Ex-Lobbyist Confirmed to CFTC

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


Meet the newest addition to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. If you’ve been reading Mother Jones recently, then you already know quite a bit about Scott O’Malia. Like the fact that he once worked as a top in-house lobbyist for an energy company, Mirant, that manipulated California’s market Enron-style. Or that, while on this company’s payroll, he lobbied against a bill to expand the CFTC’s authority to police derivatives. Or that the Senate Agriculture Committee, which reviewed his nomination, declined to ask him any specific questions about his pro-deregulation lobbying on not one but two occasions.

O’Malia and two other nominees were unanimously confirmed late Thursday. He will fill the seat vacated by Walter Lukken earlier this year, serving a five-year term that expires in April 2015. O’Malia’s tenure on the 5-member commission comes at a time when the Obama administration is pushing an ambitious financial reform overhaul, which, among other things, includes strengthening the historically toothless CFTC. During his recent confirmation hearing, O’Malia expressed [PDF] his commitment to bolstering oversight and said he would work to “ensure the CFTC uses all of its legal authorities to curb excessing speculation and prevent abusive trading practices, including fraud and manipulation.” Given his track record, there’s reason to be dubious. An energy analyst recently raised the theory that O’Malia’s nomination caused a rally in the oil market, with investors betting he’d reduce “the risk” the commission will take an aggressive stand on speculation.

It’s always possible that in the years following his stint at Mirant, O’Malia shifted his views on regulation and oversight. It’s possible that he’ll work to strengthen the rules his former company worked to undo. But if not, the Obama administration has succeeded in undermining its own agenda.

Follow Daniel Schulman on Twitter.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

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