On Thursday, dozens of financial reform advocacy groups sent a letter to Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, thanking him for championing the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) and urged the Senator not to bow to Wall Street's pressure and water down reform. The letter reads:

The undersigned consumer, civil rights, labor and community organizations would like to thank you for your strong efforts to enact an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Existing bank regulators utterly failed to protect consumers from abusive lending practices in the marketplace because they were not independent of the lenders they regulated and because they subordinated consumer protection concerns to a dangerously shortsighted focus on the near-term profitability of these institutions. We strongly support the CFPA because it will transform this failed regulatory approach by creating an independent agency focused on protecting consumers from deceptive, unfair or discriminatory financial practices. Correspondingly, we will oppose any CFPA proposal that undermines the ability of the agency to make and implement independent decisions about the needs of consumers, such as placing the agency within a new prudential regulator. In fact, putting the CFPA under the OCC or a new, more consolidated national bank regulator would be worse for consumers than the existing regulatory system.

It is dismaying that some are proposing to give the same prudential regulators whose failures harmed millions of American families and brought our economy to the brink of collapse even more power to make decisions about consumer protection. The OCC, for example, not only failed to stop widespread mortgage and credit card lending abuses by banks it regulated, it actually opposed consumer protection measures to curb these abuses. In August of 2008, Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan wrote the Federal Reserve Board to propose significantly weakening core elements of a proposed rule to address unfair and deceptive credit card lending practices. Dugan said that the first reason he wanted to eviscerate these provisions was because they "raise safety and soundness concerns." Even the Federal Reserve Board rejected the OCC’s anti-consumer views and finalized a rule that Congress then improved when it passed the Credit CARD Act.

It would be equally impossible to assure the necessary degree of independence for a CFPA if its rules were effectively subject to veto by a political appointee such as the Secretary of the Treasury, at the behest of a banking regulator. The models for “independent” agencies within the Treasury – the OCC and the OTS – have statutory guarantees of autonomy from the Secretary in rule-making and enforcement, in addition to other attributes necessary for independence, such as independent funding.

We can think of no other circumstance in which an agency charged with protecting the American public can have its actions vetoed because of a challenge by another agency focused on the priorities or profitability of a regulated industry. Though the auto industry is important to the American economy, we do not let the Commerce Department attempt to override NHTSA's auto safety rules or vehicle emissions standards. We would not give another agency the legal authority to get a FAA airline safety rule or EPA clean water regulation vetoed because of the impact on industry. We do not let the Small Business Administration trigger a legal process to OSHA's worker safety rules because they might eat into business profitability.

Given the very poor consumer protection track record and lack of independence from the institutions it regulates, neither the OCC nor its successor should have the ability to oversee or, in effect, veto decisions by a CFPA. It should also be prevented from trying to use phony claims regarding "safety and soundness" to slow or stop consumer protection measures.

The evidence is clear that strong consumer protection measures will also protect the long-term stability of financial institutions, even if these measures impinge on short-term profitability. For example, if the OCC and other banking agencies had paid more attention to the impact of abusive subprime mortgage loans on consumers, it would have better protected the solidity of the institutions it regulated as well. It is no longer appropriate to allow prudential regulators to narrowly (and improperly) focus on the short term profitability of the institutions they regulate by rejecting measures that are in the best interest of consumers.

Our organizations strongly urge you to reject all proposals to allow prudential regulators to oversee or veto legitimate consumer protection decisions by an independent regulatory agency. Once again, we commend you for your strong support of the CFPA and look forward to working with you to achieve this crucial goal.

The letter was signed by a number of advocacy organizations calling for responsible reform including Americans for Financial Reform, AFL-CIO, California Reinvestment Coalition, Center for Responsible Lending, Ctw Investment Group, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Union, Consumer Watchdog, Demos, Empire Justice, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, National Consumer League, National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients), National Fair Housing Alliance, National People's Action, New Jersey Citizen Action, Public Citizen, Sargent Shriver Center on Poverty Law, SEIU, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, U.S. PIRG and the Western States Center.

Stand up for common sense reform:

The FDIC wants banks that promote risky behavior to pay higher insurance premiums. Just as a reckless driver pays more for auto insurance, these banks would pay more if they insist on rewarding recklessness. It's only common sense.

Take Action! Tell the FDIC: Rein in Banks' Reckless Behavior

As we've noted previously, the FCIC was established to examine the causes of the financial collapse. In January, the commission received public testimony, and, now, they are convening a panel of experts. The panel includes academic luminaries in the field of economics.

The economists will present working papers to the Commission on the key issues and events leading up tot he crisis. Those papers will address the underlying causes of the crisis. A question and answer session with the Commissioners follows the presentations.

The forum, which is open to the public, will be held at the American University Washington College of Law, 4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, room 603.

Is Richard Shelby's move to place a "blanket hold" on 70+ nominees just so he could get a little extra pork for his state the straw that breaks the filibuster's back? Let's hope so, because the Senate is broken and unable to get anything done.

Calls for Senate reform peaked over the weekend after Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., put a "blanket hold" on more than 70 Obama nominees, not out of principled opposition, but because two projects in his home state of Alabama weren't getting enough attention. [Update, Feb. 9: Shelby lifted most of his holds late Monday.]

This, for Senate-reform advocates, was the last straw. "The genie is out of the bottle with this abuse of Senate rules," wrote FireDogLake's Jon Walker. "I congratulate Shelby on fully exploring the logic of the modern United States Senate," remarked Matthew Yglesias. "Why, after all, should a great nation of 300 million people have a functioning government if preventing the government from functioning can help a lone Senator advance parochial interests?" "America is not yet lost," Paul Krugman reassured. "But the Senate is working on it."

Complaints about Senate procedure tend to focus on two tools: The filibuster, which many liberals hold responsible for the failure (so far) of health care reform, and the "hold," which allows a single senator to stall a president's nominee. Both mechanisms are outdated, say critics. Filibusters used to be rare, with roughly 8 percent of major bills getting blocked in the 1960s. Now, the rate is 70 percent.

It's not just the startling numbers that speak to the filibuster's abuse - it's real, substantive legislation that's being held up. The House passed Cap and Trade to address climate change. The House passed healthcare with a public option. The House passed financial reform legislation. But, it's all stymied in the Senate thanks to the abused filibuster. The filibuster also makes abuse of the "hold" possible as well. Newsweek explains the abuse:

Now that Barack Obama is in office, holds are running at a ridiculous rate. During George W. Bush's first 17 months in office 100 judicial nominees were confirmed, versus nine in Obama's first nine months, in part because of an inordinate number of single-senator holds on his nominees.

The American people are demanding action on a host of issues. The House is taking action. The President is calling, begging and pleading for action. But, because of just one thing - the abused filibuster in the U.S. Senate - little is getting done.

-The news this week has been pretty grim, but we all know when the going gets tough, the tough gets going. Here are a few ways you can get going in the tough fight for financial reform: