The Volokh Conspiracy - The final bill takes shape.

Here's a recap. Paulson sought to give Treasury the power to buy mortgage-related assets. A power grab!, said the critics. So congressional Democrats sought to give Treasury the power to buy mortgage-related assets, non-mortgage-related assets, and equity interests, and to regulate executive pay. Socialism!, said the congressional Republicans. So the final bill gives Treasury the power to buy mortgage-related assets, non-mortgage-related assets, and equity interests, and to regulate executive pay, and to issue insurance to distressed institutions. Madisonian deliberation at its finest!

Meanwhile, VC readers might be interested in other law-blog commentary:

David Zaring on the possible legal non-issues raised by the possible bailout law (actually even less than meets the eye). Jeff Lipshaw on what's going on with the AIG bailout (remember the AIG bailout?). (For critics of my earlier post questioning the legality of the AIG bailout, note Lipshaw's conclusion: "So.... I take back what I said about the Fed not actually owning AIG. It does. And it will, because there is no provision for the redemption of the preferred shares if the loan is paid back.") Steven Davidoff on everything else that everyone is ignoring. See also Randy Picker; Larry Ribstein (you might also read his prescient article, "Bubble Laws," which uses a nice phrase, if I remember correctly -- "speculative bubbles of regulation"); and Stephen Bainbridge.

	[Eric Posner, September 28, 2008 at 10:40am] Trackbacks The final bill takes shape. Here's a recap. Paulson sought to give Treasury the power to buy mortgage-related assets. A power grab!, said the critics. So congressional Democrats sought to give Treasury the power to buy mortgage-related assets, non-mortgage-related assets, and equity interests, and to regulate executive pay. Socialism!, said the congressional Republicans. So the final bill gives Treasury the power to buy mortgage-related assets, non-mortgage-related assets, and equity interests, and to regulate executive pay, and to issue insurance to distressed institutions. Madisonian deliberation at its finest! Meanwhile, VC readers might be interested in other law-blog commentary: David Zaring on the possible legal non-issues raised by the possible bailout law (actually even less than meets the eye). Jeff Lipshaw on what's going on with the AIG bailout (remember the AIG bailout?). (For critics of my earlier post questioning the legality of the AIG bailout, note Lipshaw's conclusion: "So.... I take back what I said about the Fed not actually owning AIG. It does. And it will, because there is no provision for the redemption of the preferred shares if the loan is paid back.") Steven Davidoff on everything else that everyone is ignoring. See also Randy Picker; Larry Ribstein (you might also read his prescient article, "Bubble Laws," which uses a nice phrase, if I remember correctly -- "speculative bubbles of regulation"); and Stephen Bainbridge.