Iraqi Violence Has Restarted Bernie Sanders’s Gas-Price Fight With Wall Street

The senator blames speculators for exploiting the conflict for big profits in the energy market.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
National Journal
Jamie Lovegrove
Add to Briefcase
Jamie Lovegrove
July 2, 2014, 1 a.m.

Sen. Bernie Sanders is tak­ing aim at en­ergy-mar­ket traders he blames for driv­ing up gas prices by ex­ploit­ing Ir­aqi in­stabil­ity, in­tro­du­cing le­gis­la­tion Thursday that would com­pel the fed­er­al Com­mod­ity Fu­tures Trad­ing Com­mis­sion to in­ter­vene.

Sanders is part of a grow­ing and di­verse co­ali­tion of mar­ket watch­ers who be­lieve spec­u­lat­ors are partly re­spons­ible for rising oil and gas prices. The ar­gu­ment is a long-stand­ing con­ten­tion of pop­u­lists, feed­ing a nar­rat­ive of Wall Street in­siders mak­ing life more dif­fi­cult for Main Street con­sumers. But it is also gain­ing pro­ponents high­er up the so­cioeco­nom­ic food chain, in­clud­ing from oil-in­dustry ex­ec­ut­ives and non­par­tis­an ana­lysts.

For all its polit­ic­al mo­mentum, though, it’s dif­fi­cult to sep­ar­ate price in­creases driv­en by the crisis in Ir­aq from those fueled by Wall Street’s man­euv­er­ing — and it’s equally dif­fi­cult to de­term­ine profit-driv­en ex­ploit­a­tion from com­pan­ies’ ef­forts to man­age the risk of high­er prices.

En­ergy spec­u­lat­ors bet on fu­ture prices for oil and pur­chase con­tracts, but Wall Street in­vestors with enough cap­it­al to buy sig­ni­fic­ant quant­it­ies at high­er than mar­ket price can cre­ate an in­cent­ive for banks to hoard the com­mod­ity — and then wait to sell un­til those high­er prices set in. In the mean­time, con­sumers feel the pain of the high prices when they head to the pump.

The pro­cess can raise huge profits for oil com­pan­ies and in­vest­ment banks that can buy and sell hun­dreds of mil­lions of bar­rels a day, lead­ing to crit­ics like Sanders claim­ing that Wall Street is un­fairly tak­ing ad­vant­age of the com­mod­it­ies mar­ket and cheat­ing Amer­ic­an con­sumers. But bankers and traders ar­gue that spec­u­la­tion pro­tects them from po­ten­tial price shocks, and fur­ther reg­u­la­tions from the CFTC would bur­den le­git­im­ate hedging.

Sanders, a mem­ber of the Sen­ate En­ergy and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Com­mit­tee, cites the 5 per­cent crude oil price rise since June 12 — when hos­til­it­ies in­tens­i­fied in sev­er­al Ir­aqi cit­ies — as evid­ence for mal­prac­tice. In the longer term, Sanders notes that oil prices have in­creased by 53 per­cent over the past five years even though En­ergy In­form­a­tion Ad­min­is­tra­tion fig­ures sug­gest that sup­ply has ris­en by 4.3 per­cent while de­mand has dropped by 1 per­cent in that time.

“I am get­ting tired of big oil com­pan­ies and Wall Street spec­u­lat­ors us­ing Ir­aq as an ex­cuse to pump up oil and gas prices,” Sanders said in a state­ment. “The fact is that high gas­ol­ine prices have less to do with sup­ply and de­mand and more to do with Wall Street spec­u­lat­ors driv­ing prices up in the en­ergy fu­tures mar­ket.”

Greg Priddy, the dir­ect­or of glob­al en­ergy and nat­ur­al re­sources at Euras­ia Group, said in a Thursday in­ter­view on PBS News­Hour that the mar­ket has in­deed over­es­tim­ated the im­pact of the Ir­aq crisis. Most of the coun­try’s oil pro­duc­tion is fo­cused in the south­ern re­gion around Basra, where an over­whelm­ingly Shiite pop­u­la­tion has main­tained re­l­at­ive sta­bil­ity.

“Even if the U.S. wasn’t buy­ing that much from Ir­aq — and it does buy a little bit — an out­age in Ir­aq would still have a big im­pact if it happened.”

But giv­en that Ir­aq has be­come OPEC’s second-largest oil pro­du­cer, the coun­try’s in­flu­ence on glob­al oil prices is neither as trivi­al nor as ir­rel­ev­ant as Sanders would sug­gest. And un­planned sup­ply dis­rup­tions have tightened world oil mar­kets and pushed prices high­er in the past.

“Even if the U.S. wasn’t buy­ing that much from Ir­aq — and it does buy a little bit — an out­age in Ir­aq would still have a big im­pact if it happened,” Priddy said.

Sanders has long been a vo­cal pro­ponent of in­creased Wall Street reg­u­la­tion, par­tic­u­larly in the com­mod­it­ies mar­ket. The Ver­mont in­de­pend­ent in­tro­duced an al­most identic­al bill in March 2012, set­ting a 14-day dead­line for the CFTC to take ac­tion against Wall Street spec­u­lat­ors in re­sponse to a spike in gas prices that spring, and in June 2009 he first in­tro­duced the En­ergy Mar­ket Ma­nip­u­la­tion Pre­ven­tion Act with sim­il­ar goals. Both bills died in com­mit­tee.

The is­sue has a par­tis­an his­tory, as Re­pub­lic­ans tend to fo­cus more on in­creas­ing do­mest­ic oil and gas pro­duc­tion to slow price rises and op­pose ex­cess­ive reg­u­la­tion. All 19 co­spon­sors of Sanders’s new bill are Demo­crats, many of whom signed onto the pre­vi­ous ver­sion in 2012, while Demo­crat­ic Rep. Rosa De­Lauro of Con­necti­c­ut is in­tro­du­cing a com­pan­ion bill in the House.

When spring fight­ing in Ir­aq in 2008 raised sim­il­ar con­cerns over ar­ti­fi­cial gas-price in­creases, the En­ergy Mar­kets Emer­gency Act over­whelm­ingly passed in the House with over 400 votes. But it fell short in the Sen­ate after re­ceiv­ing only 50 of the 60 votes needed for pas­sage. Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans vehe­mently op­posed the bill be­cause they thought it fo­cused too much on spec­u­la­tion and should have in­cluded pro­vi­sions to boost do­mest­ic oil pro­duc­tion through off­shore drilling and shale de­vel­op­ment.

Sanders’s cur­rent bill is al­most cer­tain to stall in Con­gress much like his pre­vi­ous at­tempts, and the best hope for his cause lies in le­gis­la­tion that has already passed.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Re­form Act of 2010 in­cluded a pro­vi­sion ur­ging the CFTC to pre­vent ex­cess­ive oil spec­u­la­tion. Thus far, however, dif­fer­ences over in­ter­pret­a­tion of the law have kept the com­mis­sion from in­ter­ven­ing. The dis­tinc­tion between driv­ing prices up and bet­ting prices will go up can be un­clear and a point of con­ten­tion in the fu­tures mar­ket, and that un­cer­tainty has made it dif­fi­cult for the CFTC to leg­ally im­pose spe­cif­ic po­s­i­tion lim­its to curb im­prop­er spec­u­la­tion.

In 2012, Sanders dir­ec­ted his ire at CFTC Chair­man Gary Gensler, who has since been re­placed by Timothy Mas­sad, a former top Treas­ury De­part­ment of­fi­cial. Even with the change in per­son­nel, Sanders ex­pressed little con­fid­ence when Mas­sad re­ceived con­firm­a­tion along with two oth­er CFTC com­mis­sion­ers earli­er this month.

“After re­view­ing [Shar­on Bowen’s] re­cord and those of two oth­er nom­in­ees, I am afraid that none of them will make sure that the price of gas­ol­ine and heat­ing oil is based on sup­ply and de­mand and not Wall Street greed,” Sanders said in a state­ment fol­low­ing the votes.

“The pro­posed rule is so weak that one Wall Street oil spec­u­lat­or could con­trol 25 per­cent of the mar­ket without ex­ceed­ing the po­s­i­tion lim­its.”

Con­gress has passed le­gis­la­tion in the past dir­ect­ing the CFTC to im­pose lim­its on com­mod­ity spec­u­la­tion, but the pro­cess of con­vert­ing that to an im­ple­ment­able rule has proven dif­fi­cult for the fed­er­al agency. After the fin­an­cial ser­vices in­dustry suc­cess­fully chal­lenged an ori­gin­al rule in court, the CFTC pro­posed a re­vised 163-page rule last Novem­ber — but Sanders re­mained un­sat­is­fied.

“The good news is that the CFTC has fi­nally pro­posed a new rule to lim­it the amount of oil that Wall Street spec­u­lat­ors can trade on the en­ergy fu­tures mar­ket. The bad news is that it will take sev­er­al more months, if not longer, be­fore this rule takes ef­fect,” Sanders said at the time. “Adding in­sult to in­jury, the pro­posed rule is so weak that one Wall Street oil spec­u­lat­or could con­trol 25 per­cent of the mar­ket without ex­ceed­ing the po­s­i­tion lim­its.”

Banks and trad­ing houses, mean­while, re­main op­posed to new re­stric­tions and char­ac­ter­ize the rule rather dif­fer­ently than Sanders. Gregg Doud, pres­id­ent of the Com­mod­ity Mar­kets Coun­cil, told Fin­an­cial Times that the pro­posed rule would “tend to sug­gest that most of the bona-fide hedging that end users have done for dec­ades could now be be kicked over in­to the cat­egory of spec­u­la­tion.”

Such con­cerns are un­likely to pla­cate Sanders, however, who has re­mained con­vinced for years that foul play is at work and the fed­er­al agency should step in for cor­rec­tion. In a 2009 testi­mony in front of then-Chair­man Gensler, Sanders ac­know­ledged that “there are some who still don’t be­lieve that spec­u­la­tion is re­spons­ible for driv­ing up oil and gas prices.” But he re­mained de­fi­ant.

“We now know that spec­u­lat­ors ar­ti­fi­cially drove up elec­tri­city prices on the West Coast in 2000; pro­pane prices in 2004; and nat­ur­al gas prices in 2006,” Sanders said. “Why would any­one be­lieve that spec­u­lat­ors at this very minute are not ma­nip­u­lat­ing the price of oil when sup­ply is high and de­mand is low?”

What We're Following See More »
Morning Consult Poll: Clinton Decisively Won Debate
2 days ago

"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."

Trump Draws Laughs, Boos at Al Smith Dinner
2 days ago

After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."

McMullin Leads in New Utah Poll
3 days ago

Evan McMul­lin came out on top in a Emer­son Col­lege poll of Utah with 31% of the vote. Donald Trump came in second with 27%, while Hillary Clin­ton took third with 24%. Gary John­son re­ceived 5% of the vote in the sur­vey.

Quinnipiac Has Clinton Up by 7
3 days ago

A new Quin­nipi­ac Uni­versity poll finds Hillary Clin­ton lead­ing Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 47%-40%. Trump’s “lead among men and white voters all but” van­ished from the uni­versity’s early Oc­to­ber poll. A new PPRI/Brook­ings sur­vey shows a much bigger lead, with Clinton up 51%-36%. And an IBD/TIPP poll leans the other way, showing a vir­tu­al dead heat, with Trump tak­ing 41% of the vote to Clin­ton’s 40% in a four-way match­up.

Trump: I’ll Accept the Results “If I Win”
3 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.