GOP Includes Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall Into Party Platform

Screen Shot 2016-07-19 at 4.26.52 PM

I remain unconvinced that Donald Trump will be as hard on Wall Street as many of his supporters think he’ll be if elected President, but some of the following from the Washington Post certainly represents a breath of fresh air.

CLEVELAND — Donald Trump is adding fuel to Wall Street anxiety about his candidacy, jabbing directly at big banks this week with new language in the official Republican party platform that calls for the restoration of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, a move that would force the break-up of large financial institutions.

The embrace of the controversial law, long championed on the left, is deepening the estrangement of the financial services sector from the presumptive Republican nominee, according to industry leaders and lobbyists, who are now struggling to assess what role and influence they would have in a Trump administration.

Absolutely none would be the right amount.

Tony Fratto, a former Treasury and White House official in the George W. Bush administration, called the embrace of Glass-Steagall “really dumb.” He suggested it could push pragmatically-oriented bankers toward Democratic contender Hillary Clinton.

“Push” bankers to Clinton. Are you kidding me? If they were pushed any closer together they’d be fused at the hip

“They are not buying a ticket on the crazy train,” said Fratto, who now represents major banks and other financial industry players at Hamilton Place Strategies. “Banks and the financial sector do not like volatility. He is the volatile candidate, and under those circumstances, supporting Hillary Clinton looks like the flight to safety.”

“Flight to safety.” It appears D.C. insiders and lobbyists are now using stale, stupid Wall Street lingo every chance they get.

Perhaps the most telling evidence of the alienation is Wall Street’s near-absence from the festivities here this week. Major banks that sponsored GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s coronation in Tampa four years ago are missing. Some of the party’s wealthiest donors, such as hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, are pointedly staying away. The Financial Services Roundtable, the industry’s leading trade group, is not even putting on an event. 

The distancing comes after Trump’s swipes at Wall Street and positions on free trade and immigration have alarmed finance industry leaders, said Howard Schweitzer, who served as a senior Treasury Department official under President Obama and President George W. Bush. 

“People assume because he resides in New York that he’s cozy with Wall Street, and he just isn’t,” Schweitzer added. “For all those reasons, they aren’t excited about him. They don’t know him and they don’t like his policies.”

In 2012, the financial services industry lavished money on Romney, a private equity chieftain, with the largest share of contributions to his campaign coming from employees of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Credit Suisse,according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The securities and investment sector alone poured $37 million more into a super PAC backing the GOP nominee. 

The response to Trump, by comparison, has been notably muted: as of May 31, employees of banks, securities firms and insurance companies had donated just $127,041 to his campaign, according to the center

Sounds good, until…

Trump allies note that the current figures do not reflect the campaign’s biggest fundraising haul, when it raised $52 million last month in conjunction with the Republican National Committee. Steven Mnuchin, a hedge fund manager with strong ties to Wall Street, serves as Trump’s finance committee chairman, and said he has seen a strong response from the financial services sector. 

“I believe there is significant support,” Mnuchin said. “We had 22 events across the country last month, and within those events there was very significant support from business leaders, private equity funds, hedge funds, financial services across the board.”

Mnuchin said the media has promoted an inaccurate image of Trump’s posture toward the industry.

“Donald is not critical of Wall Street,” he said. “He is critical of Hillary Clinton for accepting large speaking fees from Wall Street. That’s different from him being critical of the financial services industry.”

You done vomiting yet? Me too.

By pushing for its renewal, the Republican party now finds itself aligned with liberals such as Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who succeeded in getting a similar measure into the Democratic party platform this year. Hillary Clinton has been opposed to bringing the law back.

One prominent banking industry executive, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the call for Glass-Steagall’s reinstatement will further push Wall Street away from the Republican presidential candidate. “It adds to the impression of unpredictability and uncertainty, two qualities that are a turn-off to banks,” he said.

The controversy could drive more Wall Street funds to Clinton, who already has the backing of industry leaders such as former Goldman Sachs chief and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. The former secretary of state and her husband have deep ties to the financial services industry, which has already poured at least $35 million into her campaign and allied super PACs, according to an analysis of campaign finance data by The Washington Post. 

But there is a striking dearth of industry events taking place this week in Cleveland — and a diminished corps of lobbyists working the crowd. One leader of a Washington-based financial services industry group, who requested anonymity to describe private conversations, said he did not know of a single one of his peers or colleagues who planned to attend. 

The less financial parasites swarming around U.S. Presidential candidates the better. That’s the only way they’ll get the justice they deserve the next time a crisis hits.

For related articles, see:

Hillary Consolidates Wall Street Support as Republican Financiers Shift to Clinton

The Real Reason Hillary Clinton Refuses to Release Her Wall Street Transcripts

A New Low – Hillary Clinton Claims 9/11 is the Reason She’s Owned by Wall Street

Here Come the Cronies – Buffett and Blackstone President Launch $33,400 a Plate Hillary Clinton Fundraiser

Ex-Goldman Banker Who Profited from Housing Crash and Subsequent Bailout Donates $100k to Hillary SuperPAC

COMPROMISED – How Two of Hillary Clinton’s Top Aides Received Golden Parachutes from Wall Street

Inspiration for Wall Street’s “Gordon Gekko” Proclaims – Only Sanders Can Stop the Banksters

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

13 thoughts on “GOP Includes Reinstatement of Glass-Steagall Into Party Platform”

  1. I guess 60 years of protection from the banks given to the people by Glass steagall is nothing the corrupt institutions desire including the bush crime family. None of these mobsters served time in prison for robbing the nation and that includes the elderly of their savings 2009. If not in the liftime…the next

    Reply
  2. Clinton is more likely to get us into war. She is beholden to big money interests. I still do not understand your bias against Trump.

    Reply
    • I’m not “biased” against Trump.

      I cannot and will not support a person who doesn’t think civil liberties, i.e., the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is of the utmost importance to this country.

      While I agree with Trump on some important issues such as the TPP, that is not enough for me to support his candidacy.

    • Here is the difference: even if he does abuse his power, he will be restrained and held accountable. If our rights can be threatened with the election of one person, we have a big problem.

      I hear a lot about what he says. I am more concerned about what he can do.

    • I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this point. In fact, on Twitter I have repeatedly stated that Clinton might be a far more dangerous President than Trump in practice since there will be so much organized as well as media resistance to Trump, while Clinton will largely get a free pass. At least on a relative basis. This makes her potentially far more dangerous.

      This doesn’t change the fact that Trump’s principles do not align with mine, and the fact that I will not be participating in “lesser evilism” when I really dislike both candidates.

    • When you say this is a choice between two evils, you may mean that as a figure of speech, a choice between two undesirables. When I say Clinton has evil intent, I mean it in every sense.

      Trump, on the other hand, does have good intentions. He does not need to do this. He is new to politics; therefore, he does not watch his words. The elite that is scared of him will use them against him.

      Also, he is honest. What he says is what he believes. He is not a puppet. Clinton is going to follow and do what she told, CFR for one. She tells people what they want to hear.

      Trump can be reasoned with. He will modify his views as needed. He already has with the Muslim ban. If he sees we can control our border without a wall, I see him changing that too. I see him making a lot of changes once he understands this government. He may see that we have problems because of our foreign interventions.

    • Obviously, much of what you say about Trump is opinion as opposed to fact. That’s fine. I respect your right to vote and make up your own mind. I explain my thought process in order to share it, not to convince you that you are wrong and I am right.

      I personally cannot and will not support someone in favor of torture and who doesn’t demonstrate the highest degree of respect for civil liberties. I also strongly disagree with his position on Edward Snowden.

      You see, I consider Snowden to be one of the bravest patriots in American history. This is what Trump said about him in 2013:

      Edward Snowden, the man at the heart of the NSA information leaks, is nothing but a “traitor” — and America ought to recreate history in dealing with him, real estate mogul Donald Trump said on a “Fox & Friends” interview.

      In other words, execute him, Mr. Trump implied.

      “I think Snowden is a terrible threat, I think he’s a terrible traitor, and you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong country — you know what we used to do to traitors, right?” Trump said, Politico reported.

      “Well, you killed them, Donald,” said fill-in host, Eric Bolling.

      Mr. Trump’s response: Well, he is damaging America.

      “This guy is really doing damage to this country, and he’s also making us look like dopes,” he said, Politico reported.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump-edward-snowden-kill-traitor/

      This is just one example that demonstrates Trump’s instinctive authoritarianism.

      It’s not like I’m nit-picking here. Trump really doesn’t fit in with my principles at all.

    • I agree with much of what you say. Also, I do not comment to change anyone’s opinion, just sharing mine. My hope is that any issues I have with him will change after he learns more. I do not believe he wants to relive the cold war despite his opinion of Snowden.

      You are bringing up things I did not know about. I thought it was about his remarks on Muslims and illegals that had you upset.

    • Even though we disagree as about Trump, I think we agree on about everything else. Do not think of me as an enemy. We are allies.

      Just out of curiosity, are you this way with every presidential election, not being for any of the mainstream candidates? I use to be that way. The last mainstream candidate I voted for was Reagan in 1984. I have been voting 3rd party ever since.

    • No, up until the financial crisis I was largely oblivious to reality and had voted for both mainstream Democratic and Republican nominees for President up until that point.

      In 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson and in 2016 I will likely vote for Jill Stein. I really wish I could bring myself to support someone who is in a strong position to win, but that is not the case this year.

      Thank you for your comments and perspective, and I absolutely agree. What I want is as many allies as possible, no matter who people vote for in 2016. This will be a long battle and caring, decent people need to stick together.

  3. Notes From Underground: AUGUST 30 ,2002 … A Revisit To The SOAPBOX

    LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – Profit centres too big to fail.
    By YRA HARRIS.
    30 August 2002
    Financial Times
    (c) 2002 The Financial Times Limited. All rights reserved

    Sir, John Plender (“How banks got in a mix”, August 21) correctly identifies the systemic dangers that accompanied the passage of the Graham-Leach-Bliley act. The repeal of Glass-Steagall has pushed the US banking system to the brink of “moral hazard”. The conglomeration of all financial services under one roof has entangled banks in numerous ethical conflicts. Additionally, Graham-Leach-Bliley has made several institutions so large that the Fed cannot allow them to fail.

    A single institution’s deep involvement in every facet of financial dealings does not create greater synergy but greater risk. These large, private profit centres know they are too big to collapse. This realisation adds great uncertainty to the entire financial landscape.

    Rewarding private profits while socialising the risk is a pathway to disaster.

    Glass-Steagall should never have been repealed without a bank forfeiting its right to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp insurance.
    https://yragharris.com/2012/05/14/soapbox/

    Reply
  4. Genius move….trump obviously plans to a trap on Hilary in the debates’, by pointing out how her husbands repeal of glass astragal was the biggest banker bonanza ever and responsible for our current predicament.

    Trump’s cunning for showboating his opponents flaws is unparalleled.

    No question trump is already planning how to use the debates’ to demolish hillary. This little platform detail is art of that

    Reply
    • The best thing he can do is attack her from the left. Next is to come off as the anti-foreign intervention candidate, another place she is vulnerable. As say the left because ant-war used to be left. I do not know what the stand for anymore

Leave a Reply