Press Coverage

The confirmation of Antonio Weiss — tapped by Mr. Obama to serve as Treasury’s undersecretary for domestic finance — is in doubt, as liberals such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, have taken direct aim at the former investment banker’s close ties to Wall Street.

The uproar highlights how some on the left, led by Mrs. Warren and also powerful progressive organizations outside Capitol Hill, now feel more emboldened to take on both the administration and so-called Wall Street Democrats.

They argue the administration must move to the left, particularly on financial matters, and needs to break associations the Democratic Party has with powerful banks and other financial institutions. Mrs. Warren has, for example, made the case that the federal government should pursue harsher regulations on Wall Street and should seek to break up large banks.

Mrs. Warren, Mr. Manchin and other opponents have been joined by groups such as the Progressive Change Campaign Committee — which has rallied liberals to oppose Mr. Weiss‘ nomination — and organizations such as the Independent Community Bankers of America, which argues the nominee would be yet another Wall Street voice in the federal government.

What some of those potential contenders have that Clinton lacks publicly is that they are identified by their passion for a particular issue: Sanders has long championed measures to reduce income inequality. Warren led the December congressional fight against easing laws aimed at restricting risky financial institution dealings and has long promoted populist concerns.

Clinton’s backing of Obama on Cuba, immigration and climate change notwithstanding, the party’s progressive wing wants to hear more about her plans for the economy.

“The big unchecked box for Hillary Clinton is economic populism and corporate accountability,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. The PCCC is organizing in key early presidential primary states to urge Democratic presidential candidates to campaign on an “Elizabeth Warren-style message of economic populism.”

We end the year with several liberal groups urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to change her mind and seek the presidency in 2016.

Some of this is real, some is part fund-raising gimmick, and some is designed to keep pressure on runaway Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Politico’s Maggie Haberman shared reporting of how Team Clinton is paying close attention — and making key inroads.

One group that has not joined the “Draft Warren” movement just happens to be the one perhaps closest to her, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Haberman took us inside a key meeting — a top Clinton political aide sitting down with PCCC leadership.

“This is the first time you’re seeing people in Clintonland trying to build a bridge openly, in a serious way, toward Warren’s supporters. This is also the group that has not joined the draft movement. So I think that this is something you are going to see more of going forward.”

The Democrats’ progressive wing this month led a strong but ultimately unsuccessful push to strip from the congressional budget bill provisions easing restrictions on financial institutions.

Activists have launched an energetic effort to boost Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for president, but Warren says she isn’t running.

Polls show significant disenchantment with mainstream Democrats, but mainstream icon Hillary Clinton retains a huge lead among Democrats for the 2016 presidential nomination.

Progressives interpret all this differently, saying it helps create awareness of their mission. “We want to un-rig the playing field. We want people to not feel the fix is in on every level,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

They paint even the recent setbacks as detours on their path to progress. The December McClatchy-Marist poll found that in the 2016 Democratic nomination derby, Clinton won 62 percent support from Democrats, while Warren got 9 percent. Among liberals, Warren rose to only 11 percent, while Clinton’s number doesn’t move.

Some third-party groups on the left and the right of the political spectrum, however, aren’t as pleased, warning the national parties will have more power to drown out upstart politicians challenging the establishment’s favored candidates.

Everyone agrees on one point, however: More campaign money will start to slosh through federal elections — just as the 2016 presidential campaign heats up.

On the left, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s spokeswoman Laura Friedenbach said: “Gutting campaign-finance laws represents Democrats marching in the exact wrong direction.”

“There are a lot of unchecked boxes with Hillary Clinton when it comes to economic populism and corporate accountability,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal group. “There are definitely red flags.”

He cited pricey speaking fees that Clinton received at two events for Goldman Sachs, a Wall Street investment bank, and questions about her position on numerous policies that affect the middle class, such as a long-shot hope to expand Social Security benefits.

The group, while not part of the draft effort, has sent an organizer to New Hampshire in hopes of creating a coalition that ensures that candidates carry Warren’s message.

At the very least, these liberal groups hope to use her momentum to push Clinton in a direction more aligned with a populist agenda.

Big banks are unnerved by Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) rise in Democratic circles, which is raising the prospect of her running for the White House.

Supporters who have launched campaigns to push her into the race as a rival to Hillary Clinton launched a protest in Warren’s name outside Citigroup’s Manhattan offices on Thursday, which only added to the industry’s anxiety.

The demonstration came a week after Warren led a populist uprising against changes to the Wall Street reform bill that were included in the $1.1 trillion government-spending bill.

Equally jarring to Wall Street is the possibility that Warren could force Clinton to the left to appease progressives. Income equality has emerged as the number one issue on the left, and it is seen as a touchstone issue for Warren.
Clinton, who also has not said if she will run for the White House, has already sent signals of concern about Warren.

On Thursday, a Clinton adviser reportedly met with officials from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which organized the Citigroup protest and is backing Warren.

Chanting and clapping outside Citigroup Inc.’s (C) Park Avenue headquarters today, about 50 protesters tried to thrust the bank into the 2016 presidential race.

“As part of running for president, you have to answer ‘The Citigroup Question’ — where do you stand on breaking up Citigroup?” said Zephyr Teachout, who challenged Andrew Cuomo for this year’s Democratic nomination for New York governor. “Do you think Citigroup should be broken up, or do you think things are OK?”

The protest, organized by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, singled out the bank that Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren denounced in the Senate last week, saying its lobbyists drafted the derivatives deregulation that Congress added to its $1.1 trillion spending bill. The lawmaker became the subject of a reworded folksong.

“If I had a Warren, I’d end too big to fail,” a circle of protesters sang to the tune of Pete Seeger’s “If I Had a Hammer.” “I’d strengthen Volcker, bring back Glass-Steagall too! Use those laws to help my brothers and sisters all over this land.”

The growing anti-Wall-Street movement led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren took its fight from the halls of Washington, D.C., to the streets of New York City on Thursday.

Outside Citigroup, about 120 protesters called for the breakup of the big banks, chanting: “Banks got bailed out, we got sold out.” Around half of the crowd marched to Lazard’s office at Rockefeller Center, where they called for Weiss — whose name they pronounced “weece” — to come down and explain why his background made him suitable for the Treasury Department job.

“This is not a democracy anymore,” said protester Donna Romo, lamenting the weakening of banking regulations at Citigroup’s request. “This is really owned by the big corporations.”

The protest was organized by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which says it represents the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of the Democratic party.

A group of protesters gathered outside Citi’s headquarters in New York chanting “break big banks.”

Made up largely of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s supporters, the protesters on Thursday specifically targeted Citigroup (C) because of the bank’s role in watering down Wall Street regulation.

“We need to break up the big banks that have too much power in our democracy,” said TJ Helmstetter, one of the protest organizers. “They literally wrote the law and Washington let them do it.”

Protesters carried signs that read “#StandWithWarren” on a chilly morning outside Citigroup’s Park Avenue tower with about a dozen police officers standing by.

Organizers called for a modern day Glass-Stegall Act, the 1933 legislation that separated the money lending arm of banks from their investment banking operations. They claimed to have 15,000 signatures on a petition calling for this sort of law to be reinstated.

An aide to Hillary Clinton recently met with the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which strongly supports Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the group confirms.

The meeting with PCCC founder Adam Green, first reported by Politico, could be a sign that the Clinton camp is reaching out to liberal groups that are more enthusiastic about Warren than about Clinton ahead of the 2016 presidential race. It is unclear which side requested the meeting, who the Clinton aide was or what was discussed.

The PCCC is an enthusiastic backer of Warren, who some liberals hope will challenge the former secretary of State from the left in the presidential primary.

“It is time for Democrats to remold the party around Elizabeth Warren’s big economic populist ideas — like breaking up ‘too big to fail’ banks, expanding Social Security, and making college way more affordable,” the group said in a statement earlier this week.

A Hillary Clinton adviser recently met with the head of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, the liberal issues group most closely affiliated with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, both sides confirmed.

The meeting is the first sign that Clinton’s team is trying to build a bridge with those who are actively supporting Warren, whom many on the left want to see challenge Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.

MSNBC first reported that the meeting might take place. On Thursday, PCCC co-founder Adam Green confirmed that he had met with a Clinton aide in the past few weeks, but declined to identify the aide or describe what was discussed.

Although Green’s group has been tied to Warren, whose progressive stands have earned her adulation but who insists she’s not running for president, the PCCC has not joined the “Draft Warren” efforts being led by MoveOn.org.

Elizabeth Warren’s fans refuse to take no for an answer, but soon enough they’ll almost certainly have to.

That means it’s tough to tell where Warren backers will go in a Warren-less primary. Some could decide they’re OK with Clinton; others might migrate to more left-leaning candidates like Sanders or O’Malley. Without Warren in the race, groups supporting her may also look to down-ballot races to build up the “Warren wing” instead.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee—the group that drafted Warren into the 2012 Senate race against Republican Scott Brown—said progressives’ main goal is making sure their issues are front-and-center in the 2016 primary, no matter who the candidates are. The PCCC isn’t directly involved with the draft-Warren efforts for 2016, but Green said it’s an overall positive because even if the field doesn’t include Warren, it will bring prominence to her agenda.

“If the net effect is that there are hundreds or thousands of rallies around the country showing visibly how much Americans agree with Elizabeth Warren’s economic populist agenda, that serves the goal,” he said. “What success will look like is multiple Democratic candidates campaigning in six months to see who can outdo each other and be more like Elizabeth Warren.”

She has a spot in Democratic leadership, a swelling alliance of liberals in Congress and a rabid following in the Democratic Party.

The question is: What does Elizabeth Warren want to do with all that power?

Groups on the left are trying to draft the Massachusetts liberal into the presidential race, viewing her as the perfect populist counterweight to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The initiative marks the second time there has been a grassroots effort to pull Warren into a race. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee launched a “Draft Warren for Senate” campaign after reports she was being eyed by Democrats as a candidate in Massachusetts in 2012.

“In many ways, Elizabeth Warren’s economic populist message is the North Star for the Democratic Party,” said Adam Green, PCCC’s founder. “It’s entirely possible that Democrats lose the presidency if our standard-bearer is not actively campaigning on an Elizabeth Warren-style populist message.”

Elizabeth Warren said it again, and again. She’s not running for president. This time, Warren was talking to NPR’s Steve Inskeep, who like many in Washington, pointed out that Warren keeps using the present tense when she describes her presidential aspirations–leaving open the possibility that she might decide to run in the future, like in the first quarter of 2015.

The interview caught the attention of both the right and the far left—with the Republican National Committee blasting out the remarks in an email where they noted that “Democratic insiders aren’t buying” her denials. Within minutes, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee also focused on Warren’s words, shooting out an email that recounts the work that the group has done for her. “The way for Democrats to inspire the public is to give Americans the debate about big ideas that we deserve–and that means following Elizabeth Warren’s lead,” said Stephanie Taylor, the committee’s co-founder.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren again said this morning that she’s not running for president, regardless of pleas from the progressive base for her to seek the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Even if Clinton does continue to track well, the Warren wing of Democratic Party wants the Massachusetts Senator to enter the 2016 horse race to force the party to the left on marquee issues.

In a statement released by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee today, the organization’s co-founder Stephanie Taylor said ‘it is time for Democrats to remold the party around Elizabeth Warren’s big economic populist ideas — like breaking up “too big to fail” banks, expanding Social Security, and making college way more affordable.’

‘The way for Democrats to inspire the public is to give Americans the debate about big ideas that we deserve — and that means following Elizabeth Warren’s lead,’ she said.

The litmus-test votes: passage of a $1.1 trillion spending bill that Democrats criticized for being too kind to big banks and campaign donors, and Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz’s failed constitutional objection to President Barack Obama’s immigration policy.

CREDO Action and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which support Democrats, urged their members to pressure lawmakers to vote against the spending bill. PCCC took credit on Dec. 11 when the House was forced to delay action on the bill so that Republican and Democratic leaders could round up votes.

“When progressives in Congress stand up and fight for big ideas like Wall Street reform and campaign finance reform, they deserve our support,” PCCC co-founder Adam Green wrote in an e-mail to supporters. The strength of the Democratic base was more evident in the House vote on the bill. Fifty-seven Democrats voted for it, and 139 voted against it.

The White House says President Obama has a good relationship with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is battling Obama on a host of high-profile issues.

Liberal groups see her as a check on the White House for their causes.

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee — an outside group that has swung support behind Warren and repeatedly criticized Obama — said her stand against the government-funding bill left progressives on Capitol Hill “more united and ferocious in fighting for a big idea than ever.”

Green contrasted her vision to “corporate Democrats who were willing to sell out to Wall Street.“

From trade to taxes, President Barack Obama is looking for areas to cut deals with the new congressional Republican majority and burnish his legacy. Judging by the budget debate this week, at least one obstacle to bipartisanship will be the progressives in his own party, who will have a more influential voice in a slimmed-down caucus when Congress returns in January.

Blowback was coming from the outside, too. Americans for Financial Reform–a liberal advocacy group–was the first to alert Pelosi’s office to a provision in the spending measure that loosened a banking regulation imposed by the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. That sparked an anti-Wall Street narrative and led to other liberal groups, like Progressive Change Campaign Committee, asking their members to contact lawmakers and register their opposition. The group also sought to raise money off the dispute.

Proposed legislation aimed at changing the grand jury process for indicting police officers accused of using fatal, excessive force has been put forward by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Johnson cited those two cases as the impetus for proposing his bill during a Friday conference call with the activist group Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC).

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) wants to add additional oversight to investigations on police-involved deaths, just weeks after two high profile grand juries declined to indict officers in the deaths of two unarmed black men.

The “Grand Jury Reform Act” makes certain law enforcement federal funding contingent on a state agreeing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate deadly-force cases involving officers and hold a public hearing in front of a judge to air evidence. The judge’s legal finding and the prosecutor’s recommendation would then be forwarded to a local district attorney, who then can make the determination whether to indict, impanel a grand jury or end the investigation.

“When the grand juries in Ferguson, [Mo.] and New York refused to indict those officers involved in killing those unarmed men,” Johnson said during a Friday call sponsored by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, “I think many people understood that the nation’s grand jury system is fundamentally broken, especially when police are investigated for the killing of civilians.”

Stephanie Taylor is co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

“We see a huge internal schism in the Democratic Party between the Wall Street wing and Elizabeth Warren wing. I think that the Democratic Party is really going to need to go through a soul-searching moment to figure out what its direction is going to be.”

Among progressives like Taylor, there is suspicion toward Pres. Obama. And concern that he will compromise too much over the next two years with the new Republican majority in Congress.

“People want to vote for fighters and leaders they don’t want to vote for people who are caving, people who are compromising.”

As Taylor sees it, this is an inflection point for the Democratic Party.

For Himes, a former Goldman Sachs executive often accused by left-leaning progressive groups of being a Wall Street shill, changes to Dodd-Frank are a double-edged sword.

Himes in the past has tried to ward off left-liberal accusations by stressing his role in getting the derivatives language into Dodd-Frank in the first place. But his support of the spending bill’s Dodd-Frank revision may cost him support on his left flank.

“Easing regulations on big Wall Street banks . . . would represent Democrats marching in the exact wrong direction,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which railed against Himes when he was briefly under consideration last month to lead the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Before a vote, he said, Congress should “answer Elizabeth Warren’s call to remove provisions like these that put the big guy ahead of the little guy.”

U.S. Rep. Jim Himes was the sole member of Connecticut’s all-Democratic House delegation to vote for the $1.1 trillion federal spending bill, stoking more criticism from a liberal interest group that cited his Wall Street ties.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which backs the populist, anti-big bank message of Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, said in an email Thursday that Himes favored the legislation for “deregulating Wall Street” even though the bill contained numerous other measures.

A leading progressive group blasted out an email to its members flagging a Wall-Street-backed measure in Congress’ spending bill that would badly weaken the financial reform law passed after the 2008 crisis.

But with a vote scheduled for Thursday afternoon on the spending bill and Republicans mostly on board, the message could be too little, too late.

The email, sent Thursday morning by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), raises the alarm about a late addition to the spending bill, reportedly written by a Citigroup lobbyist, that repeals a key provision of the 2009 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. That provision put restrictions on Wall Street banks’ trading of derivatives — the complex financial instruments that helped cause the near meltdown of the world financial system six years ago. Financial industry lobbyists have been working quietly but doggedly in recent years to get the law scrapped.

“Will you call [your representative] and tell him to vote NO on the spending bill?” the email asks PCCC’s nearly 1 million members.

PCCC spokeswoman Laura Friedenbach also told msnbc that President Obama should veto the spending bill if it comes to his desk with the Dodd-Frank repeal in it.