Wow...Worst Company in America 2010 candidates anyone?

It would be interesting to compare the list (if it is ever disclosed) to the campaign contributions list.

@bloggerX: The Fed isn't a company.

@bloggerX: Also, sending the government a piece of golden poo would probably somehow be construed as a terrorist threat. Or it would be converted into currency.

I have zero problem with this. Regardless of your politics, citizens have a right to know where their tax dollars are going. Whether you agree or disagree with the bailouts, the Fed was using our money to give these companies relief. There is zero national security threat, and you can't expect people to make informed decisions without adequate information.

Now thats change you can believe in!

Drat, now that bailout of barely18.com seems like a much worse idea.

@Jaynor: StimulatED companies...not stimulatING.

@Vandelay Import Export: @Vandelay Import Export: @bloggerX:

I Agree.. With all of the stuff going on.. I think the Federal Reserve should get a special nomination for the Golden Poo..

Present it to Ben Bernanke If they win.

So much for Obama's open government.

I will believe in the disclosure when I actually see something disclosed.

Until then, it's all just smoke, mirrors and words still to be enforced.

@Vandelay Import Export: The program was started under Bush and continued under Obama. So, you'd need to reference when they made their contribution compared to when they received funding. Even that may not provide the smoking gun.

@Notsewfast:
+1

@MisterE: When exactly was the emergency funding given?

@MostlyHarmless:

Doesn't matter when it was given. The records are still there for anyone to open if they so choose and this is one area where I'm really waiting to see the promises made be followed up upon.

@MisterE: If you ever believed it would be open then you're naive.

They didn't open anything, they just put the same stuff you could get before on a multi-million dollar website (that you paid for)

@MisterE: I agree. His failed transparency has been one of the biggest disappointments |COMMENT*ABOUT*ALL*THE*OTHER* THINGS*YOU*HATE ABOUT*OBAMA|.

The problem is that he's kept the same boys club that's been running things for years under presidents of both stripes.

@ARP: And, in the minds of many, the smoking gun may never be found since it's well established Barack Obama doesn't like guns...

@MisterE: Politicians are like the internets. Don't belive everything you hear, and what you do...take it with a grain of salt.

@Smashville: +1

Odds are, if the Feb complies.. they will just bury the information in 500 boxes of paperwork that has nothing to do with the request.. and send it off.. if you cannot keep it secret.. hide it amongst a million useless documents and make them work for the information

@Smashville: I'm referring to the "companies that received emergency funding" part that's in the first line of this article we all read.

There is "word" on when the documents will be released. Go to the source:

[www.bloomberg.com]

"The Federal Reserve must make records about emergency lending to financial institutions public within five days because it failed to convince a judge the documents should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. "

@Notsewfast: Agreed. I may have been more in favor of this a while ago (when it could have triggered a run on the banks that received funds). But I think the immediate danger has passed.

@ARP: The date of the general election should suffice as a point from which to examine beneficiares vs donors.

The true problem is that we all know what the results will be, and that no-one will do anything about them.

@dragonfire81: Very funny. The problem isn't a political party one (at least the ones we have). Each party gets in bed with the banking industry because they can significantly impact the economy. They are currently still "too big to fail" Bad economy= unhappy voters= no re-election. My suggestion on breaking that relationship is: 1) setting up regulations to prevent "too big to fail" from even ocurring; 2) regulating the derivaties, swaps, etc. so that they can monitored and prevent a repeat of what happened in 08; and 3) A means to "gently" shut down failed banks rather than pay them money to continue risky behavior. The Fed does it all the time. But they need to prep for a failure of a major bank (Chase, Citi, etc.)

@ARP: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

@bloggerX: Oh...well...yeah...except I have a feeling most of us have never heard of the majority.

@zentex: A grain of salt doesn't suffice-a canister of Morton's Salt is more appropiate.

@Bladefist:

The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is which end of the horse you're dealing with.

@MisterE: You didn't really expect anything to really change did you? And by the way, the Federal Reserve has always been a separate private quasi-government entity with little to no congressional oversight.

@MisterE: I fully agree but since the democrats are in power, it's their turn for 24/7 bitching

I heard a rumor that the Fed bailed out a local NJ department store called Boscovs. It's an awful store, selling crap worse than the dreck in JC Penny's, and they gave them money? Boggles my mind.

@Notsewfast: I too agree. Especially now.

So...uh...what companies does Goldman Sachs have a big stake in?

once you name the names...you might spark a bank run.

All it takes is shouting fire in a theater. Sure it's free speech to some.

but is that a smart idea when the crisis is not over?

@thebluepill: While I appreciate the "golden poo" award being done by the consumerist. Most of the companies up for it have broken, twisted or bend some very serious laws and should be fully prosecuted for them.

The award is merely a snarky "good job" on being the biggest offender to get away with murder many times over.

The golden poo only becomes worth while when, as now, the businesses have such strong connections to government and sometimes the judiciary, that they seem to be completely above the law. And the nation of laws becomes a nation of corporations.

A sad state of affairs.

@dragonfire81: And, in the minds of many, the smoking gun may never be found since it's well established Barack Obama doesn't like guns...

No no.. Obama likes guns. He likes them in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, he likes them on police, and military, and FED, and CIA, ATF, Swat, oh and on the FAA, even some of the IRS, and there's nothing wrong with government funded mercenaries like blackwater having them too.

But if you aren't in the above, he doesn't like it on you.

@Notsewfast: I hate to join the bandwagon but I would definitely agree as well. And to echo ARP's comments that this could have been risky last year but now this would be great info to have.

@ironchef: While I completely see your side of the argument shouldn't we also have some transparency?

Wasn't "a downward spiral of financial instability" in progress the reason they got the funds in the first place? How could disclosure be harmful?

@bloggerX: Or would be added to the Federal Register, which would be redundant.

@Smashville: chase, bank of america, citi, wells fargo? - yeah, never heard of 'em.

@H3ion: My mouse slipped. This was intended to refer to Smashville's golden poo comment.

@sirellyn:

Actually the role of Xe (Blackwater) was largely because of contracts signed under the Bush admin. On Jan 0f 2009 their renewal application was denied.

So actually Obama has tried and take the guns away from the mercenaries.

Also, there has been effectively no change in gun rights since Obama took office. In fact acts such as people being allowed to carry in federal parks has been an expansion of gun rights. Information stating that BO has been working to limit gun rights is largely a creation of the NRA.

Keep in mind the largest restriction on gun ownership in the last several decades was initiated by Ronald Reagan and backed at the time by Republican leadership.

@ironchef: I don't see how disclosing this information would trigger a run on the banks. While the recession is in no way over, things are beginning to settle down, if not improve.

Also, seeing as deposits are insured to what, like $250,000 nowadays, why would you even worry about your bank? I mean, sure it's less of a hassle if you get your money out now versus later, but I think it's a safe bet that bailed out banks aren't going to fail any time soon. Why? you might ask. Well, it's simple.

They owe the government money, and if they fail and go bankrupt, the government doesn't get shit in return. If necessary, the government will bail these guys out all over again, just so they can keep operating and maybe pay back what they owe. Also, it would be foolish to think that the head honchos at bailed out banks don't have powerful political connections. There's a reason certain big banks got bailed out while others were allowed to go under.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is bailed out banks aren't any less secure than ones who did not receive government aid. If anything, they are more secure. But then again, I'm no expert, (I only play one on the Internet), and I may be completely wrong and off base.

@ironchef: Its our right to know which companies were insolvent. Free Market, ya know?

I can't see why it's such a bid deal for the Fed to disclose where taxpayer dollars are being spent. GM didn't go out of business (yet) due to the federal bailout. Neither did a host of major banks. Maybe this doesn't rise to the level of the EPA not disclosing statistics on atrazine, but I can't see how disclosing that a particular business received taxpayer money is going to impair that business.

@Vandelay Import Export: just look at chris dodd's contribution list. you should be able to create a pretty accurate TARP list from that. =)

*full disclosure*: i'll be voting for dodd just so my state keeps the senate banking committee chair.