Is Wall Street Controlling Obama?
Senator Barack Obama made a great speech one year ago against Wall Street. He called for ” an immediate investigation of the relationship and business practices of rating agencies and their clients” which has not happened nor did he ever formally ask for one. He offered to Wall Street “I know some may say it’s anathema to come to Wall Street and call for shared sacrifice so that all Americans can benefit from this new economy of ours,” his remarks said. “But I believe that all of you are as open and willing to listen as anyone else in America. I believe you care about this country and the future we are leaving to the next generation. I believe your work to be a part of building a stronger, more vibrant, and more just America. I think the problem is that no one has asked you to play a part in the project of American renewal.” Politico and MSNBC among others touted how Obama was going to get tough on Wall Street excesses.
The liberal press has stressed beyond reasonable measure that Obama has raised money from small time donors through the internet but there is another not often told story. More than half of Obama’s donations ( and the reason he turned down public financing) are coming from large corporate donors. Although at initial glance of the publicly available Federal Election Commission records the traditional owners of Democratic party funding, the trial lawyers would appear to be the most prominent at over 24 million dollars in just a few months time. On closer examination its clear, however, that Wall Street dwarfs all other donors. Wall Street corporate executives, employees, their political action committees, and 527 organizations can multiply their donations many times over if when public financing is avoided. For just 2008, for example, Goldman Sachs gave $691, 930; troubled Lehman Brothers managed to give $370,524; Citigroup gave $448,529; and JP Morgan Chase & Co. gave $442,919 just to name a few.
Special types of contributors are called “bundlers”. These are specialists at gathering and concentrating large amounts of cash in ways that are not technically illegal. A record number of “bundlers” where given special skyboxes at the Denver Democratic party convention. During the convention they arranged that almost every Democratic elected official and all newly elected officials where taken to special parties to meet “important people” such as those promoting online gambling legalization. Some have argued that the reason Joe Biden was selected as Vice-Presidential candidate had less to do with his foreign affairs expertise and more to do with his linking to bundlers like prominent Baltimore attorney, Peter G. Angelos. Many in the Obama campaign feared that they could be in real trouble if they were “cut-off” from the Hillary Clinton’s financial supporters so they planned a brillant strategy of combining new online campaigning and the old fashion behind the scenes money “handling”. In all, 56 bundlers from Wall Street added another quick $10 million dollars to the Obama campaign. Although it is true that bundlers associated with lobbyists have also given to the McCain campaign, it appears that what Obama has done is get rid of the middleman and get the money directly from Wall Street itself. The Center for Responsive politics has even questioned if Obama can be objective in dealing with a possible government bailout of Lehman brothers after many from Wall Street made such a public statement of support of Obama at the Democratic convention. The former head of Goldman-Sachs, former Senator Jon Corzine, remains one of Obama’s closest advisors. Wall Street has contributed to John McCain’s campaign but not to the same extent that it has to Obama.
Both Obama and McCain have been away from potential votes in the Senate over the past two years. To his credit, Obama has sought legislation to protect pensions, penalize companies that send jobs abroad, or launder money. He has not taken any action against any Wall Street firm that was involved in the disgusting derivative real estate mortgage schemes. It appears he will support their bailouts.
Some will argue that it is harsh language to use the term “controlling” but I argue it is even harder to imagine that Wall Street and not the American people may be not only choosing our President but deciding our future.