Wallstreet Likes the Democratic Party

Oct 30, 2006
1,466
2
Wall Street donors are demonstrating their disenchantment with the repubs and their policies on Iraq and the economy by giving more to Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than to Republican candidates.

Obama is leading among the top 10 investment banks, raising at least $739,579 in the second quarter. Clinton followed with $424,545. By comparison, the top Republican recipients, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, each received a little more than $330,000.

The top 10 hedge funds tilted toward Democrats, giving the three leading candidates a combined $62,211, compared with $50,750 for the three Republican leaders.

Once the bastion of Republicans, Wall Street has been donating more to the Democratic Party in recent years. Democrats also benefited from concerns about the war, ballooning budgets and scandals.

Article after the jump.
 
U

UAL_TECH

Guest
Wall Street donors are demonstrating their disenchantment with the repubs and their policies on Iraq and the economy by giving more to Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than to Republican candidates.

Obama is leading among the top 10 investment banks, raising at least $739,579 in the second quarter. Clinton followed with $424,545. By comparison, the top Republican recipients, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, each received a little more than $330,000.

The top 10 hedge funds tilted toward Democrats, giving the three leading candidates a combined $62,211, compared with $50,750 for the three Republican leaders.

Once the bastion of Republicans, Wall Street has been donating more to the Democratic Party in recent years. Democrats also benefited from concerns about the war, ballooning budgets and scandals.

Article after the jump.

Giving the influence of Wall Street, it may be more of a disappointment on the ROI as the POTUS has underperformed his obligation to the investors. (which are not ‘US’ BTW)

B) UT
 
OP
Gilding the Lily
Oct 30, 2006
1,466
2
Apparently, the other side of Wallstreet is also showing its disenchantment with the repubs and joining the Dem's bandwagon.

NY exchanges' second cousin, the new and improved Chicago Mercantile Exchange (World's largest futures and options exchange) is supporting a Democrat: Hillary Clinton.

"In a big political surprise, CME Group Inc. Executive Chairman Terrence Duffy, a major Republican Party fundraiser, is endorsing Democrat Hillary Clinton for president.

Mr. Duffy, 48, twice has been appointed to federal posts by President George W. Bush, first as a member of the National Saver Summit on Retirement Savings in 2002 and later as a member of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which managed $190 billion in retirement assets for federal workers."


article after the jump.
 
OP
Gilding the Lily
Oct 30, 2006
1,466
2
Giving the influence of Wall Street, it may be more of a disappointment on the ROI as the POTUS has underperformed his obligation to the investors. (which are not ‘US’ BTW)

B) UT


Are you kidding me? Wallstreet, Hedge Funds, and PE groups haven't seen returns like this since the 80's and late 90's. They have been soaking in the sun for the past 2 years, riding on the magnificent wonders of non-regulation. Create an old dog but call it by a new name: Hedge Fund or PE, and all of a sudden nobody is regulating what you are doing. They love it.

I see this as Wall Street is just fed up with our position in the eyes of every country besides the US, and this is why they are more willing to back a dem. It is a global "wallstreet" now, and these people recognize that global perceptions are important.
 

jerseyfinn

Senior
Mar 19, 2006
304
0
NJ USA
Visit site
I don't know. I'm not happy that any of these groups are handing out big bucks to either party.

This is a ridiculous thought that ain't gonna happen, but if either party had the guts to put forward a real campaign finance reform bill, politicians would be forced to stop raising money and do something else --- such as look the voters in the eye and speak to them.

The last candidate to essentially do this was Harry Truman. We all know that he won that election which "media experts" had called for the other guy. I guess that those days were the last times for the era in which the media had a role but didn't rule, and an earnest and decent man could run for office and make his own destiny.

It's a swamp out there for all candidates.

Barry
 
OP
Gilding the Lily
Oct 30, 2006
1,466
2
Since the season of FDR, the Republicans have been the party of the rich -- at least, that’s the conventional wisdom.

From Ronald’s free-market crusades to George's wealth-friendly tax breaks, the GOP has long been regarded as the standard-bearers of the self-made, entrepreneurial rich.

In recent years, however, that conventional wisdom is being turned on its head. The new rich are increasingly registered Democrats. As donors, they are giving much more money to Democrats than Republicans. As voters, the superrich are leaning more left. And as candidates themselves -- using their massive fortunes to get elected -- they tend to run as Democrats.

Among candidates who spent more than $4 million on their own campaigns, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 3-1.

The WallStreet Journal says that Democrats lead the fund-raising race for the 2008 election for the first time since data started being collected nearly 30 years ago. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, the Democrats raised $63 million from contributions of $2,300 or more, compared to $45 million for Republicans.

So why the big change? Do the rich think the Dems have a better shot at getting elected because of voter discontent with the GOP? Are they plowing money to the winners in hopes of getting favors later? Private equity firms, for instance, may be donating to Hillary in hopes of avoiding a tax hike on their carried interest.

Have the Republicans have alienated their “fiscal conservativeâ€￾ base with spending?
 
U

UAL_TECH

Guest
Since the season of FDR, the Republicans have been the party of the rich -- at least, that’s the conventional wisdom.

From Ronald’s free-market crusades to George's wealth-friendly tax breaks, the GOP has long been regarded as the standard-bearers of the self-made, entrepreneurial rich.

In recent years, however, that conventional wisdom is being turned on its head. The new rich are increasingly registered Democrats. As donors, they are giving much more money to Democrats than Republicans. As voters, the superrich are leaning more left. And as candidates themselves -- using their massive fortunes to get elected -- they tend to run as Democrats.

Among candidates who spent more than $4 million on their own campaigns, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 3-1.

The WallStreet Journal says that Democrats lead the fund-raising race for the 2008 election for the first time since data started being collected nearly 30 years ago. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, the Democrats raised $63 million from contributions of $2,300 or more, compared to $45 million for Republicans.

So why the big change? Do the rich think the Dems have a better shot at getting elected because of voter discontent with the GOP? Are they plowing money to the winners in hopes of getting favors later? Private equity firms, for instance, may be donating to Hillary in hopes of avoiding a tax hike on their carried interest.

Have the Republicans have alienated their “fiscal conservativeâ€￾ base with spending?

Lobby reform and 'HARDENED' laws to prosecute offenders.
Both parties have promised this legislation and neither party has delivered. 'Conflict of Interest' and 'Ethics' laws has been largely ignored as well (again, by Both Parties). While 'both' parties wag-the-dog on top-issues (which seemingly always rise to the top) and we are the 'bag-holders'.
Why is that?
Possibly, if we resolve the 'root cause' instead of constantly being lead down the divisive path (and understand it), we could put an end to it.

B) UT
 
U

UAL_TECH

Guest
Lobby reform and 'HARDENED' laws to prosecute offenders.
Both parties have promised this legislation and neither party has delivered. 'Conflict of Interest' and 'Ethics' laws has been largely ignored as well (again, by Both Parties). While 'both' parties wag-the-dog on top-issues (which seemingly always rise to the top) and we are the 'bag-holders'.
Why is that?
Possibly, if we resolve the 'root cause' instead of constantly being lead down the divisive path (and understand it), we could put an end to it.

B) UT

DOH! :p
 
OP
Gilding the Lily
Oct 30, 2006
1,466
2
Apparently, it is not just the WallStreet Banks, PE groups, and Hedge Funds that like the Dems. Most of the "White Shoe" law firms that historically supported the repubs, have now switched over to the Dems.

"Lawyers say the change is largely due to disenchantment with the Republican Party's social policies and the war in Iraq."

"Lawyers at Kirkland & Ellis, the law firm that's home to Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr and Bush administration official Jay Lefkowitz, have given more to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign than to all of the top Republican candidates combined."

"Even at Jones Day, the 2,167-lawyer firm that represents the Republican National Committee, attorneys have given 3 1/2 times as much to the three Democratic frontrunners, including $131,333 to Obama."

"Overall, lawyers in and out of large firms have given $18.27 million to Democrats Clinton, Obama and John Edwards, compared with $5.75 million to Republicans Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney."

"The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are going to win the White House.''


See article after the jump for a breakdown of donations.
 

Latest posts