Best book about the White
House by a former White House
staffer: The Haldeman Diaries:
Inside the Nixon White House by H.R.
Haldeman (Putnam, 1994)
Best book by a current White
House staffer: The Apprentice, by
Lewis Libby (Graywolf Press, 1996)
1 8 U T LAW Summer 2002]
contemporaries in the White House.
That painful month spent watching
the ballot count helped us to earn the
trust of the campaign staff and develop
long-lasting relationship with our
future colleagues in the administration.
Other experiences, in addition to
working with a campaign, may lend
themselves to future employment with
the federal government.
My time at
Williams & Connolly undoubtedly
made me a more qualified candidate
for a position with the policy staff, which
requires that I navigate a broad range of
legal issues, as did my job at the firm.
And dozens of the younger lawyers in
the White House and the Justice
Department are alumni of judicial clerkships,
which frequently serve as farm
teams for like-minded administrations.
Forget the Money
During my clerkship, my co-clerks
and I would pass long hours discussing
how we would spend grotesquely
high signing bonuses from D.C. law
firms. So it was with some compunction
that I accepted an annual salary at
the White House that was less than my
anticipated law firm bonus. I haven’t
regretted the decision for a minute,
and I urge anyone presented with an
exciting opportunity in government
to think twice before turning down
that experience for a more comfortable
salary.
Many government jobs are oncein-a-lifetime
opportunities. Getting
hired depends, in large part, on being
in the right place at the right time.
Many Republican lawyers spent the
Clinton years desperately looking forward
to the time when they could take
drastic pay cuts to enter public service.
As one law school classmate told
me, short-term financial comfort is
important, but it is equally important
to “build equity” in yourself. There is
no substitute, in my experience, for a
job you love.
Kristen Silverberg, ’96, is a special assistant to
the president in the White House Office of the
Chief of Staff. Before joining the Bush administration,
she clerked for Judge David Sentelle
and Justice Clarence Thomas and practiced law
at Williams & Connolly in Washington DC
Diplomatic posts
Preceded by
C. Boyden Gray United States Ambassador to the European Union
2008-2009 Succeeded by
William Kennard
Government offices
Preceded by
Kim R. Holmes Assistant Secretary of State
for International Organization Affairs
2005-2008 Succeeded by
Brian H. Hook
[hide] v t e
Assistant Secretaries of State for International Organization Affairs
Rusk Hickerson Murphy Key Wilcox Cleveland Sisco De Palma Popper Buffum Lewis Maynes McCall Abrams Newell Keyes Williamson Bolton Bennet Lyman Welch Holmes Silverberg Hook Brimmer
US-DeptOfState-Seal.svg
Categories: United States Assistant Secretaries of StateAssistants to the President of the United StatesCoalition Provisional AuthorityHarvard University alumniUniversity of Texas School of Law alumniLiving people1970s birthsPeople from Brewster County, TexasAmbassadors of the United States to the European Union
Pages in category "People from Brewster County, Texas"
The following 14 pages are in this category, out of 14 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
B
Carl W. Bauer
C
Gabe Cazares
John Coleman (news weathercaster)
Susan Combs
F
Billy Faier
G
Pete Gallego
M
Amanda Marcotte
O
Eric O'Keefe not that one
S
Larry J. Sechrest
Kristen Silverberg
T
Bake Turner
W
Clayton Williams
Clayton W. Williams, Sr.
Betsey Wright
hubby
Paul Lettow is a litigator and advises clients on regulatory compliance. Paul's litigation experience includes matters before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the Delaware Court of Chancery. He advises clients on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), and other regulatory issues. He also represents corporate and individual clients in investigations, including Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigations.
Prior to joining Jones Day, Paul served as the senior director for strategic planning on the National Security Council staff at The White House from 2007 to 2009. In that position, he helped establish and coordinated the interagency National Security Policy Planning Committee and prepared presidential policy directives. He received an NSC award for outstanding performance. Previously, Paul was senior advisor to the under secretary of state for global affairs from 2006 to 2007.
Paul is the author of Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (New York: Random House, 2005) and Strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2010), and the co-author, with Elbridge Colby, of the recent Foreign Policy magazine cover story, "Have We Hit Peak America? The Sources of U.S. Power and the Path to National Renaissance." Paul has appeared on numerous television and radio programs.
R.J. Reynolds successfully challenges constitutionality of graphic cigarette warning labels
August 2012
On August 24, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a District Court ruling in favor of Jones Day client R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's proposed graphic warning labels on cigarette packs are unconstitutional. The court agreed with Reynolds' arguments that the FDA requirement was compelled speech that violates the companies' First Amendment rights. Jones Day partner Noel Francisco argued the appeal in April 2012 on behalf of Reynolds.
Reynolds and other tobacco companies had filed suit against the government to block enforcement of the FDA label rules, enacted as part of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act. The D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 against the FDA, noting that the case raises “novel questions about the scope of the government’s authority to force the manufacturer of a product to go beyond making purely factual and accurate commercial disclosures and undermine its own economic interest — in this case, by making 'every single pack of cigarettes in the country (a) mini billboard' for the government’s anti-smoking message.” The court also stated that the government had not presented evidence showing that the new warning labels would lower smoking rates.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al. v. Food and Drug Administration, et al., No. 11-5332 (D.C. Cir.)
For additional information about this matter, please contact: Noel J. Francisco
Client(s): R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Practice(s): Government Regulation, Issues & Appeals
Office(s): Washington
--
Board of Directors
Affiliations are listed for identification only.
Daniel Blumenthal, American Enterprise Institute
Aaron L. Friedberg, Princeton University
Roger Hertog, Hertog Foundation
Roy J. Katzovicz, Saddle Point Group
Paul V. Lettow, Jones Day
Arvind Sanger, Geosphere Capital Management
Blumenthalhead.jpgDaniel Blumenthal
Co-founder & Secretary
Dan Blumenthal is the director of Asian Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on East Asian security issues and Sino-American relations. Mr. Blumenthal has both served in and advised the U.S. government on China issues for over a decade. From 2001 to 2004, he served as senior director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia at the Department of Defense. Additionally, he served as a commissioner on the congressionally-mandated U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission from 2006 to 2012, and held the position of vice chairman in 2007. He has also served on the Academic Advisory Board of the congressional U.S.-China Working Group. Mr. Blumenthal is the co-author of An Awkward Embrace: The United States and China in the 21st Century (AEI Press,2012). He holds a B.A. from Washington University, an M.A. from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, and a J.D. from Duke University.
Aaron L. FriedbergFriedberg_headshot_square_for_HamSoc.org.jpg
Co-founder & President
Aaron Friedberg is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School. He joined the Princeton faculty in 1987 after earning his A.B., A.M., and Ph.D. from Harvard University.
From June 2003 to June 2005 he served as a Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs in the Office of the Vice President. In November 2006 he was named to the Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion.
Dr. Friedberg is the author of three books, The Weary Titan, 1895-1905: Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline (Princeton University Press, 1988), In the Shadow of the Garrison State: America’s Anti-Statism and Its Cold War Grand Strategy (Princeton University Press, 2000), and A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia (Norton, 2011).
Hertog_headshot_square_for_HamSoc.org.jpgRoger Hertog
Roger Hertog was one of the founding partners of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., Inc. in 1968, and served as the firm’s President until its combination with Alliance Capital Management in October 2000. He currently is President of The Hertog Foundation, a non-profit charitable organization, and Vice-Chairman Emeritus of AllianceBernstein L.P., one of the largest publicly traded investment management firms in the world. A graduate of City College of New York, he is the Chairman of the New-York Historical Society, Chairman Emeritus of The Manhattan Institute, a trustee of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, The New York Public Library, The New York Philharmonic and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. In 2007, Mr. Hertog was awarded the National Humanities Medal for philanthropy.
Katzovicz_square_for_HamSoc.org.jpgRoy J. Katzovicz
Co-founder & Treasurer
Roy J. Katzovicz is the Chairman of Saddle Point Group, LLC, a private family office. Prior to Saddle Point Group, Mr. Katzovicz served as a Partner, Investment Team Member and Chief Legal Officer of Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. Prior to joining Pershing Square, Mr. Katzovicz served as a corporate attorney at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Prior to private practice, he served as a judicial clerk to The Honorable William B. Chandler, Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery. Mr. Katzovicz received his J.D. and B.A. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Katzovicz serves as a member of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee and previously served on the Buyside General Counsel Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He also serves as a member of the Board of Advisors of the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law & Economics and is a former term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Lettow_headshot_square_for_HamSoc.org.jpgPaul V. Lettow
Dr. Paul V. Lettow is a lawyer in the government regulation group in the Washington, D.C. office of Jones Day. From 2007 to 2009, he served as the Senior Director for Strategic Planning on the National Security Council staff at the White House. Previously, Dr. Lettow was Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs from 2006 to 2007. He is the author of Strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime (Council on Foreign Relations, 2010), and Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Random House, 2005). Dr. Lettow received a J.D. from Harvard Law School, a D.Phil. in international relations from Oxford University, and an A.B. in history,summa cum laude, from Princeton University. He is a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Sanger_headshot_square_for_HamSoc.org.jpgArvind Sanger
Arvind Sanger founded Geosphere Capital Management, LLC in 2007. From 2002 to 2007, Mr. Sanger was a Portfolio Manager at SAC Capital, where he was one of the most senior equity portfolio managers at the firm. He managed a team of six investment professionals in New York and Singapore. Prior to his tenure at SAC, he had a fifteen-year career as a top-ranked sell-side oil services and equipment analyst at a number of firms, including Deutsche Bank, DLJ and Kidder Peabody. Mr. Sanger is a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, and received his MBA from Tulane University. He is a member of the Business School Council at A.B. Freeman School of Business at Tulane University and Chairman of the Board of Pratham USA, an organization affiliated with the largest educational NGO in India.
Sign in with Facebook
Sign in with Twitter
Sign in with Email
Jobs, Internships, and Programs (Members only) Chapter Leaderboard
Subscribe with RSS
The Alexander Hamilton Society
1730 M Street, NW, Suite 909
Washington, D.C. 20036
info@hamsoc.org
202.499.5742
==
June 17, 2009
Financial Regulatory Reform: Administration White Paper Advocates Increased Supervision and Regulation of Financial Firms, Markets, and Products PDF
http://www.jonesday.com/files/Publication/bb3ceafc-09fb-4c36-8382-a61e9c773656/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/6e44821b-c04a-4671-a4a4-c007962f7498/Financial%20Regulatory%20Reform.pdf
just a summary of proposals
==
bs praise for dad on takings
http://pointoflaw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=bar%20exam&IncludeBlogs=11,3,9,12,15,8,18,13,19&limit=20&page=2
fedsoc
Professor Lerner works in the fields of U.S. and English legal history, civil and criminal procedure, and comparative law. She focuses particularly on the history of U.S. procedure and legal institutions, and how they have diverged from those of England, and on the differences between current adversarial and nonadversarial legal systems. She regularly speaks to groups of U.S. and foreign judges about comparative procedure and institutions. She is the author, with John Langbein and Bruce Smith, of the book History of the Common Law: The Development of Anglo-American Legal Institutions (2009).
Professor Lerner received an A.B. summa cum laude in history from Princeton University. She did graduate work as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University in English legal history. At Yale Law School, she was Articles Editor of the Yale Law Journal. She served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and to Judge Stephen F. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. From 2003 to 2005, she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice
Education
B.A., Princeton University
M.Litt., Oxford University
J.D., Yale University
==
fedsoc pro bono
https://www.probonocenter.org/welcome.aspx
just matchmaker, justforms, no info
News
Pro Bono Center Launch: The Federalist Society is pleased to announce the launch of its new online Pro Bono Center.
The Pro Bono Center is dedicated to matching the talents, energies, interests and ideals of The Federalist Society's membership - a rich pool of talent for pro bono work - to appropriate volunteer service opportunities.
The center came into being in large part because public interest firms have indicated that they receive far more opportunities for high quality and important pro bono work than they can take on. The Federalist Society's 2001 study of Pro Bono at AmLaw 100 firms also suggests there is a real need for new and expanded opportunities for pro bono service in fields that have traditionally been underrepresented (or not represented at all) in large law firm programs.
According to Peggy Little, the Center's Director, "the Pro Bono Center offers public interest firms a unique and exciting opportunity to provide the Society's lawyers with information about opportunities for pro bono service in the cause of individual liberty, traditional values, limited government, and the rule of law."
In addition to operating the Pro Bono Center's service exchange, the Pro Bono Center plans to help lawyers work on public interest matters with one another and with the Center's other participants, which may eventually include law school clinics, bar associations, foundations, and corporations. The Center will facilitate online collaboration between volunteers and public interest firms through information sharing and other services. Ultimately, the Center will help create a flourishing community of conservative and libertarian lawyers that encourages and enhances pro bono service through online interactive media, reference tools, news resources and public recognition for outstanding individuals and organizations. Although it operates the Center, The Federalist Society itself will not undertake any litigation, advocacy or other pro bono activity.
Resources
Pro Bono Activity at the AmLaw 100
In 2001, The Federalist Society completed a survey of pro bono activity at the nation’s 100 largest law firms. Most large firms have written pro bono policies and encourage their lawyers to involve themselves in public interest matters. What kinds of public interest groups receive the most support from large firms, and what types of pro bono work do they do? Click here for a copy of the report.
Lawyer Chapters of The Federalist Society
Interested in collaborating on your pro bono project with fellow Federalists? Contact, join or start a local chapter.
Links
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
The Insider
Law.com
Lexis Online
Westlaw Online
The Heritage Foundation - Public Interest Firm Legal Action (this seems to exist by thisname nowhere
Townhall.com
==
Notable recipients[edit]
Carl Brashear
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Laura Bush
Richard Armitage
Zalmay Khalilzad
David Scantling
Michele Flournoy
MITRE Corporation
David S. Alberts
Mariusz Handzlik
Jill Kelley
Jacques Paul Klein
Robert L. Gordon III
Walter Oi
Zachary J. Lemnios
William A. Jeffrey
==
America Abroad Media produces programming that promotes the free exchange of ideas, fosters critical thinking, and empowers self-governing citizens worldwide. AAM partners with prominent media outlets in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia to co-produce unique programming that builds their capacity to educate and empower local audiences. AAM's board of advisors includes leaders in policy, public diplomacy and national security.[1]
America Abroad: Each month, AAM's one-hour public radio program takes an in-depth look at one critical issue in international affairs and U.S. foreign policy. Hosted by Madeleine Brand and Hari Sreenivasan, America Abroad is broadcast on public radio stations across the U.S. through Public Radio International.[2]
Tunisia Programming: AAM works with leading Tunisian radio and television stations to produce documentaries and town halls connecting Tunisians for direct discussion on critical transition issues such as governance, political participation, corruption, freedom of expression, minority rights, and the economy.
Pakistan Programming: AAM co-produces a wide range of programming for broadcast on Pakistani television in partnership with several of Pakistan's top TV channels, including trilateral town halls connecting Pakistan, Afghanistan, and India, and a 12-part documentary series hosted by Reema Khan - one of Pakistan's leading actresses and directors.
Afghanistan Programming: AAM produces documentary programs and international town halls for broadcast on leading radio and television channels in Afghanistan. Recent examples include Baa Hum (Together), a weekly radio drama focused on women’s political participation; and Breadwinners, a radio documentary series profiling female entrepreneurs in Afghanistan.
AAM Journalism Fellowships: We bring top broadcast journalists from key Muslim countries to the U.S. to learn about and report on U.S. foreign policy, educate Americans about their countries and cultures, and produce programs for primetime broadcast in their home countries.[3]
AAM International Town Halls: We connect U.S. and foreign audiences for discussion about critical international issues of mutual interest. This innovative format provides a platform for Americans and their foreign counterparts to engage and learn from one another through direct dialogue.[4]
AAM Awards Dinner: The Power of Film honors outstanding leaders whose work exemplifies the power of media to inform, educate and empower citizens about the critical social and public policy issues of our time.[5]
AAM is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ http://americaabroadmedia.org/what-we-do
Jump up ^ http://americaabroadmedia.org/what-we-do/us-public-radio-series
Jump up ^ http://americaabroadmedia.org/what-we-do/journalism-fellowship-program
Jump up ^ http://americaabroadmedia.org/what-we-do/international-town-halls
Jump up ^ http://americaabroadmedia.org/awardsdinner
Categories: American broadcasters
wikifluff
==
08-24-2012 | 05:19 PM Author: Michael Lefkowitz
Graphic Warnings Violate Tobacco Companies’ Rights, Federal Appeals Court Rules
WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) Graphic cigarette pack warnings proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration violate tobacco companies' First Amendment right against compelled speech, a federal appeals court ruled Aug. 24, setting up a split between circuits on the issue (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration, et al., No. 11-5332, D.C. Cir.) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers].
(Opinion available. Document #04-120919-006Z.)
"The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal," the panel of the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said, citing Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n (447 U.S. 557, 566 [1980]). "FDA has not provided a shred of evidence-much less the 'substantial evidence' required by the APA [Administrative Procedure Act]-showing that the graphic warnings will 'directly advance' its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke."
Unlike in Warner-Lambert Co. v. FTC, 562 F.2d 749 (D.C. Cir. 1977), the panel said, the FDA has not shown that the graphic warnings were designed to correct past false or misleading claims or that, absent disclosure, consumers would likely be deceived by the packaging in the future.
General Disclosures
"Rather, FDA framed the warnings as general disclosures about the negative health effects of smoking," the panel said. "The warnings thus represent an ongoing effort to discourage consumers from buying the Companies' products, rather than, as in Warner-Lambert, a measure designed to combat specific deceptive claims."
"In fact, many of the images do not convey any warning information at all, much less make an 'accurate statement' about cigarettes," the panel said. "For example, the images of a woman crying, a small child, and the man wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words 'I QUIT' do not offer any information about the health effects of smoking."
The opinion is by Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown, with Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph concurring.
Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented, saying that in light of decades of tobacco industry deception about the risks of smoking, the court should have applied the less-stringent, rational-basis review of Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Council of the Supreme Court of Ohio (471 U.S. 626, 650-51 [1985]), not the intermediate scrutiny of Central Hudson.
"Because the warning labels present factually accurate information and address misleading commercial speech, as defined in Supreme Court precedent, Zauderer scrutiny applies, and the government need show only that the warning label requirement is reasonably related to its stated and substantial interest in effectively conveying this information to consumers," Judge Rogers said.
Appeal
The case is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Richard J. Leon on March 1 ruled against the government (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration, et al., No. 1:11-1482, D. D.C.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26257). A similar case in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals went in the government's favor, albeit with a dissent (Discount Tobacco City & Lottery Inc., et al. v. United States of America, et al., No. 10-5234 and 10-5235, 6th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5614).
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. are represented by Geoffrey K. Beach of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice in Winston-Salem, N.C., and Noel J. Francisco and Warren Postman of Jones Day in Washington. Lorillard Inc. is represented by Floyd Abrams, Joel L. Kurtzberg and Kayvan Sadeghi of Cahill, Gordon & Reindel in New York and Scott D. Danzis of Covington & Burling in Washington. Commonwealth Brands Inc. is represented by Philip J. Perry of Latham & Watkins in Washington. Liggett Vector Brands LLC is represented by Jonathan D. Hacker of O'Melveny & Myers in Washington. The government is represented by Drake S. Cutini and Daniel K. Crane-Hirsch of the U.S. Justice Department in Washington.
[Editor's Note: Lexis subscribers may download the document using the link above. The document(s) are also available at http://www.mealeysonline.com/ or by calling the Customer Support Department at 1-800-833-9844.]
--
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4C0311C78EB11C5785257A64004EBFB5/$file/11-5332-1391191.pdf
bunch of AG's
the State of Ohio, Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island,
Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of South Dakota, Mark L. Shurtleff,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State
of Utah, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Vermont, Vincent F.
Frazier, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the Virgin Islands, Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington,
and Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of West Virginia, were on the
brief for amici curiae States.
Noel J. Francisco argued the cause for appellees. With
him on the briefs were Warren D. Postman, Philip J. Perry,
Jonathan D. Hacker, Floyd Abrams, Joel Kurtzberg, and
Patricia A. Barald.
Bert W. Rein, John E. Barry, Robin S. Conrad, Kathryn
Comerford Todd, and Sheldon Gilbert were on the brief for
amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America in support of appellees.
Daniel J. Popeo, Cory L. Andrews, and Richard A. Samp
were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal
Foundation.
Robert Corn-Revere and Ronald G. London were on the
brief for amici curiae Association nat adv
==
heritage hit:
Backgrounder #2760 on Economy
January 22, 2013
The CFPB in Action: Consumer Bureau Harms Those It Claims to Protect
By Diane Katz
Abstract
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created in 2010 by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and imbued with unparalleled powers over virtually every consumer financial product and service. With rulemaking and enforcement now underway, there is ample evidence that agency operations represent a radical departure from long-standing regulatory standards. The CFPB’s actions are constricting the availability of financial products and services and raising costs—all of which will undermine business investment and consumer credit. Immediate reforms are necessary to impose accountability on the bureau. Ultimately, the CFPB should be eliminated and replaced by coordinated oversight of various enforcement functions among other financial regulators.
The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), created by the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, is living up to its billing as one of the most powerful—and unaccountable—federal agencies ever created.[1] After just 18 months—and with a staff exceeding 1,000 and funding of $600 million—the bureau is restructuring the mortgage market; devising restrictions on credit bureaus, education loans, overdraft policies, payday lenders, credit card plans and prepaid cards; and amassing unverified complaints with which to assail creditors and bankers. This inordinate control over consumer finance is constraining credit and harming the economy.
Prior to passage of Dodd–Frank, authority for some 50 rules and orders stemming from 18 consumer protection laws was divided among seven agencies.[2] Title X of the act consolidated this authority within the CFPB, while granting the agency unparalleled, radical powers over virtually every consumer financial product and service.
The bureau was designed to evade the checks and balances that apply to most other regulatory agencies. Its very structure invites expansive rulemaking,[3] as does its misappropriation of the emergent theory of behavioral economics that drives bureau decision making. It deems consumers prone to financial irrationality and thus ill-equipped to act in their self-interest. Consequently, the CFPB is compelled to intervene in consumers’ personal financial transactions.
Government interference in the financial market does not come without consequences. In the case of the CFPB, the rule of law is being supplanted by regulatory whim, producing deep uncertainty in the consumer financial market. And, the new regulatory strictures will increase consumers’ costs and reduce consumers’ choices of financial products and services.
Lawmakers must curtail the bureau’s unconstrained powers. Outright elimination of the CFPB is the best option. Consumer protection can be advanced instead through better coordination among financial regulators. Proceeding toward bureau dissolution, bureau funding should be controlled by Congress, and the vague language of the CFPB’s statutory mandate must be tightened to stop bureaucrats from defining—and expanding—their own powers.
An Unaccountable Structure
The CFPB became operational on July 21, 2011, but was limited by statute to enforcing existing rules for banks and credit unions (with more than $10 billion in assets) until a director was confirmed by the Senate.
To launch the bureau, President Barack Obama appointed Elizabeth Warren[4] as a “special advisor.” The President subsequently dispensed with the confirmation process required in the statute by appointing former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray as director, claiming the action was a “recess appointment”—though the Senate was not in recess.[5] Bypassing the Senate confirmation process eliminated one of the very few means of bureau oversight held by Congress.[6]
With a director in place, the bureau is authorized to supervise “larger participants”[7] in nonbank services. The CFPB has identified six such services for regulation, including debt collection; consumer reporting; prepaid cards; debt relief; consumer credit; and money transmitting, check cashing, and related activities.
Reflecting the overly broad nature of its powers, the agency may also supervise any nonbank financial product or service that it considers to be a “risk” to consumers, or one engaging in “unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.”
Although established within the Federal Reserve System, the bureau operates independently, and with virtually no oversight.[8] CFPB funding is set by law at a fixed percentage of the Federal Reserve’s operating budget. This budget independence limits congressional oversight of the agency, and its status within the Fed also precludes presidential oversight. Even the Federal Reserve is statutorily prohibited from “intervening” in bureau affairs.
As with much of Dodd–Frank, a panicked Congress empowered the CFPB without a full understanding of the housing market collapse, the failure of major financial firms, and the resulting shock to the economy. In reality, most consumer financial products and services were not a major factor in the financial crisis. Indeed, many of the Dodd–Frank provisions have long ranked high on activists’ wish lists, and the crisis provided a convenient opening to restrain the finance sector in a regulatory headlock.
The CFPB’s Abusive Standards
The bureau is empowered by statute to take action against “unfair, deceptive and abusive practices” in financial products and services. Legal standards for “unfair” and “deceptive” exist,[9] but the CFPB is not necessarily bound by prior interpretations. However, the concept of “abusive” is unfamiliar in regulatory law. As outlined in Title X, the bureau’s authority to craft rules and enforce against “abusive” practices is particularly vague:
The Bureau shall have no authority … to declare an act or practice abusive in connection with the provision of a consumer financial product or service, unless the act or practice
materially interferes with the ability of a consumer to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service; or
takes unreasonable advantage of
A lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service;
The inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service; or
The reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interestsof the consumer.[10]
One must ask just how the CFPB is to determine consumer “ability” or the requisite degree of consumer “understanding” for a population of more than 300 million Americans using thousands of different financial products and services. Concerns about arbitrary enforcement are not assuaged by the testimony of the bureau director who told lawmakers that
the term abusive in the statute is … a little bit of a puzzle because it is a new term.... We have been looking at it, trying to understand it, and we have determined that that is going to have to be a fact and circumstances issue; it is not something we are likely to be able to define in the abstract. Probably not useful to try to define a term like that in the abstract; we are going to have to see what kind of situations may arise.[11]
Thus, the bureau intends to regulate virtually the entire financial sector without defined and fixed standards.
Predicating regulation on “consumer understanding” and “consumer interest” represents a “radical” departure from the duty of care long imposed upon banks, according to experts such as John D. Wright, chief regulatory counsel of Wells Fargo & Co.:
This part of the Act introduces new more subjective standards that appear to require banks to conduct customer-specific inquiries by obtaining information about each customer’s financial circumstances and needs, even for mass-marketed commodity products like checking accounts and credit cards.… A requirement for a suitability determination will add significant costs to the delivery of banking products and services, and will create incentives for banks to offer plain vanilla products with a limited menu of features. [12]
That appears to be precisely what bureau architects intended: force banks to act as advisors rather than expect consumers to determine which products and services will best meet their individual needs. It is the essence of the nanny state. It helps to explain why the bureau is asking consumers to reveal their “common money mistakes” so it may develop “better ways to help others avoid these mistakes in the future.”[13]
Risky Rules Replace the Rule of Law
Identifying the “risks” to consumers from financial products and services is listed in Title X as a primary function of the CFPB “[i]n order to support its rulemaking and other functions.” The bureau sets regulatory policy based on “likely risks” associated with buying or using a financial product or service; consumers’ “understanding” of such risks; and the extent, if any, to which the risks “may disproportionately affect traditionally underserved consumers.”
The problem: There is no definition of “risk” in Title X. The CFPB is thus free to define its powers without the checks and balances that typically protect citizens from government overreach.
According to the bureau’s 924-page Supervision and Examination Manual, “Risk to consumers is the potential for consumers to suffer economic loss or other legally-cognizable injury (e.g., invasion of privacy) from a violation of Federal consumer financial law.”[14] Bureau staff is directed to gauge this risk potential based on “the nature and structure of the products offered, the consumer segments to which such products are offered, the methods of selling the products, and methods of managing the delivery of the products or services and the ongoing relationship with the consumer.”
In other words, the bureau will act based on a supposition of future harm rather than actual violation of the law.
Examiners are also expected to determine the likelihood that a supervised entity will not comply with federal consumer financial law, and forecast whether a firm’s supposed risks will decrease, increase, or remain unchanged. But predictions are speculative, by definition, and have no place in a regulatory context. Rather than enforce fixed, objective regulatory standards, the bureau will customize criteria by which firms will be variably judged. Companies could be penalized for conduct that they had no reason to believe was improper. Just how such a system comports with traditional notions of due process remains to be seen.
Heavy-Handed Supervision
The bureau’s estimation of risk largely determines whether a financial firm is subjected to ongoing “supervision.”[15] Supervision is no small matter. The bureau is empowered to require a firm to divulge documents and records, and submit to ongoing scrutiny of its entire framework of policies and practices. Bureau procedures also call for background checks of company officers, directors, and key personnel. Bonding requirements may be imposed. None of which is triggered by an actual violation of law. Indeed, the bureau may initiate supervision of any financial product or service if it has “reasonable cause to determine … that such [firm] is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers.”[16]
To date, the agency has designated “consumer reporting companies” that have $7 million or more in annual receipts as “larger participants.” That represents about 30 credit bureaus (and related services), accounting for 94 percent of the annual receipts from the entire consumer reporting sector.[17] The bureau also has designated debt collectors with more than $10 million in annual receipts as “larger participants.” The estimated 175 firms that would exceed the threshold represent an estimated 63 percent of annual receipts in the market.[18]
This approach to risk-based supervision turns the rule of law on its head. The bureau will unilaterally decide what constitutes a risk and impose new burdens on a financial services firm—for conduct that may or may not be improper if practiced by a different service provider at any given time.
Casting a Big Net
Since its inception, the bureau has launched dozens of investigations and issued more than 100 subpoenas demanding data, testimony from executives, and marketing materials amounting to millions of documents.[19] The bureau is not required to possess evidence of wrongdoing before initiating a probe.
The CFPB opens an investigation by issuing a Civil Investigative Demand (CID), which is a form of subpoena, to require testimony, documents, and responses to written questions. While the investigation itself is nonpublic, a petition to modify or set aside the CID will be made public by the CFPB.[20]
A CID recipient has only 10 days to confer with bureau staff if it intends to seek modification of a subpoena. As noted by the law firm of Venable LLP, that is hardly sufficient time to assemble a legal team, evaluate the CID, consult with relevant IT and business personnel, and craft a response.[21]
CID recipients may have counsel present for on-the-record testimony before the bureau, but the opportunity for counsel to make objections is limited.[22]
A petition to modify or set aside any of the investigative demands must be submitted within 20 days of receiving the CID.
CFPB staff may confer in secret, but the decision on a petition to modify a CID rests solely with the director. The rules contain no provision for judicial appeal of the director’s decision.[23] A firm’s only alternative is to refuse to abide by the CID and raise objections before a judge after the bureau seeks a court order to enforce its demands.
Unverified Data Drive Policy
CFPB officials tout the bureau as a “data-driven” agency.[24] They emphasize that bureau policies and priorities are based on research and analyses of financial products and services, with particular emphasis on discerning “risk to consumers.”[25] Measuring various aspects of a market may be beneficial, of course. But not all data collection leads to credible conclusions. Nor does data, in and of itself, determine sound policy.
Consider the CFPB’s use of complaint “data,” which officials identify as the “start and end” of the bureau’s rulemaking and enforcement,[26] and which Cordray has called the agency’s “lifeline.”[27] Staff has been instructed to utilize complaint data as “indications of potential regulatory violations, including unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.”[28]
The CFPB initially solicited consumer complaints about credit cards. The collection of mortgage complaints was launched last December, followed by complaints about checking accounts, savings accounts, CDs, and student loans in March.
Each complaint is catalogued on the agency’s website, including the name of the accused, the nature of the alleged offense, the date of the complaint, and the zip code of the complainant (whose identity is not revealed). In addition to providing public access to this raw data, the bureau reports the complaints to various federal and state regulatory agencies, and also issues periodic reports.
For all the consequential uses to which the data is put, however, the complaint data is not verified.[29] The CFPB is crafting regulations and commencing supervision and enforcement actions based, in part, on consumer allegations that are never checked for accuracy.
There is also no way to determine whether a complaint relates to dissatisfaction with or misunderstanding of legitimate terms of service—as opposed to actual wrongdoing. The system relies on individuals to categorize their complaints, but the limited number of broad categories invites mischaracterization. Nor is there any way to distinguish whether a complaint is made because a company failed to offer an adequate remedy to the customer, or the customer simply rejected a reasonable response.
Moreover, the database lacks statistical validity. The manner of reporting does not ensure that the complaints represent the experiences of the population as a whole. Consequently, any of the policies derived from the data are not applicable to the general population.
The complaint data also lacks context. The bureau reports the total number of complaints by type, but gives no indication of the size of the market. For example, a total of 23,400 credit card complaints have been submitted to the bureau (as of September 30, 2012),[30] but there are 383 million credit card accounts.
Thus, the complaints only represent 6 percent of credit card customers.
Such a system exposes financial firms to unwarranted reputational harm and lawsuits. For example, the aggregation of unverified complaints by zip code may expose firms to claims of lending discrimination or “disparate impact”—which CFPB officials have pledged to aggressively pursue.[31] Congress authorized creation of a complaint database, but set no data quality standards. Perhaps lawmakers assumed the CFPB would manage the data in a more responsible fashion.
A Rush of Rulemaking
The bureau’s authority to prescribe rules and regulations is vast. Title X even instructs the judiciary to grant ultimate deference to the CFPB in the event of territorial squabbles over financial regulations among various regulatory agencies.[32]
As of this writing, the CFPB has issued 21 final rules. Three of those directly regulate financial products and services; nine establish enforcement and supervision procedures; six adjust thresholds for regulations; two make corrections; and one delays implementation of a rule. Another seven rules are pending. The bureau also has solicited comment on education loans, overdraft programs, payday loans, credit card plans, and prepaid cards—all of which will lay the groundwork for rulemaking.
Six pending rules relate to an overhaul of mortgage lending. Until they are finalized, however, the housing market is plagued by uncertainty. Confusion also reigns. For example, the bureau has proposed multiple changes to “Regulation Z” (Truth in Lending Act). However, the bureau has not assembled all the various amendments into a single document. Some of the proposals even conflict. As noted by the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, in a comment letter with 15 other trade associations: “These proposals cross-reference provisions in each other, making it difficult to tell what each references and what Regulation Z would look like if all of these proposals are finalized.”[33]
A review of some of the bureau’s actions to date exposes alarming regulatory excess:
Mortgage Lending. Mortgage “simplification” is one of the 400-plus regulatory requirements called for in the 2,300-page Dodd–Frank act. But many of the more confounding complexities in the credit world are a result of legislative and judicial dictates rather than private-sector fine print.
The Dodd–Frank act requires the bureau to devise an “integrated” form to disclose the terms of a mortgage application (the Loan Estimate) and mortgage closing (the Closing Disclosure).
To that end, the CFPB has released a proposal for a more “consumer friendly” mortgage process. The previous loan form had been five pages long; the new one proposed is three. The proposed closing form remains at five pages. But the agency’s proposed requirements to implement the new forms and related rules run 1,099 pages.
Once finalized, the new forms will entail major changes to lenders’ operations, including revising forms, IT systems, and policies. The CFPB estimates the costs of new software and employee training to be $100 million. The pending reform ranks as lenders’ greatest compliance concern, with 48 percent citing it as a “high” concern and an additional 33 percent citing it as a “medium” concern, according to the annual survey by QuestSoft, a regulatory consultancy.[34] “Factor in the CFPB’s position that consumers who do not receive proper disclosure should have the right to walk away from a loan, and it is no surprise that disclosure compliance is the top concern,” said QuestSoft President Leonard Ryan.[35]
Redesigning the mortgage documents apparently required the assistance of Kleimann Communication Group, Inc., a self-described “small, agile, woman-owned” business, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $900,000. The Kleimann Group performed “qualitative testing” of various loan formats with 92 consumers and 22 lenders in Baltimore; Los Angeles; Chicago; Albuquerque; Des Moines; Philadelphia; Austin, Texas; Springfield, Massachusetts; and Birmingham, Alabama.
According to the bureau, both forms have been designed to “reduce cognitive burden.” The 533-page chronicle of the bureau’s feat—“Know Before You Owe: Evolution of the Integrated TILA–RESPA Disclosures”—includes insights such as, “We found the most effective way to reduce confusion surrounding the APR [annual percentage rate] was to clarify that it was not the interest rate by adding the simple statement: ‘This is not your interest rate.’”[36]
Rather than empower consumers through disclosure, the bureau has taken the position that “too much information has the potential to detract from consumers’ decision-making processes.”
Of particular concern is the bureau’s treatment of the annual percentage rate (APR), which many borrowers use to compare loan costs. The APR, as a single percentage figure, represents the actual yearly cost of the loan over its entire term. It includes the interest rate, as well as other fees associated with the transaction, such as mortgage insurance, processing fees, and discount points.
The APR has long been prominent on government-mandated disclosure documents. This time around, the bureau’s proposed rules relegate the APR to the last page, but added additional costs to the calculation without direction to do so from Congress. Consequently, the APR will be larger. But that could pose major problems for consumers. Higher-cost APR loans are subject to additional rules under the Home Owners Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) as well as some state laws.[37]
The new regulations also prohibit balloon payments, i.e., smaller mortgage payments every month, followed by a single, one-time payoff at the end of the loan. Late fees also are capped, which will likely prompt lenders to vigorously enforce payment deadlines and use of collection agencies. The bureau also is restricting loan-modification fees, which will likely limit lenders’ options for customizing loans.
In sum, the bureau’s notion of “improving outcomes” will likely result in fewer mortgage options for consumers and higher borrowing costs.
Mortgage Servicing. The bureau has issued more than 560 pages of proposed rules for mortgage servicing, which encompasses the collection of mortgage payments, maintenance of escrow accounts, loan modifications, and foreclosures, among other functions. Many of the provisions would micromanage the timing, content, and format of various disclosures.
The proposed rules coincide with provisions of a settlement between states and the five largest mortgage-servicing banks that had been accused of mistreating borrowers. Bureau officials are hyping the proposed regulations as the solution to the wave of foreclosures in recent years.[38] Lenders will indeed face more requirements in processing a foreclosure, but that won’t save borrowers who, for a multitude of reasons, cannot afford their payments. It will make mortgage servicing more time-consuming and costly.
The burden of such rules would fall disproportionately upon community banks, which have far fewer resources to reconfigure services. To the extent that the CFPB’s regulatory onslaught overwhelms small banks, their larger brethren will benefit—becoming all the more powerful as community banks close. That is the very outcome that Dodd–Frank supposedly was enacted to prevent.
Of particular concern are the proposed obligations on servicers’ dealings with a delinquent borrower. The bureau seems to think it is the responsibility of servicers to rescue such borrowers from their predicament. For example, servicers would be required to inform borrowers about financial “counseling,” while also being prohibited from initiating a foreclosure sale until the delinquent borrower has exhausted his or her options and appeals.
Another proposal would prohibit servicers from obtaining “forced-place” insurance upon a finding that the borrower has failed to maintain property insurance as required. Instead, servicers would be required to give borrowers two opportunities to produce proof of insurance over 45 days before charging for insurance, as well as provide advance notice and pricing information to the borrowers and allow them to obtain their own replacement insurance. In other words, borrowers who have violated the conditions of their mortgage by failing to maintain home insurance must be given a second chance (or third or fourth) to honor the terms of their mortgage agreement.
Such requirements effectively rob lenders of control over the loans they make. It is no wonder, then, that more banks are exiting the mortgage-service business.
Qualified Mortgage. Of enormous consequence to the fate of the housing market is how the bureau defines a “qualified mortgage.” The definition is central to a provision of Dodd–Frank that requires lenders to determine a borrower’s “ability to repay” any loan “secured by a dwelling.” Once finalized as a rule, the qualified mortgage will act as the standard for loan terms that lenders can reasonably expect a borrower to repay. Billions of dollars in loans and millions of mortgages are on the line.
Too broad a definition would expose lenders to costly litigation from borrowers who default. But an overly stringent standard would make it much harder for consumers to secure a mortgage and thus jeopardize the fragile housing market.
Under this “ability to repay” regime, the lender—not the borrower—can be blamed for a loan default. Dodd-Frank allows homeowners to sue lenders if they cannot make their payments and face foreclosure. Such standards effectively require banks to act as personal advisers or intermediaries despite long-held legal precedent that they are not fiduciaries in retail banking.
How does a lender guarantee that a customer understands the terms of a loan? Will there be a test? And, in the event a bank deems customers’ understanding as deficient, is that bank at risk of violating fair lending laws? CFPB officials have emphasized that they will aggressively monitor firms to ensure that financial products and services are available to various racial, ethnic, and gender groups in direct proportion to their share of the population. Thus, lenders are trapped in a Catch-22: To abide by the “ability to repay” rule could mean not meeting the race and gender quotas, or vice versa.
Disclosure and clarity-of-loan terms are important, of course. But rather than simply assist consumers in understanding the terms of service for financial products, the bureau is effectively controlling the type of loans available.
Prepaid Cards. General purpose reloadable cards (GPRs), have exploded in popularity. According to one recent study, the amount consumers loaded onto the cards will increase from $28.6 billion in 2009 to $201.9 billion in 2013.[39] Consumers obviously find the cards useful.
One would not know it from the stance of CFPB officials, who are eager to impose the same degree of regulation that has made checking accounts and credit cards more costly—and induced consumers to turn to prepaid cards. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the CFPB claims to be “particularly interested in learning more about this product.” Yet even before “learning more,” the bureau has already decided to propose new regulations,[40] which would impose many of the same requirements on prepaid cards that currently apply to credit cards—which would raise costs.
Prepaid cards are available with a variety of terms and fees that vary by issuer. Those options are beneficial to consumers—and particularly so to the “unbanked” and “underbanked” users who heavily rely on the cards. To the extent that regulators impose service conditions and requirements, fewer firms will offer the cards, while the cost of those that remain will rise. Innovation of this nascent product will be inhibited, as well. Indeed, the bureau also intends to regulate mobile devices that access consumer accounts—a grossly overbroad use of its powers.
Steps for Congress
The best option going forward would be outright elimination of the CFPB through repeal of Title X of the Dodd–Frank financial regulation statute. This does not mean returning to the old regulatory model, whereby different agencies applied different standards to similar products and services. Instead, a council representing the various financial agencies—staffed and paid for without new spending—could conduct coordinated oversight of various enforcement actions to ensure universal coverage.[41] Immediate relief requires the following reforms:
Abolish the CFPB’s current funding mechanism and subject it instead to congressional control. Although some financial regulatory agencies (such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Fed itself) also fall outside the congressional appropriations process, they are the exceptions rather than the rule among government agencies. Given the CFPB’s broad policymaking role, there is no justification for allowing the bureau to escape congressional oversight.
Strike the undefined term “abusive” from the list of practices under CFPB purview. There is no regulatory precedent or jurisprudence that interprets the term in the context of consumer financial services, and the bureau should not have discretion to define its own powers.
Specifically require the CFPB to apply definitions of “unfair” and “deceptive” practices in a manner consistent with case law. Otherwise, regulatory uncertainty will inhibit the availability of financial products and services.
Prohibit public release of unconfirmed complaint data. The publication of mere accusations can subject businesses to undeserved reputational harm and unnecessary litigation.
Abolish the inordinate deference in judicial review granted to the CFPB. The Dodd–Frank statute instructs judges to defer to the bureau’s regulatory decisions as if it “were the only agency authorized to apply, enforce, interpret, or administer the provisions of such Federal consumer financial law.” However, judicial scrutiny is a necessary check on the CFPB’s otherwise unconstrained powers.
Require the CFPB to obtain approval for all major rulemakings from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Such oversight would increase agency transparency and accountability.
Conclusion
The current structure of the CFPB, with its lack of accountability and absence of oversight, invites regulatory excess. Along with its unparalleled powers and approach to regulation and enforcement, the bureau’s actions can be expected to chill the availability of financial products and services. The CFPB’s paternalistic view of consumers also means fewer choices and higher costs for credit. This will undoubtedly leave families and entrepreneurs without customized options with which to invest and build wealth.
Consumer protection against fraud and other misdeeds is certainly necessary, but the bureau is on a regulatory tear that extends well beyond what is reasonable. The obvious two questions to consider are: (1) Can consumers expect the federal government—with a national debt of $16 trillion—to do a better job of managing individuals’ finances than the individuals who know their own circumstances and preferences? They cannot. (2) Are regulators any less “biased” than consumers in their financial preferences? They are not.
—Diane Katz is Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.