Loyalty’s for Chumps on the Street: Bankers’ Man in 2008, Obama’s been Dumped by the Money Men
One thing you can say about the financial industry. It has no sense of loyalty.
Back in 2008, most of the biggest contributors to presidential candidate Barack Obama were financial companies. According to the campaign fund tracking website Open Secrets, after the $1.65 million donated by a political action committee (PAC) for the University of California, the next biggest contributor was a PAC for the giant bank, Goldman Sachs, whose employees ponied up a reported $1 million. Right up there among the top contributors to the Obama campaign that year were two other of the nation’s top banks too: JP Morgan Chase, whose employee PAC gave $809,000, and Citigroup, which gave $737,000. Two more big banks, UBS and Morgan Stanley, as well as General Electric, which less than a year later bought a bank to enable itself to benefit from the government’s largesse in doling out billions of “rescue” dollars under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), were among Obama’s top 20 campaign donors, handing over $533,000, $512,000 and 530,000 respectively to support his election.
Obama, after winning the presidency, repaid all that campaign largesse, appointing bank industry lackeys and executives to top positions. He made Timothy Geithner, who as head of the New York Federal Reserve branch during the Bush administration, had ignored the scandalous derivatives scandals that brought on the financial crash, his Treasury Secretary, and Lawrence Summers, who as Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton, had pushed for the deregulation of derivatives, and for allowing banks to merge with investment banks, and who during the Bush years earned millions as a consultant to the hedge fund industry and from speaking fees provided by Wall Street banks, got the post of head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors. Meanwhile, GE's chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, who famously exported thousands of GE jobs abroad, was given the post of White House Jobs "Czar."
Given the ease with which the Obama administration allowed the financial industry to subvert the Congressional legislation designed to reform the banking industry in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008-9, and the White House decision not to prosecute a single bank executive for the wholesale destruction of the US and global economy, one might think that Wall Street would have rewarded Obama with more money for his re-election campaign. Instead the industry, seeing even more advantage in having a Republican in the White House, and particularly one of its own -- venture capitalist and multi-millionaire Mitt Romney, has switched its support over to his opponent.
Open Secrets reports that this year there is only one Wall Street bank listed among Obama’s top 20 largest donors: Wells Fargo, which only gave the president’s re-election campaign a scant $202,000, less than half what the smallest of his top 20 donors gave four years ago. Over all, big banks gave Obama over $4 million in 2008, and only $200,000, or just five percent as much, in 2012.
Romney, meanwhile, this year is awash in Wall Street money, and his donations are even bigger than the donations Obama received from the industry back in 2008. Romney’s number one donor is Goldman Sachs, the turncoat institution that gave Obama $1 million four years ago. Its PAC this year as of August had already given Romney almost $900,000. More importantly, the top eight biggest donors to Romney’s campaign were Wall Street financial institutions.
Number two on the list, Bank of America, gave $668,000. Number three, JP Morgan Chase, gave $663,000. Number four, Morgan Stanley, gave $650,000. Number five, Credit Suisse Group (where Romney reportedly stashes some of his money outside the US and the prying eyes of the Internal Revenue Service), gave $554,000. Citigroup, his sixth biggest contributor, gave $554,000. Wells Fargo, number seven on the Romney donor list, gave $415,000, or more than double the amount given to the Obama campaign. And number eight, Barclays, the bank at the center of the LIBOR- rigging scandal in Britain, gave $404,000. Also on Romney’s top 20 donor list are the hedge funds HIG Capital and the Blackstone Group, giving $338,000 and $309,000, respectively, the Swiss bank UBS, which was the center of a whistleblower-exposed scandal involving helping wealthy Americans hide income from the IRS which donated $308,000, Bain Capital, the venture firm owned and run, until recently, by Romney, which donated $268,000, and GE, now a banking firm, which gave $214,000.
In total, the banks that are among Romney’s 20 largest donors, had, through August, contributed a total of over $5 million to his campaign. Adding in other financial companies in that premiere list of donors, Wall Street firms alone gave his campaign over $6.2 million. The figure is surely considerably higher two months later in the campaign.
This year, meanwhile, having lost the banks, Obama is down to being the candidate of University administrators and faculty. His largest donor this year is the PAC for the University of California, which gave his campaign $707,000. U of C is one of six university PACs that dominate the list of Obama’s 20 largest donors, with his alma mater of Harvard being the second largest of the group and the fourth largest donor to the campaign overall at $434,000. Other large donors to the Obama campaign are Microsoft, which gave $544,000, Google, which gave $526,000, IBM, which gave $219,000, the health insurer Kaiser Permanente, $316,000, entertainment conglomerate Time Warner $295,000, and several US government employee PACs, which collectively gave close to $600,000.
Given these numbers, it seems clear, in case anyone needed a clue, that quarter-billionaire Mitt Romney is the candidate of Wall Street this year. As for Obama, Wall Street’s man in 2008, he may have to content himself with being the higher education candidate this year.
CONNECT













9 comments on "Loyalty’s for Chumps on the Street: Bankers’ Man in 2008, Obama’s been Dumped by the Money Men"
October 12, 2012 5:57pm
This is why Obama will lose--he ignored his base, slapped the good 'ol boys on the back, and wanted membership in their elite club, all while ignoring his liberal base by trying to bridge the political canyon between the two parties.
He didn't realize that there can be no political solution to the political divide. That kind stuff went out with the 70s. By the time Clinton left office, there was no such thing as a word called "compromise."
After Bush left office, the progressive coalition wanted change. They wanted the next president to come out swinging and not stop no matter what, you know, let the god damn fallout fall where it may.
What did we get? Milk-toast sycophant of the conservative bankers.
The people wanted universal health care. They got corporate insurance payments from tax dollars, or corporate welfare.
The people wanted change on wall street. They got forgiveness and "compromise."
The people wanted higher taxes on those making over 200K a year, which would have balanced the budget nicely before Bush got rid of those taxes. What they got was almost a doubling of the national debt.
You know what? Obama deserves to lose.
October 12, 2012 11:11pm
Don't be naive. Of course Obama could not win without the banks, and he was at their mercy once the economy tanked. But he is the much lesser of the two evils; Romney's penchant to blithely jump from one side of an issue to another, and to say anything to get elected, reveals an empty suit with either no or deeply hidden core beliefs, and borders on psychotic. Add that he's being advised and bankrolled by the Bush Cartel on steroids, and Obama / Biden are the only choice.
October 12, 2012 11:59am
This is why Obama is such a weak advocate. He pulls himself in two directions. He is not rooted in any principals. Romney on the other hand, though he lies, he is basically clear who butters his bread. Obama wants to please everybody.
Don't expect anything different from Obama in future debates but the same hesitation, confused, stammering, rhetoric. We would be better to have Michelle debating.
October 12, 2012 11:39am
This is nothing but good news. A president unfunded by wall street is much ore likely to initiate the necessary regulation/taxation of these reckless gambling piranhas.
October 12, 2012 11:20am
The choice is so clear... Actually, it is the tale of two countries. Wall Street always knew that Obama was trying to pull the wool over their eyes, and surreptitiously wanted to change the "preferences for some" equation. Romney is "genuinely" the man willing to take gullible "victims" "to the bank." Everyone should vote their version of American values. Wall Street's Deception, i.e. for the Uber Rich, or with worthy contributors to candidates "Education, Microsoft, Google, and trade unions." Vote Early!!! What mistakes Obama has made pales in comparison to a ruling hierarchy of 120K families... Good government cares for those at the bottom "first."
October 12, 2012 11:08am
Whoa, Woe.... let me suggest areas where I agree, as well as a slightly different perspective.
I agree with your suggestion that both the McCain ticket and the Obama ticket were bound to apply a 'blind eye' to protect Wall Street from the mess unfolding so precipitously in 2008. Let's face it: the Presidency has considerable power, and abuse of power remains a 200-year-old bipartisan tradition.
You refer to "...Populist anger mounting..." now, four years later. In the larger picture, I think we can all agree that there has been LOTS of Populist anger these past four years. Populist anger mounted against the banksters when this all started. And it has returned repeatedly: against the intransigent GOP-led House (and the stalled Congress that increasingly politicizes while failing to serve); against the banksters again (via Occupy); and against Romney, as each of his many shoes have dropped ... the 'vulture capitalism' tag during the GOP primaries ... his role quarterbacking greed and outsourcing at Bain ... his hiding of wealth overseas ... his refusal to disclose his tax records (in stark opposition to the pattern his own father had started) ... his '47%' comment, ... even his poor dog puking on the roof of the family station wagon. All of these generated plenty of Populist anger. In contrast, the latest so-called Populist anger appears to be largely generated by the media, in full-spin mode to maximize campaign spending (which more-than-trickles down into their own media bank accounts).
As for your closing comment, I do not agree that Obama is a 'half-ass' Republican. I also think your point misses the larger point, which is simply ... the 1% are trying to buy political power, and recognize that Romney works much better for their base, the highest fiscal elite. So, it makes more sense to endorse the one who will sustain their own greed, and oppose the one most likely to try to rein them in.
My vote goes to Obama.
October 12, 2012 1:00pm
Hi Jeff, Good comments regarding the "populist anger," particularly how it has been fomenting for the last four years. I should have made that clear. You did. Thanks. You tie a lot of the populist anger to assorted misdeeds of Romney...which I find rather odd because Romney, bad as he is, "has not" been making "any" decisions which affects the lives of a mass plurality of Americans. Obama has: not only exonerated Wall St. miscreants but also, as the article points out, "hired" them to be part of his Cabinet and economic team. Populist anger arises from such a blatant disregard for those who were crushed in the economic meltdown. Obama has presided over the largest expansion of disemboweled gun laws in American history. Women's reproductive rights are under withering attack in at least 30 states and it's rare indeed when the President mentions his alleged support for continued women's rights. Off-shore drilling for oil, despite the BP debacle has expanded, not contracted under this President. The National Defense Re-Authorization Act, signed by Obama, is a far-reaching and insidious ploy to crush any large scale populist uprisings, if and when they occur.
This country continues to slaughter innocent people on the Pakistan/Afghan border, by order of the President and we're expanding our Naval bases in Guam and the Philippines. I haven't mentioned the torture of American citizen Bradley Manning, for the "heinous" crime of telling the truth to an administration that pledged "transparency" or the extension of Bush tax cuts, which in my mind sowed up the deal. Noam Chomsky recently was quoted as saying "Richard Nixon" was our "last liberal President." Doesn't say much for the guy on Pennsylvania Ave. Despite all my "factual" criticisms, I, like you, believe Obama to be a better choice than a Romney/Ryan ticket that would quite possibly lead to a revolution of sorts. But make no mistake; Obama "would" have been considered a "moderate Republican" as little as twenty years ago. That's how "far-right" the nation has gone. As always, thanks for writing Jeff.
October 12, 2012 8:25am
The reality of this article is amazingly simple: In 2008, Wall St. miscreants chose and donated to the man they had already vetted as being the one who would "not" prosecute their thieving, lying asses once he became President. True to his word, Obama "immediately" stated upon his arrival at the White House that "we want to look forward, not back," thereby keeping his pledge with financial industry scum but also allowing any and all Bush administration officials, including George and Dick, to walk away from the Iraq/Afghanistan debacle without having to answer one "official" question. Although McCain/Palin would have provided the same "blind eye" as the Obama team, the Wall St. gang chose their man because it looked good for them to be backing the first Black President and they already "knew" he was in the bag. Now, four years later with Populist anger mounting, Obama cannot be "completely" trusted to do Wall St. bidding each and every time he's called upon to do so. In summation: why endorse a "half-ass" Republican when you can "buy" the genuine article?
October 12, 2012 10:39am
Well put W to P. Time is running out of Obama's Wall Street prosecution team and nothing has been done to date. Any bets on whether they will act?