So far, super PACs have received more than one-third of their donations from financial-services executives, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
In the 2012 election, donations from the financial-services sector made up roughly 20% of the $845 million raised by super PACs, or political-action committees, and other independent campaign groups. In the 2004 election, Wall Street and other financial groups were responsible for just $2.4 million of the money collected by political-action committees.
The early fundraising data provides the most recent evidence that Wall Street is the single biggest driver behind the surge in spending by super PACs and other outside groups on U.S. elections.
– From the Wall Street Journal article: Wall Street’s Donor Role Expands as Money Flows Into 2016 Election
If Wall Street knows anything, it’s how to hedge its bets. This is precisely why powerful financiers make sure they bankroll as many politicians as possible.
Indeed, when it comes to the 2016 Presidential race, the only two candidates who are not being funded by Wall Street are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. This explains much of the horror exhibited by the establishment when it comes to the success of these two individuals.
While the influence of Wall Street money in politics is nothing new, what is notable about the current race is the monetary investment by these financiers is substantially higher than as recently as 2012. It appears many financial oligarchs see a pressing need to boost their spending this time around in order to protect themselves against the justified angst of the American public.
A very interesting article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal highlighted some the spending in detail. Here are some of the numbers as relates to those candidates still in the running:
Wall Street is emerging as a particularly dominant funding source for Republicans and Democrats in the presidential election, early campaign-finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show. The trend comes even as candidates seek to cast themselves as uniquely able to take on the bankers and investors who contributed to the economy’s collapse almost a decade ago.
So far, super PACs have received more than one-third of their donations from financial-services executives, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
In the 2012 election, donations from the financial-services sector made up roughly 20% of the $845 million raised by super PACs, or political-action committees, and other independent campaign groups. In the 2004 election, Wall Street and other financial groups were responsible for just $2.4 million of the money collected by political-action committees.
The super PAC backing Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida drew more than half its funds in the second half of 2015 from financial-industry donors, a Wall Street Journal analysis found. Its two largest donors were hedge-fund billionaires Paul Singer and Ken Griffin, who gave the group $2.5 million apiece in the final two months of the year. Hedge-fund manager Cliff Asness and Florida-based investor Mary Spencer each gave $1 million.
So Marco Rubio is particularly owned. This should come as no surprise, as I wrote about it in detail in the post: The Billionaire’s Pick – How Marco Rubio Has Become the Preferred Puppet for GOP Oligarchs.
The super PACs backing Texas Sen. Ted Cruz raised at least $11 million from billionaire hedge-fund founder Robert Mercer and $10 million from private-equity firm founder Toby Neugebauer.
The super PAC backing Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton drew $15 million of the $25 million it raised in the second half of the year from Wall Street sources, nearly half of which came from billionaire investor George Soros. Mr. Soros gave the group, Priorities USA Action, $6 million in December, bringing his total donations to the group to $7 million. Priorities also received $3 million from billionaire entertainment-industry investor Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl, who also gave $2 million earlier in the year.
Let’s of course not forget Hillary’s cozy ties with alleged mobile home slumlord Warren Buffett as well as private equity landlord Blackstone. See: Here Come the Cronies – Buffett and Blackstone President Launch $33,400 a Plate Hillary Clinton Fundraiser.
The influx of Wall Street cash, while giving candidates a financial boost, may complicate their prospects in an election where voters appear to be overwhelmingly favoring such outsider candidates as real-estate billionaire Donald Trump. Mr. Trump has noted his lack of reliance on a super PAC as proof that he isn’t beholden to donors. Still, his campaign has raised at least $4 million from outside sources.
On the campaign trail, candidates have talked tough about the financial sector. Messrs. Rubio and Cruz have pledged to “take on the Washington establishment” in stump speeches. Mrs. Clinton, facing criticism from her chief rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, over her perceived coziness with Wall Street, has promised to rein in the financial sector and has talked up conservative groups’ spending against her as proof that she wouldn’t go easy on the industry.
The early fundraising data provides the most recent evidence that Wall Street is the single biggest driver behind the surge in spending by super PACs and other outside groups on U.S. elections.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, money from big banks, investment firms, real-estate companies and insurers makes up more than $115 million of the roughly $290 million raised by super PACs and other independent campaign entities.
Meanwhile, not only does Bernie Sanders not have any Wall Street donors, he has crowdfunded much of his campaign via millions of small donations from the American public.
For related articles, see:
Former Citigroup Trader Explains How Wall Street Came to Own the Clintons and the Democratic Party
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
