The Democratic Party has (almost) lost Wall Street

posted at 2:01 pm on March 27, 2015 by Noah Rothman

One of the worst kept secrets of President Barack Obama’ first term in office is how closely aligned that administration and the members of the Democratic Party were with the interests of the financial sector, despite party members’ repeated insistence that they wanted nothing more than to curb Wall Street’s excesses. The well-heeled bankers at Goldman Sachs had little to fear from Democrats who professed their appreciation for the promise of the Occupy Wall Street movement while the institution’s members were filling Democratic pockets with campaign contributions. The financial community could rest easy knowing that Democrats were aware of who truly buttered their bread.

But the Democratic Party has begun to match its anti-Wall Street rhetoric with action since figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have risen to power. According to a Reuters exclusive, the trading sector of the economy has had it with the rhetoric of the Warren Wing of the Democratic Party, and they’re ready to do something about it.

“Big Wall Street banks are so upset with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said,” Reuters reported.

Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party’s tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.

Bank officials said the idea of withholding donations was not discussed at a meeting of the four banks in Washington but it has been raised in one-on-one conversations between representatives of some of them. However, there was no agreement on coordinating any action, and each bank is making its own decision, they said.

The amount of money at stake, a maximum of $15,000 per bank, means the gesture is symbolic rather than material.

How brave. These banks and those who represent them would not dare force the Democratic Party to confront the fact that its future is more secure with the populist left than it is with the financial sector. Financial executives are intimately familiar with what Mother Jones journalist David Corn called “Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs problem.” They know that Clinton faces pressure from her left to appeal to progressive populists who are deeply suspicious of Wall Street, and they feel their influence waning. They want to issue a warning shot, but they desperately want to avoid sparking a war.

As for Warren and those like her, surely she is just agonizing over this display of pique from the financial community. Her image as a populist progressive reformer is only advanced by this “symbolic” protest. While this is a setback for Clinton, who will struggle a bit more than she would like to raise campaign cash from Wall Street bankers, Elizabeth Warren and her supporters are celebrating.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

After all no one likes making a profit anymore.

Bmore on March 27, 2015 at 2:03 PM

The Democratic Party has (almost) lost Wall Street

Noah, your Headline is wrong. Wall Street still has Jeb.

Oil Can on March 27, 2015 at 2:04 PM

Minor correction Noah.

Mother Jones journalist David Corn

Bmore on March 27, 2015 at 2:05 PM

Well that ends it for Fauxcohantas. No big campaign money for her.

Decoski on March 27, 2015 at 2:05 PM

They should’ve known. Presidential crony is an appointed government position–not a permanent government position.

RBMN on March 27, 2015 at 2:06 PM

It’s all about: What have you done for me lately?l Banks can already trade derivatives, the QE/stock buyback boondoggle coming to an end in the US, and now the powers that be are requiring more of banks in the way of capital and risk management. Time for the next scam before the bubble bursts, which Obama hopes to put off till after the next election.

Fenris on March 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM

Did selling $1T of IOUs to Wall Street end? They certainly loved that.

22044 on March 27, 2015 at 2:12 PM

I doubt it… Most of Wall Street main guys are liberal democrats… It is true that they worship money and profits and find every trick under the sun to pay the least amount of taxes but it is also true that they are the biggest hypocrites preaching more taxes and income equality, etc… just like the vast majority of other liberal hypocrites…
Moreover under Obama Wall Street never had a better deal… The Federal Reserves have been buying Wall Street toxic assets with trillions of dollars that they are printing at the terrible expense of the taxpayers, and the federal reserves have been keeping the interest rate at zero for money borrowed by Wall Street and in return Wall Street make a lot of profit selling this borrowed money at zero interest to their consumers at much higher interest… The Stock market does not reflect the state of the economy anymore…

mnjg on March 27, 2015 at 2:16 PM

The Democratic Party has (almost) lost Wall Street

Fixed for accuaracy. There is nothing democratic about these sub-human pukes.

bernzright777 on March 27, 2015 at 2:20 PM

Right.

Hillary Rodham Goldman Sachs Clinton agrees.

AprilApple on March 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM

The radical Mother Jones left wants it both ways.

They want Wall Street money flowing, but they also want to bash Wall Street.

It’s right in line with the left’s cognitive dissonance on health care. They left collectively BASH the BIG 8 health insurance mega-corporations – but they have NO problem fleecing the tax payer to pay for mega-health-care corporation losses on behalf of the ACA.

Meet HillaryCare/ObamaCare.

AprilApple on March 27, 2015 at 2:27 PM

I guess those Wall Street whizzes are finding out that dogs have fleas, and you shouldn’t sleep with them.

Another Drew on March 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM

The radical Mother Jones left want it both ways.

They want Wall Street money flowing into D coffers, but they also want to BASH Wall Street.

It’s right in line with the left’s cognitive dissonance on health care. They left collectively BASH the BIG 8 health insurance mega-corporations – but they have NO problem fleecing the tax payer to pay for mega-health-care corporation losses on behalf of the ACA.

(fixed)

AprilApple on March 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM

“Oh, we are so mad at you we will temporarily withhold our bribes!”

/Scrooge McDuck and Friends

Dolce Far Niente on March 27, 2015 at 2:36 PM

“Big Wall Street banks are so upset with Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said,” Reuters reported.

Symbolic?

Have we lost the ability to know the meaning of words?

What the hell is symbolic about withholding donations?

“I symbolically punched him in the face.”

Baggi on March 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM

Wall St are all cronyist whores

They are a bunch of typical idiot New England limousine liberals, who happily vote/donate to the Dem to keep their crony favors coming back 1000-fold for every dollar they donate

Harry Schumer is actually who cemented the unholy Wall St/Dem alliance, he shakes them down to donate en masse to Dem Reps and Senators

Schumer has blocked legislation for over a decade to classify hedge fund income as ordinary income to be taxed at the higher rate, rather than at a lower capital gains rate. Their hypocrisy on this issue is pathetic

I doubt Wall St is wising up any time soon with their whore Hillary the frontrunner for WH and now Schumer about to become Sen Minority Leader

thurman on March 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM

The Dems are welcome to the corrupt, open-borders, too-big-to-fail kleptocrats on Wall Street.

Clark1 on March 27, 2015 at 2:44 PM

The Democratic Party has (almost) lost Wall Street

And after Obama’s meddling in Israel’s election, has the Democrat Party also lost Jewish voters?

wren on March 27, 2015 at 2:46 PM

Why is it that Wall Street defaults to supporting democrats? The only time they give to republicans is to hedge their bets if the think the republican will win. Otherwise, they prefer to back democrats. Why is that? The left narrative is that Wall street is republican. But the opposite is true. The reason? Wall street executives and bankers tend to be social liberals, and often are Jewish. It is not friendly ideological territory.

HugoDrax on March 27, 2015 at 2:47 PM

Well hell froze over today..I kind of agree the too big too fail banks should be broken up ASAP…should have been done in 2008-09…I’d give Goldman, BOA, Chase, etc. 1 year to bust up their banks into 20 entities each…if they don’t have it done by then the government should do it.

thesorcerer on March 27, 2015 at 3:04 PM

Wall street executives and bankers tend to be social liberals

HugoDrax on March 27, 2015 at 2:47 PM

Not just that. Big financial companies love to bribe them some big government politicians who are all too happy to write extensive regulations to hassle competitors, and to hand out subsidies and bailouts.

Clark1 on March 27, 2015 at 3:06 PM

Cruz for Prez, Warren for Native Fed Chairman/person.

vnvet on March 27, 2015 at 3:29 PM

Why is it that Wall Street defaults to supporting democrats? The only time they give to republicans is to hedge their bets if the think the republican will win. Otherwise, they prefer to back democrats. Why is that? The left narrative is that Wall street is republican. But the opposite is true. The reason? Wall street executives and bankers tend to be social liberals, and often are Jewish. It is not friendly ideological territory.

HugoDrax on March 27, 2015 at 2:47 PM

It’s all about keeping Al Czervik out of Bushwood.

Steve Eggleston on March 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM

One of the worst kept secrets of President Barack Obama’ first term in office is how closely aligned that administration and the members of the Democratic Party were with the interests of the financial sector, despite party members’ repeated insistence that they wanted nothing more than to curb Wall Street’s excesses.

Just like the GOP there are different parts of the democratic party that want different things. Some factions are in bed with wallstreet, yes (Durbin for instance). Some aren’t (Warren for instance).

Tlaloc on March 27, 2015 at 4:27 PM

And after Obama’s meddling in Israel’s election, has the Democrat Party also lost Jewish voters?

wren on March 27, 2015 at 2:46 PM

No.

Tlaloc on March 27, 2015 at 4:29 PM

And after Obama’s meddling in Israel’s election, has the Democrat Party also lost Jewish voters?

wren on March 27, 2015 at 2:46 PM

No.

Tlaloc on March 27, 2015 at 4:29 PM

Sorry, should have said: SPOILER ALERT

Tlaloc on March 27, 2015 at 4:30 PM