Reshma Saujani. (Photo: Facebook)

Later this morning, Reshma Saujani will officially launch her public advocate campaign, an ambitious bid for one of two competitive citywide races this year. But as she lays out her agenda, it won't be the same Reshma Saujani politicos remember from her 2010 primary against Upper East Side Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney. In that campaign, she embraced her "Pro-Wall Street Democrat" label, but now, Ms. Saujani says she's focused on a whole new slate of issues.

"Oh my God, so much!" she told Politicker when asked if she's learned from her experiences since then, including a stint in the public advocate's office. "Since 2010, I have a record--a progressive record--of accomplishment. There are people in the city who I have helped put on a path of economic prosperity, that are in college because I fought for them. There are people in jobs because I fought for them ... In 2010, that was harder to demonstrate, right? Because I was working as a lawyer in the private sector."

Ms. Saujani, a former hedge fund lawyer, further claimed that her heart was never in finance industry. Rather, she said that career choice was forced by circumstance.

"When I graduated law school, I was almost $200,000 in student loan debt," she explained. "I wanted to work at the N.A.A.C.P. or the A.C.L.U., working on civil rights issues. But when I looked at my loan statement, I didn't have a choice. My family had certain financial commitments that I had to help them keep. And going into the private sector--I never wanted to be the C.E.O. of Morgan Stanley--I always wanted to do what I'm doing today, which is public service."

Today, Ms. Saujani mostly talks about the work she's done since 2010. In our interview, Ms. Saujani often pivoted to topics like women, immigrants and the technology sector, a multi-pronged embodiment of both her own status as the daughter of South Asian political refugees and her non-profit, Girls Who Code, which teaches teenage girls technology skills. Indeed, in her 5-day, 5 borough “Opportunity For All Tour," Ms. Saujani's campaign indicated that she will be talking about immigration in Queens and the Bronx, women-owned small businesses in Staten Island and tech-based businesses in the Dumbo neighborhood of Brooklyn. In Manhattan, she'll attend a Wednesday fund-raiser hosted by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey--held exactly 140 days before Election Day.

Jose Antonio Vargas, an immigration activist who wrote a prominent Times article outing himself as undocumented, told Politicker that Ms. Saujani's work on behalf of a New York City-based "DREAM Fellowship," which gives scholarships to undocumented students, should speak for itself.

"As somebody who's been an undocumented person, ... I never thought that DREAM Act would be as mainstream. Everyone now knows what the DREAM Act is, right?" he said. "What's really important to underscore about Reshma is that she's been a leader on this issue, nationally and locally, even before it was a thing. I also think that what makes her perfect for this job."

In order to get that job, however, Ms. Saujani will have to beat back several other candidates vying for the same position. The field includes State Senator Dan Squadron, Councilwoman Tish James and teacher Cathy Guerriero.

One labor leader told Politicker he wasn't sure who he would ultimately endorse, listing the pluses and negatives of the various top-tier contenders.

"Has she changed as a candidate?" he said when he got to Ms. Saujani. "I'm not sure. Has her presentation changed? Absolutely."

(Photo: Getty)

After Vice President Joe Biden infamously told an audience that Mitt Romney is "going to unchain Wall Street," and concluded they are "going to put y'all back in chains," Mr. Romney's campaign cried foul. This was an obvious and unfair allusion to slavery, Mr. Romney's surrogates argued.

Well, count veteran Congressman Charlie Rangel among Mr. Biden's critics on the Democratic side of the aisle.

"The Vice President said he's going to put "y'all in chains,'" Mr. Rangel told The Perez Notes in a recent free-wheeling interview. "Was he talking about slavery? You bet your ass he was. Was he using the vernacular? Yes, he was. Did he think it was cute? Yes, he did. Was it something stupid to say? You bet your life it was stupid."

"It was something that if a black had said it, we would have been laughing, because we would know deep down, they may be beating the hell out of us but they ain't thinking about putting us into any chains," he added.

Republicans have called on Mr. Biden to apologize, but that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.

“Let’s look at what the vice president said: Speaker Boehner and even Paul Ryan have been traveling this country talking about the need to unshackle the private sector, to unshackle the financial industry,” Mr. Obama's deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, argued earlier this week. “And the vice president was just taking that metaphor a step further and talking about wanting to put other people in shackles. And the word that he used, chains, is a distraction from the larger argument.”

Watch below: (skip to 3:00)

President Obama

President Barack Obama has gone on the attack against Mitt Romney for his career at the private equity firm Bain Capital and cast himself as an aggressive crusader for reform in the financial industry, but he took decidedly more friendly tone toward big business last night at a fundraiser hosted by Hamilton "Tony" James, President and COO of the private equity giant Blackstone Group. In his speech at Mr. James' home in Manhattan, the president argued his focus on social programs is actually better for big business than the Republicans' push for more tax cuts.

"I think all of us benefit from the freedom of free enterprise. But if you look at our history, what we also realize is that what makes our markets work and what allows us then to go out and pursue our individual dreams is that there are some things we've done in concert," President Obama said. "There are some things that we've done as a common enterprise -- making sure that our schools are teaching our kids the skills that they need to compete in a new economy; making certain that we're investing in science and research so that the next medical breakthrough or the next great business idea takes root right here in the United States; making sure we're investing in roads and bridges and airports and broadband lines and wireless networks that allow--that provide a platform for businesses and individuals to succeed; and making sure that we've got basic rules of the road in place so that the markets function in a transparent, clear way so that small investors have confidence if they invest on Wall Street they're not going to get bilked by somebody who has more information than them."

Surrounded by oil paintings in ornate gold frames guests seated at tables adorned with gold flowered cloths, the president went on to describe this election as a test between "that view, which says, yes, we believe in individual initiative and we believe in risk-taking and we believe in markets and entrepreneurship, but we also believe in doing some things together, because all of us prosper from that" and the view that "everybody is on their own; we slash taxes more for those of us who have been incredibly fortunate and blessed by this system." According to President Obama, the tax cutting approach leads to a situation where "those rungs on the ladder to upward mobility start to fray" and "people are left to fend for themselves."

"There is a theory that that, somehow, is going to unleash the kind of growth that we imagine for this country," he said. "My argument is, is that we tried it and it doesn't work.  It's not good for the markets.  It's not good for business.  It's not good for consumers.  It's not good for our kids.  It's not good for our future."

President Obama finished his remarks to the well-heeled crowd at Mr. James' house, by reiterating his belief that the choice between these two economic approaches is the main issue of this presidential campaign.

"That's ultimately what this election is going to be about," he said. "When you cut through all the other stuff -- there's going to be a lot of noise and a lot of day-to-day skirmishes and arguing -- but ultimately it's going to come down to, whose vision do you believe?"

Jay Carney at a White House press briefing in March. (Photo: Getty)

As Air Force Once flew President Barack Obama to New York for a commencement speech at Barnard College, a pair of fundraisers and a taping of The View, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney held a brief mid-air gaggle with reporters where he discussed J.P. Morgan's $2 billion loss. Though Mr. Carney would not comment on the S.E.C.'s investigationinto the firm, he said the incident proves the need for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill that was signed into law by the president in 2010.

“What I can say is this event reinforces why it is so important to pass Wall Street reform," Mr. Carney said according to the press pool report. "The president fought very hard against Republicans and Wall Street lobbyists to get Wall Street reform passed and also worked very hard to ensure the protection bureau was part of it and fought hard to make sure the Volcker rule was part of it.”

Mr. Carney said there have been "millions and millions of dollars spent by Wall Street lobbyists trying to water down, delay and render ineffective the rules that have been put into place" since they were passed.

"The president has fought that. This merely reinforces whey the president was right to take on this fight," Mr. Carney said. "We can’t prevent bad decisions from being made on Wall Street. What was so important about rules being put into place through Wall Street reform is that we can prevent the taxpayer from bearing the burden."

According to Mr. Carney, the massive loss at J.P. Morgan was only felt by investors and "not average Americans" because of the financial reforms that were passed.

"What’s important to note here is that those suffering the losses because of what happened here are shareholders and not average Americans who had nothing to do with this," Mr. Carney said. "The president’s commitment was that we couldn’t have it happen again where the failure of some banks or the reckless behavior of some individuals on Wall Street could cause the kind of financial crisis we saw in 2008.”

In light of this incident, Mr. Carney said he's stunned there is still opposition to Wall Street reform.

“It is amazing that there are still those who are out there arguing we should repeal Wall Street reform, that we should let Wall Street write their own rules again," he said.

Eric Schneiderman (Photo: MSNBC)

Today's sudden revelation that J.P. Morgan lost $2 billion†had a lot of mouths hanging open, and while the detail's of the company's wagers gone wrong aren't all present, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman argued on MSNBC that the case demonstrates the need of strengthening financial regulations.

"People talk about principles," Mr. Schneiderman said. "There's one principle: Unregulated markets always crash. Unregulated markets always produce massive losses on risky bets."

Mr. Schneiderman then emphasized the importance of having clear regulatory rules so there's no ambiguity about what is needed to avoid massive loses.

"This is the kind of thing that can happen, so we do need rules in place so we can make sure everyone understands what the rules are," he said. "I personally don't think you should be able to hedge a position you don't have. If you just want to go place a bet, we have places for that, they're called casinos. That's not something we should be doing in markets open to the public."

While we need additional rules regulating the system, Mr. Schneiderman further contended, they should be simple enough that a layperson can operate within the market.

"We need a simple set of rules that everyone understands. You can't all play by the same set of rules if no one knows what they are," he said. "The public -- demonstrated by data released in the last couple weeks -- still has not come back into the market to the level of confidence we want. They're not reinvesting because they just have a sense that it's not just a casino, it's a rigged casino."

Watch below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

But Wall Street likes nothing if not winners, and now that Mr. Obama seems more of a favorite in November and the sharpest GOP strategists caution that taking over the Senate remains a longshot, attention among the titans of finance has turned to their last bulwark against runaway regulation: the House of Representatives.

The crux of the concern is the House Committee on Financial Services, through which some of the most critical regulatory legislation, including Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, has passed over the past decade. Because even if Republicans retake the White House, or snatch the Senate away from Democratic hands, it may not matter much for Wall Street if the House flips from Republican to Democrat and the House Banking Committee ends up in the hands of Maxine Waters, the 17-term Democrat from South-Central Los Angeles.

Wall Streeters say that the prospect of Ms. Waters at the helm of the Financial Services Committee could actually make them regret chasing Barney Frank—who was slated to retake the committee before he abruptly announced his retirement this year—out of Congress.

“Just the name,” said one financial industry lobbyist, “sends shivers up the spine.”

Why the worry about Ms. Waters as the nation’s chief banking regulator? It doesn’t stem from comments she made in her first term in office, when she suggested that the Rodney King riots that occurred in her neighborhood would better be thought of as a “rebellion”—since “riot,” she maintained, “sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable.” And it doesn’t stem from her more recent suggestion that “The Tea Party can go to hell” a suggestion appended by the promise that “I intend to help them get there.”

Rather, most of the concern stems from what is perceived as a general hostility to the banking industry, if not to the economic system as a whole.

“She is wacko,” said one New York banking lobbyist. “She is very flamboyant, very old school. She is not one of these younger, sophisticated members of Congress. She has no grasp of the technical side of finance. She was elected during a different time in history and she hasn’t read a book since.”

The corridors of Wall Street’s financial firms are filled with stories of Ms. Waters privately and, in some cases, publicly browbeating executives over what many see as issues outside of their firms’ purview.

“Most of the international banks would start folding their tents” if Ms. Waters were to became chair of the committee, said John Allen James, the executive director of Pace University’s Center for Global Governance, Reporting and Regulation and a former consultant for McKinsey. “She is anti-bank. She doesn’t like anybody that wears a suit and a tie. She yells at them, and says why aren’t you doing more to address the housing problem, why aren’t you doing more to raise the boats of the less fortunate. It is a total misunderstanding of what capitalism is.”

Thus far, Ms. Waters’ most noteworthy contribution to financial reform is a little-noticed provision she slipped into Dodd-Frank that would compel financial firms that do business with the government—i.e., all of them—to hire more women and minorities and created 29 separate offices of minority and women inclusion in places like regional federal reserve agencies and federal agencies like the Department of the Treasury and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“This radically changes employment law,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and former economist for the Department of Labor under President George W. Bush. “Right now the rule is that you can not discriminate. This is fair inclusion, which technically means that even if no woman or minority has applied for a job at Citibank, no Hispanic or Pacific Islander, Citibank can still be in violation of the law for not having such a person on staff. It is a dramatic departure from existing employment law.”

Dodd-Frank, which promised to regulate the financial sector in a way not seen since the Great Depression—and which business leaders promise will be their ruin—remains very much a  provisional piece of legislation and how its key elements will be enacted remains still in dispute.

But if Ms. Waters takes charge of the committee, backed by an Obama White House and a Democratic Senate, Ms. Furchtgott-Roth said financial firms can expect the more onerous interpretations to win out. Banks, she said, may be less likely to lend if their lending comes with greater restrictions or more strings attached.

Ms. Waters could not be reached for comment for this story.
Most economic policy experts say that even if the Democrats were to retake the House, there would be little appetite for further regulation—the bruises from the battle over Dodd-Frank still smart, and it remains vastly outside the realm of plausibility that even if Democrats hold onto the Senate that they will reach the 60-vote threshold required these days to pass major legislation. A Democratic controlled House would likely be a result of a nationwide rejection of the Tea Party, and the flame-throwers on the left may be quieted in favor of the forces of moderation.

But that doesn’t mean that Ms. Waters as chairperson couldn’t have an impact. Even if the status quo in Washington were to entirely reverse itself—and the Republicans were to retake the White House and the Senate, and the Democrats captured control of the House—bankers say they still would have a reason to be afraid. Committee chairs are granted vast powers in Congress, and Wall Streeters expect that a Chairwoman Waters would haul them before the committee routinely. The big banks could face the prospect of regularly trekking down to Washington (on commercial airlines, one assumes) to explain their lending or hiring practices.

“She is in the mold of the grandstanding politicians,” said Anthony Randazzo, the director of economic research for the Reason Institute, who has testified in front of the Financial Services committee. “When she asks questions, she doesn’t want to know an answer, or know what my opinion is as an expert. She is always trying to push particular idea or trying to get out of the process some statement that she could criticize, or trying to back up some preconceived notion of hers.”

There are certainly those in finance who cheer the prospect of a Chairwoman Waters, especially those who work with community banks and those who have a stake in women- and minority-owned financial institutions. But if Democrats do take control of Congress, many on Wall Street say they are holding out hope for an alternative chair of the Finance committee.

“In New York we have a very strong interest in the viability and the strength of the big banks since they are our key institutions,” said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City. “Much of America is focused on how we can help the community banks and take it out of the hide of the big banks, but fortunately most of our New York representatives in Washington understand that the U.S. position in the global capital markets is determined by the strength and vitality of our big banks.”

And so most of Wall Street is hoping that a local representative, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of the East Side, emerges as an alternative to Ms. Waters.

“You have different versions of Democrats and Maloney is far more moderate,” said Mr. James. “And she would be under the influence of Schumer and Bloomberg and Cuomo, who say don’t kill the goose that lays the golden egg.”

For Wall Street, there is a reason to hope. For the past several years Ms. Waters has been ensnared in an ethics investigation into whether she tried to steer money from the 2008 financial bailout to a minority-owned bank where her husband was shareholder and board member.

Opinion is mixed about how much the ethics probe will hurt Ms. Waters.

“For Nancy Pelosi, Maxine is a three-fer,” said one congressional staffer, noting that it will be Ms. Pelosi who ultimately makes the determination if Democrats retake control. “She is a fellow Californian, she is an African-American woman, and it is her turn.”

Others note that there have been a number of Democrats, including New Yorkers Charlie Rangel and Ed Towns and Michigan’s John Dingell, who have been booted from committee leadership positions despite their seniority, and say that there has been a backlash among Democrats to this practice.

“A lot of folks in the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] would not look too kindly on an outside challenge,” said one Capitol Hill lobbyist. “They want to go back to the seniority system.”

Ms. Maloney has publicly said that she is not interested in challenging Ms. Waters for the post, but there is hope on Wall Street and among some on the Hill that she is merely trying to avoid a public confrontation, especially when the prospects of a Democratic takeover remain something of a longshot.

“I have talked to a lot of Democrats in Congress and there is a sense among them that seniority would not be triumphant in this case,” said one Wall Streeter closely aligned with Democrats in the House. “The ethics issue should be enough for Maxine. This isn’t a foregone conclusion.”

There is rich irony in Wall Street suddenly coalescing around Ms. Maloney in an effort to stave off Ms. Waters. In 2010, Ms. Maloney faced a fierce primary challenge from Reshma Saujani, a former hedge-funder who slammed Ms. Maloney for being needlessly hostile to the financial industry. Then, Ms. Saujani raised $1.5 million for her campaign, mostly from those same Wall Street titans now putting their faith in Ms. Maloney.

A pitched battle between Ms. Waters and Ms. Maloney, then, represents an acute dilemma for Wall Street, especially for those who give money to political campaigns. Help the Republicans maintain control of the House to keep Ms. Waters away from the chair? Or hedge your bets to increase the likelihood that in the event of a Democratic takeover, Wall Street donors can persuade leadership to give the gavel to Ms. Maloney?

“People in finance are incredibly concerned,” said one Hill insider close to both Ms. Maloney and the financial community. “They worry that Maxine will be incredibly unpleasant to work with. She doesn’t have a history of being a partner, while Maloney, people are finding out, does.”

For her part, Ms. Waters seems confident her long service will carry her through. “Let me let you in on a secret: I am the senior-most person serving on the Financial Services Committee,” she told the 2012 California State Democratic Convention last month. “Barney Frank is about to retire, and guess who’s shaking in their boots? The too-big-to-fail banks and financial institutions and all of Wall Street because Maxine Waters is going to be the next chair of the Financial Services Committee.”

dfreedlander@observer.com

Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit (Photo: Getty)

Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit appeared alongside Mayor Michael Bloomberg today at a press conference announcing New York's top rank in a Citi-commissioned Economic Intelligence Unit research report on the world's most competitive cities. Mr. Pandit said Citigroup's current "mission is to help the cities on this list and others compete on the global stage," so The Politicker asked his thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street protesters and others who blame the financial industry for subverting the democratic process and spreading economic inequality.

"I think the starting point is we have about 24,000 people that are our colleagues in New York City that makes us, I think, the second largest employer in the city. We've been here 200 years through ups and downs in the markets and, as the mayor pointed out, the last two, three years have been challenging," Mr. Pandit said. "It's very understandable that when we have so many people who want to do more than they're able to do, want to have the kind of jobs they aspire to, that does create a sense of frustration. And a lot of that anger has been directed at big banks and Wall Street, and that's understandable too."

Mr. Pandit became one of the most prominent faces of the financial collapse after Citigroup received about $45 billion in TARP bailout funds in 2008. As a response to the firm's financial woes, Mr. Pandit made just $1 a year for two years until his base salary was upped to $1.75 million in 2011. Though Citigroup has continued to slump, Mr. Pandit's current pay package has been valued at $53 million. Going forward, Mr. Pandit said he believes Citigroup and other Wall Street banks need to do a better job "keeping that trust" with customers.

"I think the banks over the last few years have not done a great job of keeping that trust with its customers and we need to do a lot better at that," Mr. Pandit said. "I think that's the message for me and at Citi, the most important thing we can do is serve our clients. The most important thing we can do is practice responsible finance and the most important thing we can do is make sure we're in business to make money for our customers and serve our clients rather than serving ourselves."

Mayor Bloomberg chimed in to defend Mr. Pandit by pointing out anger toward banks is nothing new and financial institutions fulfill a purpose in our society.

"Let me add something to that, you can go back the last 2,000 years and bashing banks and finance is a great thing, it sells newspapers, and radio and TV time, but the truth of the matter is, that if you want your economy to grow, you have to have the financing to do it," Mayor Bloomberg said. "The financial sector is key whether you want to have people get mortgages, or have capital to start a business, or be able to invest for their retirement. The financial system is key to all of that."

Mayor Bloomberg concluded by saying he wants "to make sure that the financial institutions grow here in this city and in America.

"I don't think, if you really think, if you go down the list of what would happen if we didn't have a good banking system, we would not have a future," Mayor Bloomberg said.

“Cash bonuses were down in 2011, reflecting a difficult year on Wall Street,” DiNapoli said. “Profits were down sharply and securities firms in New York City resumed downsizing in the second half of the year. The securities industry, which is a critical component of the economies of New York City and New York State, faces continued challenges as it works through the fallout from the financial crisis and adjusts to regulatory reforms.”

Mr. DiNapoli also estimated that the profits for broker/dealer operations of New York Stock Exchange member firms would be half of what they were in 2010, the second year in a row that profits dropped by more than half.

Wall Street bonuses have become a hot-button issue ever since the collapse of financial markets in 2007, a symbol for many of the finance industry's excesses; there are however a vital revenue lifeline for cash-strapped New York City and state.

Mr. DiNapoli also noted that securities industry in New York City shed over 4,000 jobs in the last eight months of 2011. His report also noted that while the average cash bonus declined by 13 percent to $121,150 in 2011, the average salary (including cash bonuses) in the securities industry in New York City grew by 16 percent to $361,180 in 2010,which was 5.5 times higher than the average salary in the rest of the private sector ($66,110). Data is not yet available for 2011.

Mitt Romney is widely expected to win New Hampshire tonight.

America's biggest private equity companies have spent millions over the past five years lobbying to keep their tax rates low. Several major private equity firms, including Mitt Romney's former employer, Bain Capital, have paid for lobbyists to fight for the carried interest tax break, which protects the profits-based compensation that makes up a large portion of private equity executives' pay from regular tax rates. Carried interest became a hot button issue on the campaign trail when Mr. Romney revealed he pays a tax rate of just about 14.65 percent, in large part due to the low tax rates for carried interest. 

Carried interest is a portion of the profits made in an investment fund that is paid to the fund manager once they're in the black. Many private equity executives receive much of their compensation in the form of carried interest. Carried interest is currently taxed at the same 15 percent rate as other profits from investments rather than the 35 percent rate that earners in the highest bracket pay on standard income.

The private equity companies Blackstone Group LP and Bain have both paid to lobby to keep the carried interest rate low. Private equity companies also teamed to form a political action committee which began making campaign contributions last summer. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, lobbying is only part of the reason the carried interest tax break has survived political pressure. In addition to the backing by companies, the tax break also enjoys the support of wealthy donors who give to both parties.

In 2008, Mr. Romney supported preserving the carried interest tax break. Following the controversy over his tax returns, his policy director, Lanhee Chen, hinted that he'd be willing to eliminate the tax break, however his campaign subsequently backed away from her statements.

Congressman Joe Crowley (Photo: House of Representatives)

The Private Equity & Growth Capital Council, which was formed in 2007 by several of the country's largest private equity firms, quietly formed a political action committee last spring and began making campaign contributions this past summer. New York City Congressman Joe Crowley was one of the top Democratic beneficiaries of donations from the private equity PAC. 

PEGCC spokesman Ken Spain told Fortune's Dan Primack the purpose of the private equity PAC was to support candidates who "understand the important role that private equity plays in driving economic growth, strengthening businesses and providing financial security to millions of Americans by delivering superior returns to public and private pension funds."

Last year, PEGCC's PAC mostly gave money to Republicans. Campaign finance reports show it gave roughly two-thirds of the $98,000 it spent during the last year to GOP politicians. Republican Congressmen Orrin Hatch and Spencer Bachus got the most money from PEGCC with $10,000 apiece. The Democratic politicians who received the most money from the private equity PAC were South Dakota Congressman Tim Johnson and Mr. Crowley, who each received contributions of $5,000 from PEGCC.

Private Equity has become something of a political bogeyman in this year's presidential election with Republican candidate Mitt Romney taking a great deal of heat on the campaign trail for his career with private equity firm Bain Capital. Bain was one of the original members of PEGCC, but it has since left the group.

In 2010, Mr. Crowley, who is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, came under scrutiny for his contributions from the financial industry. That fall, the House Ethics Committee conducted a probe of Mr. Crowley after he collected $23,500 in donations from financial industry executives at series of fundraisers held in late 2009, just before he voted on legislation to impose tougher restrictions on Wall Street. The Ethics Committee dropped their investigation of Mr. Crowley in January 2011 and released a report saying the probe  "raised no appearances of impropriety."

Mr. Crowley represents the 7th Congressional District, which includes parts of Queens and The Bronx.