The global financial crisis and the massive rescue plan being crafted in Congress dominated the news over this past weekend. And while officials in Washington seem genuinely concerned and wanting to do what is best for the nation's economy, they couldn't resist finger pointing and playing the blame game.

Few would disagree with the suggestion that there is more than enough blame to go around, from Wall Street to Main Street.

The favorite target, WallStreet greed, certainly was a big part of it. But greed was widespread — and so was a lack of oversight and accountability.

Mortgage brokers who sold loans to home buyers who would not ordinarily qualify for the mortgage were to blame. Brokers didn't have to worry about the buyer paying more than the house was worth, or being unable to repay the loan, because the mortgage was sold to a big commercial bank somewhere.

The big commercial banks didn't have to worry about the quality of the mortgage because it was sold to government-backed Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, who had relaxed their lending standards in the interest of expanding home ownership.

Risky mortgages were then repackaged and sold as investment vehicles by WallStreet firms, which were motivated more by profit than concerned about the risks involved.

With home prices going up year after year and with aggressive sales pitches from mortgage lenders, homeowners were able to refinance and take cash out of their overvalued homes for cars, vacations or whatever — which boosted the economy. And everybody, including Washington politicians, enjoy a booming economy.

Relaxed lending standards within the mortgage industry led to "no-doc" loans (no income documentation required), and even "liar"loans, where the mortgage broker and the home buyer conspired by providing bogus information about income or the home's value.

Even as the housing bubble was building, there were some who worried about the relaxed standards and lack of oversight from Washington,D.C. Efforts were made to provide more oversight in 2003, but the clout of the mortgage and financial industries as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Congress killed the attempt to add more oversight over Fannie and Freddie.

And this is where an investigation, similar to the 9/11 Commission, should examine the role of politics, lobbying and political campaign donations in contributing to the current financial crisis.

Last week, Common Cause, the public interest advocacy group, issued a report on the financial crisis titled, "Ask yourself why Congress didn't see this coming."

It's a good question.

And the answer appears to have at least something to do with the big money directed to members of Congress by financial institutions, insurance companies, investment banks and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Common Cause noted that the top five political contributors among mortgage lenders and bankers spent more that $31 million in lobbying and political contributions since the start of this year.

The report also noted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant mortgage companies now being kept afloat by a federal intervention, have spent about $180 million on lobbying and campaign contributions since the 2000 election cycle.

That might be part of the reason why earlier efforts to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed. A Bush administration plan in 2003 to create a new agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed, along pretty much party-line votes, with Democrats defending the status quo at Fannie and Freddie.

In fact, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, said at the time, "These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis."

Did Frank really not know what trouble lurked in the subprime mortgages at Fannie andFreddie, or was he influenced by the $720,000 in contributions that he received from them?

And Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Senate Banking Committee Chairman and a Democratic presidential candidate in the primaries, reportedly received $6 million from Fannie and Freddie.What influence has this had on Dodd regarding oversight?

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that since 2002, the broader financial sector contributed more than $1.1 billion to members of Congress. What role did this money have in the relaxing of standards and the rejection of additional oversight and regulation?

Campaign donations from people in the financial industry funding the current presidential campaign produced $22.5 million for Barack Obama, $21.5 million for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and $19.6 million for Sen. JohnMcCain.

The Times quotes Lynn Turner, a former chief accountant for the Securities and Exchange Commission and longtime critic of U.S. financial regulations, as saying, "The way Washington works, it is the lobbyists and the executives who hire them that get what they want. And it is the taxpayer who usually ends up getting fleeced."

Lobbying activities in Congress also tell a story. In 2008 alone, according to the Times article, securities and investment firms spent $46,477,562 trying to influence Congress.

The American public deserves to know what role this money played in contributing to the current financial crisis. Just about every congressional leader speaking about the financial crisis and blaming WallStreet greed — or the other political party— for this crisis took money from financial, insurance or mortgage interests. The public deserves to know why Congress rejected more oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a few years ago.

More than a few people did see this crisis coming. A full-blown investigation is necessary to reveal why Congress did nothing to avert it.