Katie Porter off House banking panel

[Brother Buzz]

Katie Porter off House banking panel: Report

By Kate Berry
January 15, 2021

Rep. Katie Porter has lost her seat on the House Financial Services Committee after requesting to be seated first on two other committees, according to The Hill.

The California Democrat, a former law professor known for her sharp questioning of executives and Trump administration officials, was turned down for a waiver to serve on the Financial Services Committee by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the paper reported Thursday.

Porter had asked to be considered instead for spots on the Oversight and Reform Committee and the Natural Resources Committee. She was turned down for a waiver to serve on the Financial Services Committee though she received one last year.

The banking panel is considered to be an "exclusive" committee; under caucus rules lawmakers are required to get a waiver if they also are serving on other committees.

Porter is a champion of consumer rights known for her combative style and use of dry erase boards as visual aids. The former professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law had served as California’s independent mortgage monitor from 2012 to 2014.

https://www.americanbanker.com/news/katie-porter-loses-seat-on-house-banking-panel-according-to-report

[LakeArenal]

1. I say give her whatever she wants.

She’s more valuable to any committee than most.

[rurallib]

3. I second that

[Mad cow]

6. Totally agree

She us so good that she should get whatever she wants

[Hortensis]

15. Abuse everyone else, people we don't even know, to bend

the rules for our personal favorite? That's no way to run an office coffee room, much less a government.

Btw, this is a clickbait headline. It should have said that Porter was going to the very influential and powerful Oversight Committee and would be leaving Financial Services as members traditionally do not serve on both.

[JNelson6563]

23. But the honest version doesn't piss anyone off.

[Lucinda]

21. +1

[Under The Radar]

2. Looks as if Katie has offended a majority contributor to the commitee

I remember in the Bush years when Dick Durbin said that every member on the senate finance committee was owned by Wall Street banks

[Mad cow]

7. If she offended a major wall street contributor...

That only makes me like her more ☺

[Budi]

9. That's not why this situation occurred

She had requesting to be seated first on two other committees.
..
Requests were made by all members & seats were filled by their prority requests, & the # of Dems since the loss of seats in 2020 was reduced.

It has NOTHING to do with personal vendettas. Just Stop it now.

She was told her Fin Service seat may be at risk because of the 1st two she requested.

Wish she'd have requested her Fin Sv Committee seat 1st. She is far more influential there than on the other 2 she first requested.

There is always competition for seats, this year we had fewer members to fill seats with.

[sweetloukillbot]

10. She also took to Twitter to publicly whine about it nt

[Budi]

12. Well, how bout just owning it & explaining WHY she lost that seat.

C'mon Katie Porter. You be better than that, K?

Wtf ever.

[Under The Radar]

13. I read her statement on the issue

She did say that there was two committees that she sits and had applied for a waver to attend the third. Here waver was denied despite the wavers for other members were approved. She seemed to indicate she was treated unfairly.

[Budi]

14. Well THAT's not what the rules say.

Sorry, cuz I really like Porter. Wish sh'ed have heeded the heads-up she got from other members, as to what she was risking.

She made the decision & her loss of seating was not because "someone doesn't like me".

That's pathetic. It is in the rules & explained.

[Under The Radar]

16. Take it up with the Washington post and with Katie herself.

I like her too and she is likely one of the hardest working member there. I am just repeating what I read- Cuz

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/16/katie-porter-is-off-house-financial-services-committee-were-all-worse-off-it/

[Budi]

18. Clicks & cause a stir. Thanks for nothing WaPo

F this.

[FoxNewsSucks]

22. And there are waivers given.

As stated, others got the waivers previously and now. Do you know of anyone else who was refused a waiver?

I doubt it has anything to do with House Leadership "not liking her". It is more probable that House Leadership got the message from the likes of Jamie Dimon to do something about her as soon as there was a chance. This was that chance.

I'll really miss seeing new videos of Porter making banksters like Dimon squirm.

[Budi]

26. Omg. That's an opinion. Porter's not the 1st or only committee member to face off against big money

Your statement would assume that members are bought by Dimon. You're giving him way too much credit over the Democratic leadership who determines committee members.
It is a process & she gambled on the risk of losing that exclusive seat.

I wish she'd have protected what she already had, more carefully.
Taken seriously what those who warned her about putting that exclusive seat at risk.

Every House Member was vying for committee seats.

[JNelson6563]

24. ok, no. There are rules and norms. Not breaking them for your favorite

doesn't mean Dems are catering to the big banks. I can't believe I see this bullshit on DU. Oh wait, yeah, now I remember why I lost interest here. So many who don't have a clue how anything works eager to grab the mic. Wow.

[demmiblue]

31. Apparently, you don't either.

Waivers have been made in the past.

Now, go away if you don't like it here.

[onenote]

33. She asked for two waivers.

Sure waivers have been given in the past. She got one last term so she could sit on both Financial Services and on Oversight. But it wasn't particularly realistic for her to ask for two waivers this time. She wanted, Oversight, Natural Resources and Fin Services. She got the first two.

Did you not know that?

[demmiblue]

34. I will listen to her take on this:

Link to tweet

[Under The Radar]

32. You don't have to believe anyone on here,

All you have to do is follow the money and research it yourself. Go to OpenSecrets.Org and look up any donor to see what congressman that they donated to, or look at each candidate to see who their donors were. You can look up the entire banking committee if you wish. No big secrets there. It is mostly transparent except what comes from super PACs which usually gets spread around a little.
That will help you understand the WAPO article a little more.

[Budi]

4. She was told of the risk since the election narrowed HouseDem #'s.

I really wish she'd have played it safe & made the seat on the Fin Svs Committee her priority.
She is so valuable there.

"..requesting to be seated first on two other committees".

Damn.

[mopinko]

5. my hunch is that she didnt rly care. wanted oversight more.

dont blame her. better use of her chops.

eta this- https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100214940635

[stillcool]

8. don't know what to make of this...

but perhaps people can lobby for her? Or.. if she wants that assignment, can she give up the other two?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/16/katie-porter-is-off-house-financial-services-committee-were-all-worse-off-it/
The stated reason for her ouster is an arcane set of House Democratic caucus rules. The Financial Services Committee is an “exclusive” committee, which means that members who take a seat on it can serve solely on that committee, unless they ask for and receive a waiver to take on more than one such assignment.

In the last term, Porter did just that, and received a waiver from the House Steering Committee, — which is in charge of such things — so that she could also serve on the nonexclusive Oversight and Reform Committee. For the new congressional session, Porter attempted to get a second waiver so she could also serve on the nonexclusive Natural Resources Committee. It’s uncommon, but it is sometimes granted. Not this time. Instead, Porter received assignments to the Oversight and Natural Resources committees — and not Financial Services.

Insiders say that’s the breaks. “It’s a gamble,” as a senior Democratic aide told me. “If you have primary committee like that and you are a permanent member and that is your top priority, you should never give that up.”

[Budi]

11. Thank you. Rep Porter chose this decision & knew the stakes

“It’s a gamble,” as a senior Democratic aide told me. “If you have primary committee like that and you are a permanent member and that is your top priority, you should never give that up.”

The division & blame game stops there.

She was needed on the Fin Svc Committee. Her area of expertise.

Sucks but maybe there's a chance at negotiating a seat change.
Not sure if that is allowed.

[jimfields33]

17. I'm sure monthly pay has a part of it

She’d get 3 committee allowances. I’m sure they have a max that people earn every year.

[Budi]

19. All members were competing for committee seats

Ya roll the dice.

[jimfields33]

20. That too.

[gratuitous]

25. Her combative nature?

I guess to the weasels who appear before her committee it looks combative when she doesn't let them off the hook.

[Budi]

27. That whole article is clearly written to create a media image that does not exist in reality.

Who wrote this piece?

[blogslut]

28. americanbankerdotcom

[Budi]

30. Yup & they snipped the article from The Hill

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/534335-porter-loses-seat-on-house-panel-overseeing-financial-sector

[Budi]

29. Ahhh yes. The actual article is from The Hill.

Appears Porter wasn't the only one who was denied a requested waiver.

"The senior aide also said that Rep. Jennifer Wexton (D-Va.) was also denied a waiver to stay on the Financial Services Committee after she was granted a spot on the House Appropriations Committee in December."



https://thehill.com/policy/finance/534335-porter-loses-seat-on-house-panel-overseeing-financial-sector

(Lemme guess who they'll blame)