Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)WallStreet’s POLITICAL SHAKEDOWN:We’ll Stop Funding Dems if Elizabeth Warren won’t SIT DOWN & SHUTUP [View all]

"...Top banks consider cutting off Dems if the party won't rein in party progressives.."
"....For Democratic neoliberals who have proven all too eager to forge an unholy alliance with the malefactors of great wealth, this Wall Street shakedown will only redouble their commitment to keep the financial powers-that-be placated..."
"....For Democratic neoliberals who have proven all too eager to forge an unholy alliance with the malefactors of great wealth, this Wall Street shakedown will only redouble their commitment to keep the financial powers-that-be placated..."
If ever you doubted that our obscene campaign finance regime constitutes a form of legalized bribery, consider this: Reuters reports today that officials at top Wall Street banks recently convened to discuss how they could convince Democrats to soften their partys tone toward the financial industry, and among the options now under consideration is halting campaign donations to Senate Democrats unless they rein in progressive populists like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH). The banks represented at the Washington meeting included Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, according to the report, and though the idea of withholding campaign contributions did not arise at that gathering, it has since been floated in conversations among representatives from the banks. While the action would only be taken against Senate Democrats, the report states that Democrats are fretting about larger repercussions:
The amount of money at stake, a maximum of $15,000 per bank, means the gesture is symbolic rather than material
Moreover, banks hostility toward Warren, who is not a presidential candidate, will not have a direct impact on the presumed Democratic front runner in the White House race, Hillary Clinton. Thats because their fund-raising groups focus on congressional races rather than the presidential election
Still, political strategists say Clinton could struggle to raise money among Wall Street financiers who worry that Democrats are becoming less business friendl
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/27/us-usa-election-banks-idUSKBN0MN0BV20150327?wpmm=1&feedName=politicsNews&feedType=RSS&wpisrc=nl_wonk
Moreover, banks hostility toward Warren, who is not a presidential candidate, will not have a direct impact on the presumed Democratic front runner in the White House race, Hillary Clinton. Thats because their fund-raising groups focus on congressional races rather than the presidential election
Still, political strategists say Clinton could struggle to raise money among Wall Street financiers who worry that Democrats are becoming less business friendl
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/27/us-usa-election-banks-idUSKBN0MN0BV20150327?wpmm=1&feedName=politicsNews&feedType=RSS&wpisrc=nl_wonk
Citigroup, Reuters notes, has already chosen not to contribute to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee over concerns that Senate Democrats could give Warren and lawmakers who share her views more power, while JPMorgan has pared back its donations. Goldman Sachs already sent the DSCC its $15,000 check, while Bank of America has yet to donate. There are two salient points to be made here: First, while only the most naive mind could consider it surprising, that Democrats are clutching their pearls over a possible drought of Wall Street funds underscores how poisoned our campaign finance system has become, and it speaks volumes about the plutocratic capture of American politics. Moreover, the report further puts the lie to Chief Justice John Roberts apparently straight-faced assertion, writing his opinion in the Citizens United case, that campaign contributions are not intended to influence lawmakers official duties.
Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholders official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption, Roberts wrote. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner influence over or access to elected officials or political parties.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
Yet here we have an industry that may well cut off a political party if it does not jettison proposals like breaking up Too Big To Fail institutions, reinstating the Glass-Steagall law separating commercial and investment banking, and reining in unscrupulous speculation. These proposals have galvanized the Warren wing of the Democratic Party, which may be emboldened but is far from dominant. Look no further than Wall Streets affinity for the partys likely presidential nominee, or the identity of the Democrats potential next leader in the Senate, a top recipient of financial industry contributions.
cont'
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/wall_streets_political_shakedown_well_stop_funding_dems_if_elizabeth_warren_wont_sit_down_and_shut_up/
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WallStreet’s POLITICAL SHAKEDOWN:We’ll Stop Funding Dems if Elizabeth Warren won’t SIT DOWN & SHUTUP [View all]
Segami
Mar 2015
OP
Oh silly ...she will fight for the new middle class ...which is bankers and Wall Street brokers.
L0oniX
Mar 2015
#14
That should be my pat response to all pro Hillary posts: Sorry ...I'm not in that club.
L0oniX
Mar 2015
#21
At least it will give the pro Hillary Goldman oligarchy alert crew something to do.
L0oniX
Mar 2015
#24
How about you Hill Lovers give us a reason to vote for her? She can beat other pugs is not one.
Vincardog
Mar 2015
#44
Perhaps I was unclear "She can beat OTHER pugs is not one" because she is a pug. She is clearly
Vincardog
Mar 2015
#90
The lesser of the two evils is STILL EVIL. You can't give 1 reason to vote for her. It says a lot
Vincardog
Mar 2015
#94
"a comment in context would render your comment out of place" - I would happily make a retraction..
Veilex
Mar 2015
#92
Of course "winning" is more important. Yeah we win. More important that reestablishing our
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#73
I recognize that some prefer to boil slowly. I don't agree. I see that we are being
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#77
So rather than the "slow boil", you prefer the "quick burn"? {sigh} ...
1StrongBlackMan
Mar 2015
#78
I would rather take the risk of the "quick burn" or liberty than bow down to the system
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#80
" Gawd you guys are not only shrill and hysterical, you never offer a viable alternative"
DonCoquixote
Mar 2015
#54
So if that's true why don't you give us a substantive reason to support H. Clinton.
rhett o rick
Mar 2015
#72
If anything she will get a flood of money from them to make sure Warren doesn't have a chance.
L0oniX
Mar 2015
#16
OK, does that mean that small contributors like us need to step up and contribute more money?
NBachers
Mar 2015
#2
If he monied elite don't stop corrupting our elections we should publicly fund them, and OUTLAW
Vincardog
Mar 2015
#5
LMFAO ...spewing over my keyboard. Damn it ...you owe me a new red back light keyboard.
L0oniX
Mar 2015
#11
Hard to decide who is more of an enemy of the common people, Shitigroup, SkankofAmerica, HellsCargo
L0oniX
Mar 2015
#10
After their bailout by us taxpayers we should have thrown the crooks in jail! How dare them to speak
B Calm
Mar 2015
#13
WallStreet’s POLITICAL SHAKEDOWN:We’ll Stop Funding Dems if Elizabeth Warren won’t SIT DOWN & SHUTUP
The CCC
Mar 2015
#29
the quest for $ because "we need to win this" has left the party completely open: patrons
MisterP
Mar 2015
#34
Wall Street tries to depict her as angry or anti-business for promoting sound policy.
pa28
Mar 2015
#35
Good. Maybe then the Democrats that have been getting money from the banks will start
liberal_at_heart
Mar 2015
#36
Churches, insurance & oil Companies and financial institutions banned from political activism
Sheepshank
Mar 2015
#38
Thanks Wall Street You really made voting even easier Hey Dems take Wall Street Money and You dont
anotojefiremnesuka
Mar 2015
#68
FUCK YOU, WALLSTREET!! you gawdamned suit and tie wearing muthafuckas!! just fuck right off.
Tuesday Afternoon
Mar 2015
#69
One question why is Reuters the only so called media, the source for this so-called meeting...
Historic NY
Mar 2015
#79