Financial Industry Pours on Campaign Donations

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

Financial Industry Pours on Campaign Donations
Democrats by Far Receive Larger Portion of Funds
By CHRISTOPHER COOPER
April 11, 2008; Page A6

WASHINGTON -- Hard times may have settled over Wall Street, but campaign cash from banks and securities firms has flooded Washington as Congress and the White House gird for a regulatory revamp of the financial industry. The Democrats' 2006 retaking of Congress and perhaps the heated presidential race have sharply tilted Wall Street donations toward Democrats, though nearly every politician and both major parties are recipients of this largesse.

Data gathered by the Center For Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group whose opensecrets.org Web site tracks political giving, reckons that the banking-and-investment industry is giving nearly twice as much to Democrats as to Republicans in the 2008 cycle. Based on records from 2007 through January, the center calculates that the Democratic Party has raked in about $15.1 million from employees and political action committees of banks and investment companies, compared to $7.7 million for Republicans. The numbers for March, a traditionally heavy month for campaign fund-raisers, have yet to be reported. In the 2004 cycle, the center said, the campaign cash was more equally distributed, with Republicans hauling in $22 million compared with $19.5 million for Democrats.

The race for president follows this pattern, with Democratic candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois greatly outraising Arizona Sen. John McCain, the pending Republican nominee. Sen. McCain raised about $3 million from employees of securities and investment firms through February compared with $6.6 million for Sen. Clinton and $6.7 million for Sen. Obama. But Sen. McCain may be able to close the gap: According to names released by the campaigns and gathered by Whitehouseforsale.org, a research Web site maintained by the nonprofit, nonpartisan group Public Citizen, Sen. McCain counts an army of Wall Street executives among his most prolific fund-raisers, suggesting he will be able to tap them in the future.

What is unclear is whether Sen. McCain will need Wall Street cash for the general election. The campaign has begun hinting that it may forgo private campaign donations for the general election and opt for public financing instead. In recent days, the McCain campaign has stepped up demands that Sen. Obama, the current Democratic frontrunner, do the same. But despite an earlier pledge, Sen. Obama's campaign now says it will likely wait until after the Democratic nominee is fixed before deciding how it would bankroll a general-election run.

(snip)

In all, Public Citizen identifies 66 fund-raisers and bundlers in the financial industry who have signed up to help Sen. McCain compared with 50 for Sen. Clinton and 76 for Sen. Obama. These mega-money fund-raisers are often called bundlers and often raise in excess of $100,000 for the candidates they support, generally by tapping co-workers and friends for donations.

(snip)



URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787092922706451.html (subscription)

[juajen]

1. Gee, HRC - 50 Bundlers BHO - 75 Bundlers

Guess I know why there are not any replies before mine to this thread.

[Donnachaidh]

2. ya think?

I guess we know that the financial businesses are still going to expect the corporate welfare regardless of who gets into the White House.

Soooo, which of these candidates will show some spine and commit to stopping the bailout of banks with our tax dollars?

*crickets*

and some here seem to think Washington is going to get cleaned up after their candidate gets in. :rofl:

[question everything]

5. LOL, by this logic, it will be McCain

No wonder the Republicans do not consider him "conservative enough."

[DCKit]

4. Well, at least HRC's bundlers are better organized.

More money with fewer (re)sources. So THERE.

The point is not which (D) candidate is getting the $$$, it's that the Republics aren't. The investment firms are looking for a soft landing with the next administration, and, though I don't see that happening, they know the Republics will dump them like a used condom as soon as the sElection is over, and they'd rather take their chances with the Dems. They're screwed, and they know it; just not to what degree until everything shakes out.

Personally, I hope they experience some real pain, but I'm an asshole that way.

[eridani]

3. Obama is even with Clinton in the bundling department

And he cleans her clock with vastly more small donors. Not to mention which, he spends it on organizers instead of shitstains like Mark Penn.

[gratuitous]

6. As Willie Brown said . . .

If you can't take their money and then turn around and screw 'em, you have no business being in politics. We'll see if the craven attempt to buy their way out of prison will work for Wall Streets moguls. It usually has worked in the past, no reason to think it won't happen after 2008.

[question everything]

7. Why, then, are lobbyists so despised here?

I think that lobbyists fill an important function: to educate and to inform a member of Congress about details in specific areas. After all the Sierra Club has a lobby too. No one can be well informed in all the details of every topic. In fact, we should applaud those legislators who do take the time to listen to all the parties and, of course, to make reach their own conclusion.

The ones who do let lobbyists and their money determine their votes should not be re-elected.