Katrina vanden Heuvel: Wall Street Not Giving to Dems: Good Riddance

[flpoljunkie]

Wall Street not giving to Dems: good riddance

Wall Street donations to the two Democratic congressional campaign committees are down 65 percent from two years ago, The Post reports. Party insiders say “the overwhelming factor is the rising anger among financial executives who think they have not been treated well based on their support of Democrats over the past four years.”

The National Journal writes that Wall Streeters are “sick of being used as political punching bags.”

And Post columnist Steven Pearlstein suggests that “bad blood” between big business and the Obama administration is “not a good thing.”

Given the reckless corporate behavior that led to the collapse of the economy and the consequent need for a new financial regulatory regime, I hardly think soothing the hurt feelings of bankers, hedge funders and corporate CEOs should be a priority.

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon doled out $65,000 in contributions to the Dems in 2006 and 2008 and nothing this cycle. Good riddance. The same goes for Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who’s given zilch to Dems after showering candidates with $50,000 in the previous two election cycles.
Rather than greasing the skids so Blankfein et al. resume their big-buck donations, isn’t it time legislators focus on diminishing the strings-attached purchasing power of corporate campaign contributions?

That’s exactly what the Fair Elections Now Act would do by severing the ties between big-money contributors and members of Congress. The bill has 22 cosponsors in the Senate (not a single Republican), and 157 bipartisan cosponsors in the House. It would bar participating congressional candidates from accepting contributions larger than $100 and allow them to run honest campaigns with a blend of small donations and public matching funds. Only candidates demonstrating their viability through meeting a minimum threshold of signatures and small donations would be eligible.

A coalition is now pressing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to keep her pledge to vote on Fair Elections this year. She should.

By Katrina vanden Heuvel
July 8, 2010; 2:18 PM ET

[FrenchieCat]

1. As well, Nobody is giving to Dems.......

and I'm sure Republicans will be saying to them....Good Riddance,
as soon as possible.

Look around at DU, and see folks on threads talking about "Not one dime", etc....
when there's any discussion of fundraising for Democrats.

Dem who supposed to care about the issues are gonna be walking around without
a nose on their face soon......but I guess they are ready for that.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Pelosi has pledged to have a vote on the Fair Elections Now Act. Did not know that.

If not now, when? If not the Democrats, who?

[Tesha]

5. Hey, I'll vote for anybody who is willing to *ACTUALLY*:

1. End the wars

2. Restore the Constitution (including habeus corpus)

3. End the failed drug war

4. End discrimination against women, gays, etc.

5. Work to reform our system of elections

6. Work to restore our economy.

Know any candidates like that? Based on all of their records
so far, I don't think I do.

Tesha

[FrenchieCat]

9. So then don't vote, and stand by and watch.....

but remember that doing nothing is very similar to having done the deed.

I don't know what state you are in, but if you believe that there is no one running
who will make a vote to improve any of the items you listed, then yeah....don't vote.
See what advancements you make doing that....and lemme know.

[Tesha]

11. Ahh, DU standard Reply #4. (NT)

[JoePhilly]

19. Well ... certainly not Obama ...

I mean he's not getting us out of Iraq ... did not support a law for equal pay for women, did not give government employees benefits for same sex partners, is not ending DADT ... did not pass the stimulus ... is not supporting the extension of unemployment benefits ... did not nominate 2 women to the supreme court ... is not fighting the AZ immigration law ... he is sitting on his hands doing nothing.

Clearly, he is just like Bush.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Groups Say Time is Now for Public Financing Push

Groups say time is now for public financing push

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 8, 2010; A13

Two interest groups plan to spend as much as $15 million this year on a nationwide campaign in favor of new public-financing legislation aimed at limiting the influence of wealthy donors and large corporations in congressional races.

Common Cause and Public Campaign are making the push on behalf of the Fair Elections Now Act, which would allow lawmakers to qualify for public matching funds by raising money exclusively from small donors. On Thursday, the two groups plan to unveil details about the campaign, which will include TV ads targeting wavering lawmakers and grass-roots efforts in 24 states.

Former congressman Bob Edgar (D-Pa.), now the chief executive of Common Cause, said public disgust over lobbying and campaign donations from Wall Street financiers, oil barons and other wealthy players provides a clear opportunity for reform.

"This is really a critical moment," Edgar said in an interview. "The general public is well aware of the fact that money influences every aspect of politics, and they want something done about it. . . . If we miss this moment, it may be a while before we get back to it."

The Fair Elections Now Act, sponsored in the House by Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) and Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) and in the Senate by Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), would establish a voluntary system in which candidates would agree to accept only donations of $100 or less from contributors in their districts or states. After meeting a minimum amount of qualified contributions, they would get $400 in matching funds for every $100 raised.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070705101.html

[FrenchieCat]

3. Should be....cause Citizen United is about to kick our Democratic asses.

[cascadiance]

17. The problem is we need a Constitutional Amendment to overturn "corporate personhood"

That really needs to happen or a lot of what might be decent public campaign financing and other election reform will get tossed out by the courts as "violations of free speech", etc.

SCOTUS just screwed Arizona and probably other areas in the process by striking down Arizona's ability to match funding of non-public financed candidates for publicly financed candidates, making it useless, especially with SCOTUS's Citizen's United decision providing the ability to swamp money into elections now. And you know despite everyone noting that Sandra Day O'Connor spoke against Citizen's United, do you know who was responsible for the case that SCOTUS ruled down the matching funds? SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR!! It's "moderates" like her that are in some cases worse than the extreme righties when the chips are down they move to the right, like she did in 2000 SCOTUS shutdown of the election, and in this case.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

24. I don't think that the "uber-liberals" get this.

I'm beginning to think that this president and congress may be the most liberal we'll see in 20 years. You can talk all about Hispanics and other demographic advantages pointing to Dem dominance, but really, even if the public agrees with the policy, corporate media along with unlimited $ can force the debate into other BS side distractions. I.e. death panels, socialized government take-over of health care etc. Corporate money is liable to put progressivism out to lunch for good. The purist will have to suck down their share of the blame for helping to undermine the only viable, even if it's lacking, "progressive" path there is.

[BeyondGeography]

6. But I thought Obama caved to the fraudsters and banksters?

Follow the money, right haters? :dunce:

[w4rma]

7. He did and got nothing in return. Just like he got no Republican votes in return.

He caves to them for no return on his investment. They make promises to him/Rahm. They don't keep them. He keeps his side of the promises to *them* though, but not to his base.

[BeyondGeography]

8. Can't have it both ways

When you "cave," you are giving people exactly what they want. You would probably also say that the research showing FinReg takes 20% out of the bottom lines of the major banks are bogus too. No sense even talking to you and your ilk.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Sure she can have it both way......

it's called wanting your cake and eating it too.

Everything is not good enough,
and never will be.

The only positive some folks look forward to is the pride in themselves
of being able to say "I told you so" in November,
and then they will continue to blame everyone but themselves till the next election,
doing a lot of finger pointing and speculating as to the awsomeness of the total power
that Obama enjoys but doesn't excercise because he chooses not to.

It's an easy gig.....
anyone can do it!

All one then has to do is complain and criticize endlessly and not donate and bathmouth and trash
everything Democrats do, by only always looking at the downside, and ignoring the rest, and
pretending that we too can be Sweden....like tomorrow, only....if....

[CTLawGuy]

22. very well said

+1000

[JoeyT]

14. No, it just means he sucks at ten dimensional chess.

Expecting gratitude from Republicans, banksters, and HMOs wasn't a terribly reliable way to pass legislation or win elections.

[Hydra]

12. Here's a good question now

Will the Dems take this opportunity to REALLY burn Wall St. for walking out on them, or will this lead to more bending over backwards for the people up top?

[flpoljunkie]

13. Good question.

[cascadiance]

15. Time to get TOUGH back on them!

Say that if you don't work with us by giving us money in this corrupt system that YOU have corruptly fashioned through your agents, then it is time that system CAME DOWN!!! PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING NOW!!!

[flpoljunkie]

16. Public financing of federal campaigns would be tax money well spent!

Pricing the Fair Elections Now Act
By Dylan Matthews

One last thing on the Fair Elections Now Act: Given as it's a public financing plan, it costs money. Not a lot of money, but enough to make deficit hysteria a viable excuse for lawmakers who want to oppose it anyway. The bill provides $900,000 per campaign to House candidates, and $1.25 million to Senate candidates, plus $250,000 per congressional district in their state. I did some back-of-the envelope math, and assuming two candidates in every race in the country -- all 435 in the House, all 36 (an unusually high number due to special elections) in the Senate -- qualify for funding, that adds up to $1.045 billion in funding per election cycle.

Of course, that number will be much lower in practice, because many campaigns will opt out, or not qualify, and that cost is over two years, meaning it's yearly budgetary impact is only half as big. But the actual cost of a bill has never gotten in the way of would-be deficit hawks' desire to kill spending proposals in the past, and I doubt it would here either.

-- Dylan Matthews is a student at Harvard and a researcher at The Washington Post.

By Washington Post editor
July 8, 2010

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/pricing_the_fair_elections_now.html

[ProSense]

18. Wall Street

doesn't like reform.

Despite the attempts to portray the bill as not doing enough, Wall Street is extremely unhappy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. Michelle Bernard talked about this on NPR today. She basically said...

that business has decided to sit on it's money. They're not putting it back into the economy, and they're not contributing to Dems because they feel under siege from the White House. The Republicans are the happy beneficiaries of Wall St's anger with Dems. She also said that Wall St was sitting on more than a trillion dollars of profit because they can. They have the ability to make or break the economy, and since liberals have declared all out war on them, they've decided not to play along.

[Dawson Leery]

23. Do you have a link or transcipt?

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

25. Here ya go.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128414871

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. You might try pbs.org. I don't remember which program it was, but

I caught it during my lunch break on Friday. It could have been the Diahn Rehm Show, Fresh Air, or All Things Considered? Not sure, but if you'd like to root around on the site, you may come across it.

[KeyWester]

21. "Wall Street not giving to Dem's"

Thats strange, there are many here who think the reform bill was a gift to Wall Street.

Why not return the gift ?

:sarcasm: