Last year, as the Dodd-Frank financial reform law was being crafted and debated in Congress, banks and other financial firms threw millions of dollars into lobbying and campaign contributions. These dollars bought the banks some significant victories, including watering down key provisions aimed at reducing risky trading.

And President Obama signing Dodd-Frank into law did not stop the banks from spending. In fact, they’ve kept their lobbying expenditures fairly constant, in an effort to influence the regulators charged with implementing the law. According to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, the banks’ spending on lobbying in the first quarter of 2011 was actually higher than it was in the first quarter of 2010, when Dodd-Frank was actively being debated:

Wall Street and the financial industry spent more to lobby Washington in the first quarter of this year than a year ago when Congress was writing sweeping financial-overhaul legislation, according to a Wall Street Journal review of lobbying reports released Thursday. [...]

The disclosures show that 26 of the financial firms and trade associations that spent the most in 2010 collectively spent $27 million in the three months ending March 31, a 2.7% increase from the $26.3 million spent in the comparable period in 2010.

When the height of the Dodd-Frank debate was going on last summer, the banks spent $27.3 million over three months, barely more than they spent in the first three months of this year.

One of the main knocks against Dodd-Frank is that it left too much discretion to the federal regulators, who work in a way that is much easier for special interests to influence. Rulemaking by federal agencies, which is slow and involves extensive open comment periods, is the perfect arena for lobbying shops to work their magic. The banks clearly realize this, and have been attending a host of meetings with the regulators, as well as submitting extensive comments on proposed rules.

The financial services industry is seeking to influence several issues when it comes to regulatory reform, including derivatives reform, consumer protection issues, and trying to do away with a rule capping the amount they can charge for debit card transactions. It’s clear that the banks think they can still blunt the effect of Dodd-Frank on their bottom lines.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Gas prices have gone up 34 cents per gallon in just the past 13 days, as barrels of oil trade at highs not seen in over two years. This poses a serious threat to the economic recovery — experts say prolonged high gas prices could reduce economic growth and counteract recent stimulative measures undertaken by the government.

The proximate cause for this spike is unrest in the Middle East. On January 28, in the midst of unrest in Egypt, oil prices closed $4 to $5 higher than normal, but stabilized when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak resigned in February. The current turmoil in Libya seems to have created even more chaos in the oil markets. But one question remains unanswered — to what extent are commodity traders influencing these high gas prices? As Chris Hayes notes in The Nation, the last time gas prices spiked, in the summer of 2008, many experts concluded that Wall Street speculators, not supply and demand, created the high prices.

Last night, The Ed Show did a segment in conjunction with The Nation clearly explaining the relationship between commodity trading and gas prices, with a focus on how commodity trading could be regulated to prevent unnatural rises in fuel prices. Watch it:

As the segment notes, during the last spike in gas prices in 2008, then-candidates Obama and McCain both assailed commodity speculators and called for increased regulation. The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law gave the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the power to curb “excessive speculation” by limiting the bets speculators can make, and called on the commission to do so.

Unfortunately, opposition from the commission’s Republicans — and one Democrat, Michael Dunn — has so far prevented the CFTC from acting to regulate dangerous speculation on gasoline and other commodities. But Dunn’s term is ending this summer. The White House told the Ed Show it is “vetting” replacements — but would not say if they’re looking for a nominee that favors rules to curb excessive speculation.

Will the White House choose a candidate that wants to follow the law of Dodd-Frank, and insulate gas prices from predatory Wall Street speculators? It would certainly be a much more effective way of controlling gas prices than listening to conservative cries of “Drill, Baby, Drill.”

When it first looked like Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren might stand a serious chance of getting appointed at the first director of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a regulatory agency which she was the first to suggest — Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) poo-pooed the notion, saying there’s a “serious question” about whether Warren is “confirmable.”

The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber wrote that “after surveying a dozen insiders over the last few days — congressional aides, industry officials, progressive activists, and a few administration officials — I’ve concluded that the odds are good that Warren would be confirmed if nominated by the White House.” And Dodd now seems to have shifted his rhetoric, saying that even if Warren is confirmable, it’s not worth a potential fight to get her the job:

What you don’t need to have is an eight-month battle for who the director or the head or chairperson of this new consumer financial protection bureau will be.

Watch it:

Dodd pretty clearly would prefer that current Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Shelia Bair receive the nod, but Bair has said that she’s not interested in the job. “I did some checking on Sheila Bair and I was going to have very little difficulty getting Sheila Bair confirmed,” said Dodd. “I’d probably confirm her in a couple of days. That’s how strongly people felt, Democrats and Republicans.”

Bair certainly has the credentials to do the job, as she was one of the first federal officials warning about the proliferation of subprime loans during the buildup of the housing bubble. But she’s doing very important work at the FDIC, and as The Wonk Room explains, there’s simply no reason for passing over Warren.

Leaving aside Warren’s qualifications, it makes little sense that Dodd feels a political fight here isn’t worth it. Warren is an unabashed, articulate consumer advocate, and her nomination would set up a clear choice: consumers or the banks. After having overwhelmingly voted against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, Republicans standing against her nomination would once again be siding with the financial services industry. It’s worth the fight to show that dynamic at work.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.