Class Warrior-in-Chief awash in cash from Wall Street, Fatcats
posted at 1:05 pm on July 23, 2011 by Karl
As Pres. Obama prattles on about the evils of tax breaks for coprorate jets, the Center for Responsive Politics notes:
President Barack Obama has relied more on well-connected Wall Street figures to fund his re-election than he did four years ago when he campaigned as an outsider and an underdog.
One-third of the money Obama’s elite fund-raising corps has raised on behalf of his re-election has come from the financial sector ***.
***
Meanwhile, employees of law firms and lobbying shops are responsible for at least $6.9 million so far this year, money which has gone to the Obama re-elect campaign and the DNC.
During Obama’s presidential bid four years ago, individuals in this economic sector were responsible for a minimum of $16.1 million — with the legal industry being the No. 1 industry among all of Obama’s bundlers.
This is no shocker. Obama’s 2008 campaign received loads of cash from people and groups associated with the top ten issuers of subprime loans. He then packed the key economic positions in his White House with the people he claimed caused the financial crisis.
Indeed, according to the Center for Public Integrity:
More than two years after President Obama took office vowing to banish “special interests” from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests ***.
***
Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third, of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised more than half a million.
Politico details some of these cases, including Steve Westly, a major investor in the electric car company Tesla, who bundled up to $200,000 for the president this cycle — while his company received a $465 million loan from the Department of Energy.
Moreover, handing out those plum jobs and ambassadorships creates a vicious cycle:
[I]ncumbency can also complicate fund-raising. Only about one in five of the supporters who bundled checks for Mr. Obama last time appear on the list disclosed by his campaign Friday.
One reason for the drop-off: Upon taking office, Mr. Obama appointed dozens of his top fundraisers to ambassadorships, government advisory boards or jobs in his administration, perches from which they may be prohibited from raising campaign money for the president. One such supporter, Matthew Barzun, resigned in April as the United States ambassador to Sweden to become the Obama campaign’s national finance chairman.
Mr. Obama, unlike his Republican opponents, has made a point of swearing off contributions from registered lobbyists and corporate political action committees.
But the president’s bundlers include business executives whose companies have substantial interests before the federal government. Marc Benioff, who raised more than $500,000, is also chairman of Salesforce.com, a company whose software the Obama administration has adopted for wide use in federal agencies. Another bundler, Michael Kempner, is president of the MWW Group, a national public affairs company that has a lobbying practice in Washington.
TIME’s Michael Scherer has details on Kempner, not to mention influence seekers like Drug giant Pfizer’s top government relations executive, Sally Susman, Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen, and Kenneth Jarin, the co-partner in charge of government relations at Ballard Spahr, to name but a few. Obama’s lobbyist ban seems to be as much a dodge as it was in 2008. Pres. Obama’s pretensions to populism were a scam then; it’s simply getting worse — and more obvious — as we approach the 2012 campaign.









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
Most of those financial institutions provide funds to Republicans and Democrats. Not equally, but larger corporations do tend to fund both sides.
Also, I personally know two Republican ‘bundlers’ who were after specific Ambassador positions in Europe when Bush ran for office in 2000.
Money does mean influence in US politics and it is unfortunate but aside from transparency I’m not sure what can be done. This is especially true now given recent court rulings.
What do you suggest? Also, do you think companies should disclose their political cash contributions when submitting bids for government contracts? I’m not trying to trick you with the last question. This is a very important issue especially given the large amounts of cash involved in modern campaigns for politicians and for judicial elections.
lexhamfox on July 23, 2011 at 2:06 PM
lexhamfox,
Frankly, it is business as usual, and don’t see a need to have contractors disclose contributions (which would look like a suggestion to ante up).
The point is that Obama ran as Change, and still rolls out the class warfare for his re-elect campaign. The rampant hypocrisy won’t get much media play beyond the links provided, which is part of what Ace calls the neutral story line.
Karl on July 23, 2011 at 2:41 PM
Also, my suggestion would be to shrink the government. When the government does less, there’s less incentive for everyone to pony up bucks for influence.
Karl on July 23, 2011 at 2:42 PM
Karl on July 23, 2011 at 2:42 PM
Why is it so difficult to understand that when the government has it fingers in every pie that business would have to effectively pay protection money to be left alone?
You are exactly right – shrink the size of government and keep it out of our business and we won’t have to pay off the politicians, QED.
Chip on July 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM
…of course “Hope and Change” was thrown out there for his minions to chant while Obama doubled down on the “business as usual in DC”.
Obama’s payoffs were so blatant and irresponsible that even NPR called him out on it:
NPR: Hey, what happened to the change?
posted at 2:55 pm on September 3, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/03/npr-hey-what-happened-to-the-change/
One of the most important positions at the moment is Japan, where a new government has taken power that may not be as connected to American policy goals as the last. Do we have an experienced diplomat in position to help with a smooth transition? Not exactly:
….to Obama..stuffing his pockets full of cash by selling influence is more important than competent and credible representation by America to the core of our allies.
Baxter Greene on July 23, 2011 at 11:28 PM