These 2020 hopefuls are courting Wall Street. Don't be fooled by their progressive veneer
Its a framing thats been everywhere over the past two years: the Resistance v Donald Trump. By some definitions that resistance even includes people like Mitt Romney and George W Bush. By almost all definitions it encompasses mainstream Democrats, such as the likely presidential hopefuls Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand.
In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic party. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
...
But outward appearances arent everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late on Wall Street. According to CNBC, all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstones Jonathan Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.
Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and Gillibrand werent far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and other powerful executives.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/15/democratic-2020-president-candidates-wall-street
JustAnotherGen
(31,686 posts)I listen to the Editorial Board of The Guardian?
For a bunch of smarty pants they couldn't manage to influence the public of their country to vote "stay" in the EU.
They need to focus on hard or soft Brexit and give continuous updates to the global trade community on the massive issue their country created.
Funded by membership or not - why should I trust those people? There are no "experts" anymore. The only experts are the American voters and we don't need any media outlet to pat us on the head, give us a cookie, and tell us what to do.
still_one
(91,965 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....NO ONE can give more than the FEC limit, not a bank executive, bank teller, maintenance worker, etc. NO ONE! That piece is loaded with falsehoods and incorrect innuendos. But I guess it served it's purpose.
Obviously the Guardian writer has very little understanding of American campaign finance laws.
still_one
(91,965 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)True Blue American
(17,972 posts)The only one I watch personally is Sherrod Brown and it is clear he is for the worker.
I am not impressed with a British newspaper giving their version of our candidates.
https://www.ft.com/content/1c926794-ebf7-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57
still_one
(91,965 posts)debatable whether individual contributions are enough, but unless the candidate of one's choice can win, and assuming it takes money to help achieve that goal, money in politics is going to be part of the process for sometime
sprinkleeninow
(20,136 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,686 posts)Has done nothing wrong. He's a man of the people. Yet - they will attack him for once saying hello to a bank teller.
Can't make this shit up!
True Blue American
(17,972 posts)About how ignorant the ruling class in Britain really is. They have made ignorant decisions all the way down the line concerning whiteness. This latest, Bexitt is another example.
The New York Times has the article.
JustAnotherGen
(31,686 posts)For a U.S. Manufacturer. I've been up to my eyeballs in Brexit for a while now. Between the 301 List (Chinese Tariffs) and this - I'm done.
No plan? I could ship to Netherlands finished product and pay the tariff. We have a small facility there. To get to my warehouse in Ireland I may now have to go through two customs points and pay two tariffs.
This is a U.S. Manufacturer who doesn't have a single employee making less than $20 an hour, full medical, dental, vision, paid time off etc etc.
They are Fucking my tribe over.
Those arrogant brats in the UK are hurting Americans who I know, interact with, and Dammit - care about.
True Blue American
(17,972 posts)That from one who kmows.
I guess I had not paid much attention until this eye opening article about how long the ignorant ruling class had made so many bad decisions, beginning with Mountbatten and his handling of India. The arrogance of the limited intelligence of the Royal ruling class. All the way up yo May and her arrogance.
I have to find that article. It was in the New York Times. They match the ignorance of our ruling class.found it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/sunday/brexit-ireland-empire.html
JustAnotherGen
(31,686 posts)How many times do I have to say it?
For the last God damn time - Finance, Telecom, and Pharma live in NJ.
That includes people like oh say - clerical workers.
If 100 people from these industries give $20 to Booker each - the idiot writer is too stupid to know that they have to provide their employer/sector with that donation.
The writer is an ignorant jackass who is trying to divide our party.
George II
(67,782 posts)I've mentioned that a hundred times in the last year or two.
In my family of 8 members, five of us at one time in our lives worked at a bank. That's how it is when you live in NYC. None of us were upper management (my father and sister were approaching "middle" management) Three were or worked in the back room. We all would have been categorized as part of the "financial industry"! One guy a couple of years ago on this site had the chutzpah to say that we were a family of "banksters"!! (he has since fled to JPR)
And yet people tout the beauty of "small donations" that are NOT itemized. If they're not itemized and no records kept, one person could give that $20 500 times for an aggregate of $10,000 - well over the allowable $2,700 maximum - and no one would know.
pepperbear
(5,648 posts)This is how it's done.
True Blue American
(17,972 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,686 posts)dhol82
(9,351 posts)He considers himself radical left.
Interesting.
George II
(67,782 posts)dhol82
(9,351 posts)Not sure who he would support. Can anybody be pure enough for him?
still_one
(91,965 posts)capitalism needs regulation. The republican part has been whittling away at that regulation whenever they take control. It started with Reagan.
Response to DrFunkenstein (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #4)
mountain grammy This message was self-deleted by its author.
George II
(67,782 posts)...and has been posted on DU already.
Response to DrFunkenstein (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #7)
Post removed
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)Manchin said proudly, "Donald Trump is MY President" on Fox TV....so we are supposed to support HIM...
George II
(67,782 posts)betsuni
(25,138 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)http://www.ontheissues.org/Cory_Booker.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Kamala_Harris.htm
Right or wrong, it takes money to win elections.
If someone doesn't want to vote for someone who takes political donations from corporations, then don't vote for them.
Nader made millions from Magellan Fund and other investments IN WALL STREET FIRMS. Over the years between speeches and book deals Nader also made a lot of money in royalties and honorariums.
Regulation is necessary, but pushing this purist bullshit has got to stop
Those suppossed self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting helped usher in the era of trump, where NOT only is regulation be torn down, but Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Worker's Rights, the environment, etc. etc. etc. are all being whittled away because of this divisionary garbage.
Worst of all those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee helped us lose two Supreme Court appointments.
It is going to be interesting when the Democratic candidates for president release their tax returns exactly what rationalization the purists are going to make when they find their prospective candidate got their money from
George II
(67,782 posts)....mutual funds, i.e., "Wall Street".
groundloop
(11,488 posts)I don't think it's a matter of making Wall Street go away, they just need to made to behave more responsibly in a lot of cases.
George II
(67,782 posts)...who has anything to do with "Wall Street", the "financial industry", or even the "fossil fuel industry" is bad.
I wonder how many people in this country can go a single day without dealing with "Wall Street" (i.e., their 401k or pension plans), or the "financial industry" (i.e., use a credit card or write a check) or even the "fossil fuel industry" (i.e., drive to work, drive to the store, use their home furnace, etc.)
Hangdog Slim
(80 posts)Thank you Dr. Funkenstein! I'm not sure I get the push back on this posting. How can we expect a politician to rein in the excesses of an unfettered financial system on one hand and take money from it to fund their political ambitions on the other?
George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And "Barney Frank."
JustAnotherGen
(31,686 posts)We are pushing back on the author of this hit piece on our party.
Why should we listen to him?
What are HIS credentials canvassing, calling, volunteering?
He can answer with his credentials. Bring his receipts.
I thank the OP for posting tgis. He let us know who to swat down.
Response to DrFunkenstein (Original post)
Oneironaut This message was self-deleted by its author.
IronLionZion
(45,261 posts)Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)Calling out a candidate for their pro-corporation and pro- Wall Street stances isnt very popular on DU. Expect a lot of ire.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...who is that representative serving?
NBachers
(17,007 posts)the huge funding they need without going to Wall Street? Will their millions come from you instead?
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Whoever she takes money from, she is clearly focused on regulation financial institutions.
still_one
(91,965 posts)Democratic party are not anti-capitalist, but believe that it MUST have regulation, which is exactly where Warren's main strengths lie.
The argument though, right or wrong, that it takes tremendous amounts of money to win elections.
Whether one believes that can be achieved through individual contributions or otherwise is debatable, but from my perspective the most important point should be where they stand on the issues.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)But we have to fight the clout of the special interest whenever and wherever we can.
I am not "anti-capitalist," but I am not afraid of the words "social democrat" either.
still_one
(91,965 posts)DrFunkenstein
(8,745 posts)This is going to be a deeply visceral contest, and even a cardboard box with a face painted on it would receive a ton of money from the Trump opposition.
still_one
(91,965 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)erlewyne
(1,115 posts)I bitched about Wall Street Hillary and made moocho enemies
In my book Wall Street is Conservative.
delisen
(6,039 posts)ties to the banking industry?
I have found that many who were highly critical of Clinton, a New York senator, receiving money from Wall Street (a NewYork industry employing huge numbers of New Yorkers) had no problem with Obama receiving huge amounts from Goldman Sachs employees (average income over $650,000 and other Wall Street firms.
Likewise many people had no problem with Joseph Biden supporting and being supported by the banking /credit card industry (a major employer in his home state of Delaware= the same credit card industry that charges working people rates that are usurious.
You may be evenhanded regarding candidates but so many aren't.
George II
(67,782 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,369 posts)But you seem to be ignoring the unlimited donations to super-PACs and "dark money" allowed under Citizens United.
George II
(67,782 posts)...committees supporting Booker spent about $1.3 million and committees opposed to Booker spent about $510,000.
Candidates have no control over what other entities spend, and those supporting him contributed nothing more than the maximum allowable (if any, I'm not going to pore over his filings).
still_one
(91,965 posts)anti-capitalistic, however, they do believe that capitalism MUST have regulation.
George II
(67,782 posts)betsuni
(25,138 posts)Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)They would be correct to think it
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)If they weren't, they wouldn't get any corporate support. Conservatives have sold most of their followers on the idea that Democrats are socialists or communists. While they generally believe in more regulation of our economic system, most of them are far from being radicals on the issue.
shanny
(6,709 posts)rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)irisblue
(32,829 posts)lancelyons
(988 posts)We dont need to be against money and religion
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Wish we had campaign limits as they do in Great Briton I believe.
JustAnotherGen
(31,686 posts)Cambridge Analytica helped push it over the finish line.
I shouldn't have to explain who Mercer and C.A. are at DU.
And we do have limits. The UK is not better than us. Let's just stop that right now. They ducked up the world and don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.
Again - the author of the article needs to focus on the UK.
Why isn't he demanding that May give the exit plan? It was supposed to be delivered last week. They are stock piling packaged foods in England right now. Let that sink in.
louis c
(8,652 posts)I want to know where a person is on the issues, not where their money is coming from.
If we're going to be held to a different standard than Repukes, and then have to try to win a fight with one hand tied behind our backs, I amy as well move out of this country.
safeinOhio
(32,532 posts)as they vote against extended patent times and repeal of the extensions that exist. I don't care if they take money from Wall Street, if they vote to raise taxes on them and lower them for the middle class. I don't care if they take money from Big Oil if they vote for less fracking and against off shore leases.
I see those with more energy needing fewer Wall Street dollars. Work harder and you don't need as much money. High energy like AOC and Beto.
Just a suggestion.
still_one
(91,965 posts)come from, and whether that makes them flawed or not, or how much money it takes to win a national election will continue
samnsara
(17,570 posts)...Wall Street. I was never convinced of that argument in the first place.
ProfessorPlum
(11,252 posts)So great to see you here again!
DrFunkenstein
(8,745 posts)Now that is a blast from the past! The original voice of reasonable debate! Great to hear from you!!
ProfessorPlum
(11,252 posts)I hope life in the Trump era is not too awful for you
DrFunkenstein
(8,745 posts)Thank goodness for family and friends!
beastie boy
(9,063 posts)...did it single out only the three strongest Democratic candidates out of thousands of politicians who accept Wall Street money rather than make a comparative analysis of all politicians, Republican and Democratic to see where they stand? Very clearly, to divide their base and make them weaker.
This song sounds too familiar to me, and I don't like it. If the author purposely targeted the three mentioned Democrats, he is a troll. If he did it unintentionally, he is what Putin calls a useful idiot.
I understand why the Guardian published this column: they are obligated by their professional standards to present a variety of opinions.
My question is, why is this garbage that has no other effect than to divide the Democrats being spread on DU?
dhol82
(9,351 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Its their actions that they give to Wall Street ,and words they give to us.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)right on schedule...
For the last time, if money in politics bothers you, then it's long past due to start advocating for public-funded elections... Because no Dem aside from those in the dark-bluest districts is going to have an ideologically "perfect" donor list and big/small money ratio
Maven
(10,533 posts)Only a rich old white guy from Vermont can save us, right Bros?
Reasonable Doubter
(14 posts)Fact is, our nominee in '20 will probably NOT agree with AOC on every single issue. And we all know what happened three years ago, when too many on the Left gave Hillary the White Glove Inspection, and were shocked when a few specks of dust showed up!
Voltaire2
(12,629 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)important to remember too. That said, Sherrod Brown wrote and gave the speech of his career on the floor of the senate trying to keep regulations in place, so don't always presume the worst. Look at everything and all of the Democrats should have listened to him.
Brown Opening Floor Speech Opposing S.2155, the Dodd-Frank Roll Back Bill
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs delivered the following speech on the Senate floor today in opposition to S.2155, The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act.
Browns remarks, as prepared for delivery, follow.
Mr. President,
Ten years ago almost to the day this country was on the verge of a financial crisis that would end up wrecking the lives of millions of families.
The experts the so-called experts had their heads in the sand. They shrugged off the warnings. They told the public everything was fine.
Jim Cramer was telling hardworking Americans to invest their money in Bear Stearns, saying Im not giving up on the thing. Bank of America was putting the finishing touches on its plan to buy the subprime lender Countrywide, which they called the best domestic mortgage platform.
Hank Paulson the last Treasury Secretary who got plucked from Goldman Sachs until Secretary Mnuchin came along downplayed homeowners pain. He said You know, the stock market goes up and down every day more than the entire value of the subprime mortgages in the country.
Meanwhile, advocates in communities the people who were actually dealing with the consequences of the building crisis were sounding the alarm.
https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-opening-floor-speech-opposing-s2155_the-dodd-frank-roll-back-bill_
DrFunkenstein
(8,745 posts)The more I really like what he is about.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)But I hate our system, it is sick. CU has to go among other things.
DrFunkenstein
(8,745 posts)There is going to be a very crowded field for 2020. After a very disappointing and deeply unhealthy primary contest in 2014, we have an opportunity to properly vet the candidates. They all seem supportable, but as political activists we have to articulate our own vision of the Party and look how the candidates align with that vision.
For me, corporate oversight is one of the most fundamental issues of our day. I like many parts of the platform that all of candidates seem to be embracing, but it seems to me that candidates like Warren and Sanders are making this a central part of their candidacy.
It worries me when I see Kamala Harris, who seems warm but tough-minded, taking large donations from Steve Mnuchin and others at OneWest Bank then turning away loads of evidence from her own staff of serious mortgage fraud at the bank - without explanation. I was a reporter covering the mortgage industry back in the day, and I know just how serious this issue was to the families involved.
As someone from NJ, I have great admiration for what Cory Booker has done, particularly with Newark. But at the same time, I have deep reservations about his cushy relationship with the industries he would eventually oversee as President.
I'm not out to hurl bombs at Dems, but I think this early stage is an excellent opportunity to draw distinctions between the candidates. In general, I'm also happy to be proven wrong (personal attacks and logical fallacies don't count).
I think Trump will be a seriously weakened candidate in 2020, and we have a chance to get the sort of viable, but truly progressive candidate we've always wanted.
redstatebluegirl
(12,264 posts)All of you who feel this can be done with grass roots, 25 dollars a time are delusional.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)a moderate or a progressive Democrat.
I prefer a progressive, but ANY Dem is likely better than the treason party.
DrFunkenstein
(8,745 posts)Being better than the current GOP is setting the bar pretty close to the ground.
I get that some people would prefer a moderate Democrat. I can respectfully disagree. I'm one of those people who are inclined to see a difference between progressive and liberal. The difference being a fundamentally reformist and regulatory economic stance with a steady eye on social justice, equity, a fair playing field, and a robust social safety net.
When candidates start getting in bed, so to speak, with the elite who stand to lose the most, the eye quite often does not remain on the prize when it comes to reform and regulation.
Looking at the field of candidates ranging from very good to excellent, we are presented with a rare opportunity to champion the vision and guts we so often complained that our wishy-washy Democratic leadership lacked.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)and see 4 more years of treason.
Not saying we shouldn't aim for the best but we need to avoid divisiveness to a point, which helps the traitor party.
Freethinker65
(9,934 posts)rwheeler31
(6,242 posts)as long as we know where it come from, we can make decisions. It is the dark and foreign cash that is the biggest problem.