Talk about hedging your bets. It should come as no great ice bath to some Americans that their democratic president is handily eclipsing his republican opponents in collecting campaign contributions from the financial sector. (For one thing, he collects donations for both his own campaign directly, and for the larger coffers of the Democratic National Committee, which then aids his campaign.) But if the masses were polled, they might well show that they’re clinging to the old party stereotypes of democrat fellates little guy, Republican fellates Robber Baron, in terms of the nature of candidate-constituent relations during election season. (Perhaps revealingly, in a head-to-head matchup over the last two quarters, GOP front-runner Romney edges Obama in finance sector contributions, $7.5 million to $3.9 million; the remaining $11 million or so of such monies collected by the DNC may tell you something about the science of hedging bets, or about the posture of not wanting to give directly to Obama, only. Who knows.)
Even the firm Mitt Romney helped found, Bain Capital, has showered the president with more money than Romney. Mitt got $38,00 from Bain employees, while Obama was gifted with $76,600. So if the Republicans are attacking Obama as a failed fiscal leader, noting that he’s presided over one of the worst prolonged economic slides and finance crises in history, the barons of Capital know that Obama is yet a safe bet. But they’re all safe bets. Bailouts the size of the 5-year GDP of the lesser European states do not come every day, especially, we hope, after long periods of voodoo speculation in derivatives nobody understands but the investment bankers themselves. It was not only Obama who decided to save the banks from their own insolvency and avarice, and the domestic car industry from their lopsided, outdated, and over-subsidized models of operation. And it is not only Republicans who are now opting not to prosecute these rascals for a near-automated system of mortgage fraud.
A smart finance sector employee or boss knows that the cash has to be spread around. And when the president has placed directors and deregulators from some of the most egregious scofflaws in the finance sector in the highest economic advisory positions in his cabinet, then we may speculate Wall Street finds the president agreeable, in return. It’s probably disingenuous to position Obama as a friend of even the mildest supporters of the OWS protesters in Manhattan. There is the show, and then there’s the clammy-handed undertakings behind the curtain,
In response to the protests, the Obama campaign and other Democrats have stepped up their attacks on Romney and other Republicans for their opposition to Wall Street regulations.
One top banking executive who raises money for Obama, discussing fundraising efforts on the condition of anonymity, said reports of disaffection with the president “are exaggerated and overblown.” He said a strong contingent of financiers in New York, Chicago and California remains supportive of Obama and his economic policies, even as some have turned on him.
But, this donor added, “it probably helps from a political perspective if he’s not seen as a Wall Street guy.”
Yep it helps from a political perspective.
For the report on this even dispensation of the stuffing, see the (Washington Post).
And for a report on one of the people who at least seems to be seeking substantive legal forms of justice for the speculators and Wall Street apologists, as opposed to just hasty settlements that will bar further investigations as part of the deal, see this piece on New York’s Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman.
And here, check out this article about the same Mr. Schneiderman from the above piece, titled,