Oil Speculators: Bullish on Ex-Lobbyist CFTC Nominee?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Did the selection of an ex-energy company lobbyist to serve on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission drive a recent rally in the oil market? Energy analyst and Fox Business contributor Phil Flynn raises this theory in a recent column, pointing out that Scott O’Malia’s nomination is being viewed as a positive sign by investors who are worried that the commission, under chairman Gary Gensler, may take an overly aggressive stand on speculation.

Flynn writes:

Another interesting take on the weird movements in oil actually was suggested by one of my readers. He seemed to think that the recent buying in oil had to do with politics and the CFTC. He seemed to think that the CFTC’s approval of Scott O’Malia as CFTC Commissioner reduces the risk that the agency will force aggressive position limits on oil… Mr. O ‘Malia is seen by the marketplace as more of a free marketer and will provide balance to the debate over speculation by filling the fifth and final seat on the CFTC commission…

Hopefully this will provide some balance as the agency’s new chairman Gary Gensler seems biased against the speculators argument that they did not cause the spike in oil price but only reflected the massive uncertainty surrounding the greatest economic crisis in recent times. As the agency moves to reign in speculation, it is hoped that this confirmation of O’Malia will make sure the agency doesn’t go too far in a rush to judgment.

Flynn, a vice president at PFGBest, a futures brokerage, says he doesn’t necessarily buy the notion that O’Malia’s nomination caused a rally, but he describes it as “an interesting take on…interesting market movements.”

But if the oil market is bullish on O’Malia, it has good reason to be. In the past, he has lobbied against regulatory measures concerning the energy sector—a strong indication that he may be an ally of speculators hoping to keep government meddling at a minimum. As David Corn and I reported recently, from 2001 to 2003 O’Malia was the director of federal legislative affairs for Mirant, an Atlanta-based energy company accused of engaging in Enron-style abuses, including manipulating electricity prices in California and contributing to a statewide energy crisis. At Mirant, O’Malia was registered to lobby for the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, a law intended to curb speculative investments by energy, natural gas, and water utilities. (PUHCA opponents eventually succeeded in getting the law replaced by a weaker regulatory regime.) He was also signed up to lobby against a bill that would have expanded the CFTC’s authority to police energy derivatives. (The legislation was ultimately defeated.)

While market watchers are clearly taking notice of O’Malia’s regulatory track record, the same can’t be said of the Senate agriculture committee, which is in charge of reviewing his nomination. During his confirmation hearing last week, O’Malia—who spoke of his commitment to strengthening market oversight and exposing risky trading practices—wasn’t asked a single question about his deregulatory lobbying efforts. Such a failure of vetting would be considered irresponsible on Wall Street. It’s called due diligence.

Follow Daniel Schulman on Twitter.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend