the economics of campaign finance
for what it's worth ... from
(snip)"Cold $houlder for O
By CARL CAMPANILE, JENNIFER FERMINO and DAN MANGAN
June 24, 2011
President Obama hit the Big Apple last night hoping to score a fund-raising hat trick for his re-election campaign — but he faced lackluster donors tired of being taken for granted and some pointed no-shows by prominent Wall Streeters.
"The Democratic business-donor community is demoralized," a Democratic fund-raiser told The Post before the three cash-currying events Obama was attending in Manhattan over a three-hour span. "There’s not the level of enthusiasm or excitement. They don’t believe he’s interested in what they have to say."
Among those feeling burned by Obama are financial execs sick of being demonized by the White House and made a scapegoat for the nation’s economic woes.
The problem is even bankers have feelings. Even ‘fat cats’ get tired of being blamed by Democrats for damage that was actually caused by official Democrat policies.
Although Obama raked in lots of cash last night from a dinner at the Upper East Side restaurant Daniel — where about 70 hedge-funders and other deep pocketed donors forked over $35,800 a head — it was big-time execs turning down the invitation who raised eyebrows.
Both JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon and Citigroup boss Vikram Pandit had made it clear they would not attend the event, which was closed to the press.
Also planning to skip the event were Blackstone Group President Tony James and its top real-estate exec, Jonathan Gray; Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman and its president, Greg Fleming; and Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn…
Obama — last night addressing the bankers he once derided as "fat cats" — joked about his dwindling popularity among them.
"I know that it’s not going to be exactly the same as when I was young and vibrant and new," he said. "Let’s face it, it was cool to support me back then [in 2008] . . . Now I’m sort of old news."
Mr. Obama seems to be missing the point. The problem is not that he is old news. The problem is he is bad news.
Appropriately, Obama closed the curtain on his New York visit on the Great White Way, speaking at a special performance of the Broadway show "Sister Act."
The Democratic National Committee rented the theater — to the dismay of show-goers who had purchased tickets for last night’s performance and were not told in advance they’d have to exchange them for another date…
What disdain ‘the party of the little guy’ has for the little guy."(snip)
Not wanting to over-emphasize the political aspect, please note that the price per plate was $35,800 !!! THIS is how one actually gets their 'voice' heard by the gov't ... usually accompanied by some quid-pro-quo ( which for Wall St. amounted to TRILLIONS in direct plus stealth 'bailout' money in exchange for their 2008 contributions ).
~
Re: the economics of campaign finance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
THIS is how one actually gets their 'voice' heard by the gov't ... usually accompanied by some quid-pro-quo ( which for Wall St. amounted to TRILLIONS in direct plus stealth 'bailout' money in exchange for their 2008 contributions ).
~
I hear this complaint all the time, that we have to pay to get our voice heard. In my industry, the Democrats, beyond NC's corrupt Democratic Party, do not really solicit us, or our opinions. Then they plan tax increases that will fall very much right on my industry until the GOP screams bloody murder and the tax increases fail for a year or two. The Dems then wonder why Main Street, or in my case. T.W. Alexander Drive is not a big contributor. If I took an opinion poll of all employees in my company, I'd venture more than half claim to be liberal or progressive. Yet when you look at campaign contributions, we overwhelmingly support the GOP. Why? At least in NC, the price is lower and the GOP is more likely to listen. On the national level, the Democrats do not want to hear what startups and small bio-tech/pharma has to say. (We're the bad girls, capitalists, defiling the environment with our GM foods, whatever. Yet, if you want to feed a hungry world, you're either going to use fertilizer (oil) and pesticides (more oil for the most part) or you're going to GM your foods.) And, big bio-tech/pharma is standing around looking at its development pipeline and saying "what the....?" So they go and lay off thousands of scientists and the CEO gets a bonus. Well, small business is picking up the slack. One job at a time, and not nearly fast enough to make up for the bonus producing layoffs at the Fortune 500 companies that Barry O thinks so much of.
Z
Re: the economics of campaign finance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
Not wanting to over-emphasize the political aspect, please note that the price per plate was $35,800 !!! THIS is how one actually gets their 'voice' heard by the gov't ... usually accompanied by some quid-pro-quo ( which for Wall St. amounted to TRILLIONS in direct plus stealth 'bailout' money in exchange for their 2008 contributions ).
~
The Wall Street bailouts were started by Bush.
Re: the economics of campaign finance
^^^ actually the original bailout, TARP, was first passed by a democratic majority House, and then passed by a democratic majority Senate. Admittedly, Bush the Dumber signed the bill into law ... as a de-facto 'lame duck' president who did not want to be 'blamed' for causing an even worse economic downturn ( although mainstream media blamed him anyhow ). At this very point in time ( September-October 2008 ) Wall St. firms were 'bundling' heavy duty campaign contributions for Obama ...
... on the basis of intel telling them that Obama was going to be the next president !
(snip)(Reuters) - Wall Street is putting its money behind Democrat Barack Obama for president, despite worries that his administration would raise taxes and take a tougher line on trade and regulation.
The signs Wall Street reads point to Democrats prevailing in the November presidential and general election as voters punish the incumbent Republican Party for a flagging economy and lengthy Iraq war.
And the fact that Obama began raking in a bigger share of the cash as his campaign picked up steam suggests that investors simply want to back the eventual winner.
Illinois Sen. Obama, who captured the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday after a lengthy primary battle against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, has received $7.9 million (4.1 million pounds) n contributions from the securities and investment industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.(snip)
Again the point of this thread is political contributions resulting in quid-pro-quo bennies. Have a look at the contribution 'aggregators' list at the OpenSecrets.org link I posted and tell me just ONE that didn't benefit financially from subsequent Obama policies !!! The financial institutions got TARP and a whole lot more via FED policy. The universities all got stimulus money, as did the gov't employees. The tech companies all got to 'keep' their offshore tax shelters. And the law firms certainly got a whole lot of new 'work' !
~
Re: the economics of campaign finance
an update from
(snip)"President Obama and top White House aides are waging a behind-the-scenes push to win over skeptical big-dollar donors — whose early money is needed to help fund a dramatic summertime expansion of his battleground-state machinery.
Campaign officials are working to broaden Obama’s network of “bundlers,” the well-connected rainmakers tasked with soliciting big checks from wealthy donors, while seeking to preserve the aura of a grass-roots movement by luring back the kind of small Internet donations that helped shatter fundraising records four years ago.
To do so, Obama and his aides are leveraging every asset available to a sitting president — from access to top West Wing officials to a possible food tasting with the White House chef.
Much of the fundraising in recent weeks has occurred at targeted events designed to appeal to specific groups, many of which have expressed frustration with administration policies, including Jews, gays and business leaders. Obama has attended 28 fundraisers from coast to coast — a pace that could continue, or even accelerate, over the next several months.
The West Wing charm offensive shows how Obama’s White House, which has eschewed Clinton-style traditions of feeding donor egos with Lincoln bedroom overnights and frequent phone calls from the president, is adjusting itself for a campaign that needs to overcome low approval ratings and a sour economy.
“They were more skewed toward their base,” said Steven Green, a former Samsonite chief executive and donor to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns who hosted an Obama fundraiser in Miami this month. “Now they realize that there is this large group of donors out there, and for better or for worse, they need to cater to them. To be frank, I think it’s somewhat new to them, and they’re not quite sure how to address that donor base. [The donors] are pretty high-maintenance.” (snip)
Re: the economics of campaign finance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
^^^ actually the original bailout, TARP, was first passed by a democratic majority House, and then passed by a democratic majority Senate. Admittedly, Bush the Dumber signed the bill into law ... as a de-facto 'lame duck' president who did not want to be 'blamed' for causing an even worse economic downturn ( although mainstream media blamed him anyhow ). At this very point in time ( September-October 2008 ) Wall St. firms were 'bundling' heavy duty campaign contributions for Obama ...
From what I remember, Bush met with leaders of both parties and worked out a deal for the bailouts. After they came to an agreement, the bill went through the process of being passed by Congress and signed by Bush.
Re: the economics of campaign finance
I love the way that supporting analysis just seems to show up at opportune moments ...
(snip)"How Much Would It Cost To Buy Congress Back From Special Interests? (June 30, 2011)
Here's a thought: let's buy our Congress back from the special interests who now own it.
We all know special interests own the U.S. Congress and the Federal machinery of governance (i.e. regulatory capture). How much would it cost the American citizenry to buy back their Congress? The goal in buying our Congress back from the banking cartel et al. would not be to compete with the special interests for congressional favors--it would be to elect a Congress which would eradicate their power and influence altogether.
A tall order, perhaps, but certainly not impossible, if we're willing to spend the money to not just match special interest contributions to campaigns but steamroll them.
A seat in the U.S. Senate is a pricey little lever of power, so we better be ready to spend $50 million per seat. Seats in smaller states will be less, but seats in the big states will cost more, but this is a pretty good average.
That's $5 billion to buy the Senate.
A seat in the House of Representatives is a lot cheaper to buy: $10 million is still considered a lot of money in this playground of power. But the special interests-- you know the usual suspects, the banks, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Tobacco, the military-industrial complex, Big Ag, public unions, the educrat complex, trial lawyers, foreign governments, and so on--will fight tooth and nail to maintain their control of the Federal machinery, so we better double that to $20 million per seat. Let's see, $20 million times 435....
That's $8.7 billion to buy the House of Representatives.
It seems we're stuck with the corporate toadies on the Supreme Court, but the President could scotch the people's plans to regain control of their government, so we better buy the office of the President, too.
It seems Obama's purchase price was about $100 million, but the special interests will be desperate to have "their man or woman" with the veto power, so we better triple this to $300 million.
Add these up and it looks like we could buy back our government for the paltry sum of $14 billion. This is roughly .0037% of the Federal budget of $3.8 trillion, i.e. one-third of one percent. That is incredible leverage: $1 in campaign bribes controls $300 in annual spending--and a global empire."(snip)
from
For better or worse, the high 'rate of return' on well placed political contributions is something that clubowners have known about for decades !!!