Will Senate Grill Obama’s CFTC Nominee About His Lobbying Past?

Scott O’Malia’s work for a controversial energy firm never surfaced in his first confirmation hearing. This time he may not be so lucky.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


During his first confirmation hearing, Scott O’Malia got off easy. The nominee to the nation’s commodities watchdog agency was never asked about his role, years earlier, as a top lobbyist for a firm accused of Enron-style abuses, including manipulating California’s energy market and contributing to a statewide electricity crisis. That is, the very same type of market misconduct that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is charged with policing, if not preventing.

O’Malia, a Senate staffer who spent nearly a decade working for Mitch McConnell, was originally selected to serve as a CFTC commissioner by George W. Bush. But, after clearing the Senate agriculture committee, his nomination stalled. President Obama recently nominated him again, and O’Malia will soon face another confirmation hearing. This time around, though, he may face some tough questions about his two-year stint as the director of federal legislative affairs for Atlanta-based Mirant. Following a story by Mother Jones on his lobbying past, a spokeswoman for new agriculture committee chair Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) says O’Malia will be questioned about his history working for a company that pushed for deregulation and was the subject of a litany of lawsuits alleging unscrupulous business practices. “The confirmation process exists to fully vet nominees,” Katie Laning Niebaum, Lincoln’s communications director, told me. “Chairman Lincoln will address this matter in the hearing and looks forward to complete, transparent answers from Mr. O’Malia and all nominees.” (The hearing, which will include testimony from two other CFTC nominees, has yet to be scheduled.)

O’Malia’s nomination comes as the Obama administration is laying out a sweeping financial reform agenda—or, as the president himself put it last week, “the most ambitious overhaul of the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression.” In the past, the CFTC has often been seen as a feckless regulator, and strengthening its oversight of the futures and derivatives markets features prominently in the Obama administration’s agenda. That’s why some consumer advocates question why an ex-lobbyist for a company that gamed energy markets—Mirant eventually settled a spate of California lawsuits to the tune of a half billion dollars—has been chosen to fill this important seat. “This does not send a signal that wrongdoers are going to be held accountable,” say Tyson Slocum, the director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program and a member of the CFTC’s Energy and Environmental Markets Advisory Committee.

A White House official explained that Obama’s nomination of O’Malia had to do with protocol more than anything else. When a Democrat is in the White House, the top Senate Republican—in this instance, O’Malia’s former boss, McConnell—traditionally selects candidates for certain seats on independent government agencies. It’s “the sort of precedent we defer to,” the official said. But to CFTC observers like Slocum and Michael Greenberger, who directed the commission’s division of trading and markets in the late 1990s, this explanation doesn’t wash. Both said the president could easily request another candidate—one with a less controversial past and at least some commitment to the type of reforms the administration has in mind. “If the top Senate Republican nominated Charles Manson, is the president blindly going to nominate him?” asks Slocum. “Absolutely not. The president can say, ‘No, I’m sorry, with all due respect your nominee is unacceptable; please submit another one.'”

Meanwhile, some Democrats who have advocated strongly in the past to bolster the CFTC, arguing that it wasn’t doing enough to crack down on speculative trading and market manipulation, are holding their fire on O’Malia.

In the summer of 2008, after receiving the blessing of the agriculture commission, all that stood in the way of O’Malia and a seat on the commission was Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). Before his nomination could come to a vote, she put a hold on it (and those of two CFTC commissioners who’d been renominated by President Bush) as a form of protest. She said the commission had failed to wield its “authority to police the oil and gas markets from possible manipulation” and refused to allow the nominees to move forward until the CFTC made progress on that front. Since then, she has continued to push for the commission to step up its enforcement. Last week she introduced legislation to give the CFTC more power to crack down on market manipulation. Remarking on the bill, she invoked Enron: “When bad-actors like Enron…manipulate commodities prices, Americans end up footing the bill, paying more for commodities like oil, gasoline, heating oil, food, and natural gas.” Indeed, such was the case with Mirant, one of Enron’s trading partners. But Cantwell’s spokeswoman says the senator has no plans to block O’Malia’s nomination. “She does not currently have any concerns with Mr. O’Malia being on the commission.”

Slocum, however, finds O’Malia’s nomination troubling. “It is definitely a serious problem that a former lobbyist for a company that had to pay a settlement to resolve allegations of criminal misconduct…is now being nominated to be a regulator,” he says. “The Obama administration should have done more due diligence. What they didn’t do, now it’s the job of the Senate.”

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate