Which is the party of Wall Street fat cats?
posted at 10:15 am on March 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
The Los Angeles Times notices that the same Wall Street fat cats that the populist Democratic presidential candidates have excoriated have become their biggest fans. Do these executives really like the wealth redistribution and heavy taxation that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton promise? Or are they inoculating themselves by making both candidates reliant on donations from the financial-services sector?
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who are running for president as economic populists, are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions from the troubled financial services sector.
It is part of a broader fundraising shift toward Democrats, compared to past campaigns when Republicans were the favorites of Wall Street. …
These concerned Democrats argue that their candidates, and presumptive Republican nominee McCain, should be willing to push for financial institutions to accept more government regulation — in exchange for likely future bailouts, such as the recent deal the Federal Reserve orchestrated for JPMorgan Chase & Co. to take over Bear Stearns Cos.
“I want to hear Clinton, Obama and McCain talk about a quid pro quo,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist with the Democratic-leaning Economic Policy Institute. “If we don’t hear it, especially from Democrats, it makes sense to ask why not and ask if they are inappropriately cozy with the financial services industry.”
Make no mistake about it — the financial sector wants big connections to whomever gets elected to the White House. They face some tough times in the next couple of years, and they want to have access to the Oval Office. They want friendly treatment on regulation, but also access to bailouts when necessary to ensure against collapse of their markets.
Hillary and Obama have spent the better part of the last two years railing against these very interests. Yet they seem happy to collect their contributions and use their fundraising efforts. It doesn’t necessarily mean that both would support the agenda of these contributors, but it certainly doesn’t indicate that they reject it, either. Once again, it calls into question exactly how much voters should believe in the Democratic rhetoric, as Obama’s NAFTA Dance highlighted earlier this month.
Why haven’t these interests thrown as much money at John McCain? Perhaps they figure he’s already sympathetic to their interests, but if so, it would make more sense to support McCain’s candidacy against both Hillary and Obama. Maybe they think McCain isn’t for sale and that showering him with cash won’t net the same return.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
If a Dem wins, I hope their worst nightmares come true. They’ve earned it.
TheBigOldDog on March 21, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Big business loves the Dems, not the GOP, because they want the gov’t to start paying for employees’ health benefits.
jgapinoy on March 21, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Isn’t the dems SOP to set up taxes on the “Rich”, but then to define the rich as anyone making more then 50K a year, and then set up big loop holes for those making millions?
Wyrd on March 21, 2008 at 10:22 AM
The answer to that question should be, “No, you little girl, I just have principles.”
emailnuevo on March 21, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I add that we don’t have that kind of candidate, which is why it is a “should be” answer.
emailnuevo on March 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Liberal Fascism
jp on March 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM
The larger issue is that all three major candidates from both parties are complete economic imbeciles. This is not good news given that there are tough times ahead with difficult decisions to make.
Lehuster on March 21, 2008 at 10:25 AM
It’s called buying a seat at the table. If the politicians are dependent on these guys for campaign $s, they will be less likely to enact laws & regulations that are noxious to the industry. (Of course there will be some who get sacrificed just to make it look like the government is keeping an eye on them).
I really do not have a problem with it. I just want to know who is buying which politicians.
rbj on March 21, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Spot on.
Pax americana on March 21, 2008 at 10:30 AM
There, fixed it for you.
rightside on March 21, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Wait, I thought the McCain–Feingold Act was suppose to stop “big money” influence on our helpless, zero self-controlled, corrupt politicians?
Zorro on March 21, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Take a look at the 2004 RED/BLUE map. Those Blue zip codes are the richest areas of the country.
Hummer53 on March 21, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Wall Street didn’t exactly turn out in droves to support Elliot Spitzer’s opponent in the 2006 gubernatorial election despite his jihad against them the previous eight years, because the Republican opposition was so weak. McCain’s in a lot better position here, but the online political trading sites still show people putting their money on a Democratic win in the fall by a 3-2 margin, so it’s no big surprise that Wall Street is going to hedge their bets here, since we’re still over seven months out from election day and a lot can happen.
jon1979 on March 21, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Greasing both sides of the pocket.
(They know the populist rhetoic is purely window-dressing anyway.)
profitsbeard on March 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM
the govt. can stifle competition too, which favors big business….that is not a free market idea.
jp on March 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Yep, the Dems have truly become the party of the rich. All you had to do was drive in some of the biggest hoity-toity towns in Cape Ann, Mass, in ‘06 to see all the Deval Patrick “Together we can” signs in front of all the mansions.
Bill Gates, Whatsisname who owns the Mavericks, all the uber rich generally support Dems. It’s baffling.
crazy_legs on March 21, 2008 at 10:38 AM
They already know they can count on McCain.
tlynch001 on March 21, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Based on data found at opensecrets.com, wall street has been much more generous with Democrats vs Republicans since at least 1990.
Pam on March 21, 2008 at 10:49 AM
the GOP is the party of small business, not big business, unless that business is being hurt in someway via regulations
jp on March 21, 2008 at 10:56 AM
The Dems won’t touch this, it opens too many ‘doors’.
A finance post on HA? This is good, we’re growing up.
Thx Ed.
shooter on March 21, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Exactly right. I work at a trading firm, and the portfolio managers at my firm roll their eyes everytime “wealth redistribution” or “let’s make everyone pay their fair share” comes from either Dweedle-Bama or Dweedle-Hil.
What Wall Street is doing is, in purely financial terms, hedging against future moves. Nothing more.
FLcapitalistthug on March 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM
The entire Democrat Party is set up as an extortion racket. The Democrat’s mafia masters taught them the tune.
They are merely paying it off so the Democrats only do minor damage to their businesses.
NoDonkey on March 21, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Perhaps because…
I’d go with the “people” everytime!
But that’s just me.
J_Gocht on March 21, 2008 at 11:07 AM
They’re a lot like the politicians. They all believe that the “equalization” acts won’t apply to them.
TooTall on March 21, 2008 at 11:20 AM
They all just HOPE that he’s an Honest Politician…
You know, the kinds that stays bought?
Romeo13 on March 21, 2008 at 11:37 AM
It’s an extortion racket. Whatever industry or corporation they mention knows that they better pay up or suffer the consequences.
29Victor on March 21, 2008 at 12:14 PM
The bailout issue is interesting. It is the equivalent of corporate welfare. It encourages risk taking on the up side but negligence and malfeasance on the down side. If the risks do not pan out, no worries, the fed will bail you out. The question is what costs more:
prudent business + prudent gain; or
risky business + high risk gains - necessary bailouts (higher taxes)
I’m no economist, but the risk model must also take into consideration negligence and malfeasance. So, I imagine it is less efficient. A corporation that knows there is a safety net will act irresponsibly just like a welfare family breaks down — because there is incentive to do so.
tommylotto on March 21, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Bingo! We have a winner!
Tim Burton on March 21, 2008 at 12:27 PM
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Very good question Ed. Well we know that many do.
Why are people like warren buffet,george soros,the Rockefellers, Bill Gates and others, leftists?
It’s simple because they like monopoly control.
Think about it. If you are a billonaire with a monopoly and you help get socialist legislature passed…you are benefitting yourself.
Socialism breeds laziness and stupidity…it is the best way to ensure that new competition is not popping up left and right.
In addition, many of those same billionaires(Soros,Rockefellers etc.) support globalist government and would love to destroy the united states in order to form a one world government.
Here is a video going into more depth about this subject and explaining what is happening with our economy.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b2f_1205902986
SaintOlaf on March 21, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Isn’t the dems SOP to set up taxes on the “Rich”, but then to define the rich as anyone making more then 50K a year, and then set up big loop holes for those making millions?
Wyrd on March 21, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Exactly! They love to play up the terrible rich people angle and then stick it to the middle class as they have since the 40’s. When are the people of this country going to wake up and figure that out!!!
flytier on March 21, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Want to fix the economy and stop inflation?
The solutions are obvious:
1. Become 100% energy independent ASAP!
2. End illegal immigration and deport illegals.
3. Remove embedded taxation of american products and end unfair advantage of foreign products via fairtax.
4. Stop printing so much new money.
5. Return America’s industrial base to America via fairtax.
Of course we had a candidate who would of accomplished these things
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home
Actually we had several candidates who would have done these things, but of course we ended up with the one who would do NONE of these things and the only “republican” who would actually help the leftists accomplish their goals of global warming/big government socialism.
SaintOlaf on March 21, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Well, if the Dems are going for the euro-style welfare-state, employers won’t have to pay for the medicals directly. They’ll just raise the income tax to pay for it instead.
xyan on March 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Corporate America wants Universal Healthcare. Healthcare is a monkey they want off their back. In addition many corporate types are not thrilled with the money being spent in Iraq.
Dennis D on March 21, 2008 at 9:47 PM
I’ve worked in some of Wall Street’s biggest investment banks and hedge funds.
There are so many Chomsky paperbacks proudly displayed on bigshots’ desks it’s become a cliche.
All of these super-rich, Ivy League snobs think it shows how enlightened and intellectual they are. They also think it makes them look all radical and rebellious, like they’re really cooler than the usual “suit.” Meanwhile, every “suit” for miles has the same stupid copy of Manufacturing Consent propped among his deal toys and photos of the wife and kids.
Of course they’re Democrats, and leftists. Because they’re elitists.
Gilda on March 22, 2008 at 4:38 AM