Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to obtain documents related to political contributions made by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to the FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might well possess documents responsive to Judicial Watch's initial FOIA request. However the agency claims it is not obligated to release such documents to the public. Judicial Watch maintains that since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now wholly operated by the federal government through the FHFA they are subject to FOIA law.

Judicial Watch filed its FOIA request on May 29, 2009 seeking access to the following records from 2005 to the present:

a. Any and all Freddie Mac and/or Fannie Mae records concerning political campaign contributions.

b. Any and all Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac records concerning policies, stipulations, and/or requirements concerning campaign contributions.

The FHFA acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch's FOIA request in a July 1, 2009 letter, claiming that it had no documents responsive to Judicial Watch's request. However, the letter also stated that while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might possess the requested documents, the FHFA was not obligated to release them under FOIA allegedly because they do not "control" them. Judicial Watch appealed this decision on July 24. However this appeal was denied by FHFA on August 4, prompting Judicial Watch's lawsuit. The two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are in conservatorship under FHFA, which has full control over Fannie and Freddie, including their records. In addition to the $840 billion in taxpayer funds (from the Fed and Treasury) already spend on behalf the GSEs, taxpayers face a potential liability of $5.4 trillion from Fannie and Freddie.

Overall, members of Congress have received more than $4.8 million in political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the last ten years. According to OpenSecrets.org, from 1998 through 2008, the top ten recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's political largess, are as follows: Senator Dodd (D-CT), then-Senator Obama (D-IL), Senator Kerry (D-MA), Senator Bennett (R-UT), Rep. Bachus (R-AL), Rep. Blunt (R-MO), Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), Senator Bond (R-MO), Senator Shelby (R-AL), Senator Reed (D-RI). Senator Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee responsible for regulating the mortgage industry. Notably, President Obama was a top recipient of campaign monies despite being in the Senate for only three years.

"So much for the new era of transparency from the Obama administration…The decision to keep Fannie's and Freddie's political contribution records secret conveniently protects President Obama, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and his top party allies on the Hill. And more than a few Republicans stand to benefit from this improper secrecy," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Fannie and Freddie funneled 'profits' from backing risky mortgages to politicians like Barack Obama. In turn, these politicians protected Fannie and Freddie from proper oversight of the risks they were taking with taxpayer-funds. More than anything else, this fundamentally corrupt scheme led to the collapse of the housing market and the financial crisis. No wonder the Obama administration doesn't want us to see what is in Fannie's and Freddie's records."

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury Department to obtain records related to evaluation procedures used by the government to determine which financial institutions received funds from TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). Of particular interest to Judicial Watch is a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank.

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on January 23, 2009, seeking access to the following records:

a. Any and all records concerning evaluation procedures for federal banking agencies and the Treasury Department to distribute/award TARP Funds.

b. Correspondence with Congressman Barney Frank or any representative of his office concerning TARP Funds and/or any bank in Massachusetts.

c. Any and all records concerning OneUnited Bank in Boston, Massachusetts, (including correspondence from any lobbyist, correspondence from any other government agency, correspondence with any elected government official, correspondence directly with the Bank, the Bank’s application for TARP funds, etc).

The Treasury Department has acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch's FOIA request, but has provided no documents and has failed to inform Judicial Watch when a response to its request will be forthcoming. By law, Treasury was required to respond to Judicial Watch's request by March 9, 2009, (following a 10-day extension Treasury granted to itself to conduct a review).

As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Congressman Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator" and Treasury granted the funds.

"TARP has created a whole new form of earmarking, where politicians lobby to receive mass cash infusions for special interests in their states. OneUnited Bank did not appear to be a suitable candidate for federal assistance until Barney Frank intervened and shook loose a $12 million TARP grant. The American people deserve to know if Congressman Frank's intervention improperly colored the decision to give precious tax dollars to his hometown bank," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Treasury Department related to the government's bailout of insurance giant American International Group (AIG). The documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Treasury Department emails and a series of outlines, presentation slides and articles outlining the details of the government's "investment" in AIG, which at the time totaled as much $152 billion.

Following are highlights from the documents:

• A series of presentation slides detailing the terms of the AIG bailout. Included among the items is a slide entitled "Investment Considerations." On the slide the words, "The prospects of recovery of capital and a return on the equity investment to the taxpayer are highly speculative" are crossed out by hand.
• An outline that describes the strict measures of control "imposed" on AIG as a condition of the cash infusion, including those related to private executive compensation and corporate expenses. One document notes with respect to corporate expenses: The government's corporate expense policy "…shall remain in effect at least until such time as any of the shares of the Senior Preferred are owend by the UST (United States Treasury). Any material amendments to such policy shall require the prior written consent of the UST until such time as the UST no longer owns any shares of Senior Preferred."
• A December 15, 2008 Treasury Department internal email from Jonathan Fletcher, Chief Interim Risk Officer for TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), revealing the existence of an internal government program to track the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the AIG bailout. Fletcher writes: "As you know, we are obligated by EESA (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act) to determine the effectiveness of TARP investments…We would propose to follow up on the TARP investment by preparing a risk assessment note that spells out the objectives…and then create both a benchmark for AIG today and then establish metrics to track AIG's progress (or lack thereof) in coming months." No documents related to this government tracking program have been released to the public.

"Clearly Treasury Department officials felt strongly that the $152 billion 'investment' in AIG would not be recovered by the taxpayers. And it appears someone at Treasury did not want the risky nature of the deal to be relayed to the American people," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "These documents show that some government officials recognize their responsibility to measure the effectiveness of their TARP investments. Yet the American people are misinformed and remain in the dark about how their money is being spent."

Documents Uncovered

• Complete Treasury Department Documents

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to obtain documents related to the government's decision to delay the transition to digital television. The lawsuit was filed August 6. Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request following press reports alleging that a donor and advisor to President Obama stands to benefit from the delay. Meanwhile, in a highly unusual departure from policy, the FCC claims it cannot respond to parts of Judicial Watch's FOIA request "until we receive instructions from the White House."

On February 13, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the FCC seeking access to the following records: "Any records concerning the decision to delay the transition to digital television until June 12, 2009...Any and all records of communication between the Federal Communications [Commission] and the White House concerning the delays in the transition to digital television."

On May 8, 2009, the FCC reported to Judicial Watch that it had uncovered documents related to the first part of Judicial Watch's request and that the FCC would soon release some documents while withholding others. With respect to the second part of Judicial Watch's request, involving communications with the Obama administration, Joel Kaufman, Associate General Counsel for the FCC, indicated that the agency was required to "consult with the White House." The FCC "is unable to respond to this part of your FOIA request until we receive instructions from the White House," Kaufman wrote in his response letter.

On June 16, Judicial Watch received a number of documents related to the first part of its request. However, a large portion of these documents were heavily redacted without explanation. No documents have been received to date related to the FCC's communications with the White House.

Press reports have noted that a donor and advisor to President Obama on digital television issues, Gerard Salemme, is an executive with Clearwire, a telecommunications company that stood to benefit from the delay. The digital transition delay allegedly allowed Clearwire (and its partner, Sprint) to maintain an edge over competitor Verizon. The delay in the digital transition also would have had the effect of delaying Verizon's launch of a new broadband wireless network that would compete with a network currently operated by Clearwire/Sprint.

"Why is the Obama White House interfering in a routine FOIA request? There is no provision of FOIA law that allows the White House to screen requests for potentially damaging information. The FCC has an obligation to abide by the law and either release the documents or provide a justification for withholding them. If the Obama White House cared a whit about transparency, White House operatives would stop impeding the open records process," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.