Goldman Sachs was top Obama Donor

[Savonarola]

Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor
From Robert Yoon, CNN Political Research Director
April 20, 2010 5:50 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- For Goldman Sachs, a large financial investment in President Obama does not appear to be paying off.

Wall Street's top investment bank was a generous contributor to Obama's presidential campaign.

The company has defended itself from civil fraud charges filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and, along with the rest of the financial services sector, fended off an aggressive Democratic-led campaign to impose new rules on banks.

According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees.

Only the PAC and employees of the University of California, which donated more than $1.5 million, topped Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs contributions to the Obama campaign were more than four times larger than the $230,095 in donations to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.

"Barack Obama's presidential campaign shattered all records when it came to fundraising, so it's no surprise that he significantly outraised John McCain when it came to contributions from the financial industry in general and Goldman Sachs in particular," CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser said.

Steinhauser added: "And even though some of the policies he was pushing during his bid for the White House were not so popular with Wall Street executives, it seemed investors wanted to back a winner."

According to figures dating to 1990, Goldman Sachs' PAC and employees have consistently contributed more money to Democratic rather than Republican candidates for federal office.

In the 2008 election, three out of every four dollars contributed by Goldman Sachs went to Democrats.

Since the 2008 election, FEC reports indicate that Goldman Sachs has contributed generously to Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee members. The two panels are responsible for oversight of the industry.

This country has gone straight to hell.  You can't count on anyone staying bought anymore.

[The Brain]

Thread title?

[Eddie Teach]

Goldman Sachs was to Obama donor as The Brain was to Languish poster.

Wait a minute, that can't be right.

[Jaron]

Troll? 

[MadImmortalMan]

Everyone kinda knew this, right? It's not exactly been a secret.

[Berkut]

I don't think the fact that Obama got a bunch of money from some particular bank is nearly as interesting as the more basic realization that ALL of the pols in DC are pretty much bought and paid for by the financial industry.

Which is why real reform is not going to happen. It has nothing to do with republicans, democrats, or tea-partyers. It is just money. Politicians need it, banks have it, and the result is fixed, no matter what hoops are jumped through on the way.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think the fact that Obama got a bunch of money from some particular bank is nearly as interesting as the more basic realization that ALL of the pols in DC are pretty much bought and paid for by the financial industry.

Which is why real reform is not going to happen. It has nothing to do with republicans, democrats, or tea-partyers. It is just money. Politicians need it, banks have it, and the result is fixed, no matter what hoops are jumped through on the way.

What would "real" reform be in this case?  I associate the term with the Michael Moore left, and usually take it to mean "something that really fucks up the banks good."

[citizen k]

What would "real" reform be in this case?  I associate the term with the Michael Moore left, and usually take it to mean "something that really fucks up the banks good."

I think "real reform" would not include the usual loopholes that the financial entities manage to slip in to circumvent the reforms.

[Admiral Yi]

I think "real reform" would not include the usual loopholes that the financial entities manage to slip in to circumvent the reforms.

Can you give me an example of one of these usual loopholes?  I don't know what you're referring to.

[citizen k]

I think "real reform" would not include the usual loopholes that the financial entities manage to slip in to circumvent the reforms.

Can you give me an example of one of these usual loopholes?  I don't know what you're referring to.

This isn't a past example but it is indicative of how the banks try to influence the process in their favor.

Big Banks Have Already Figured Out The Loophole In Obama's New Rules

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/big-banks-have-already-figured-out-the-loophole-in-obamas-new-rules-2010-1#ixzz0ls7mvCVK


Big banks have already begun poking the holes in Obama's new rules—holes they expect their banks to pass through basically unchanged.

The president promised this morning to work with Congress to ensure that no bank or financial institution that contains a bank will own, invest in or sponsor a hedge fund or a private equity fund, or proprietary trading operations unrelated to serving customers for its own profit.

But sources at three banks tell us that they are already finding ways to own, investment in and sponsor hedge funds and private equity funds. Even prop trading seems safe.

A person familiar with the operations of one big Wall Street bank said it expects that new regulation will affect less than 1% of its overall business.

The key phrase is "operations unrelated to serving customers." The banks plan to claim that much of the business in which it engages is related in one way or another to serving customers. Even proprietary trading, for instance, can become related to customer service if it is done through internal hedge funds in which some outside clients are permitted to invest.

One insider at a bank pointed to JP Morgan Chase's ownership of the hedge fund Highbridge Capital. It is thought that under a strict "no hedge funds" rule, Highbridge would have to be sold off. But under the rule proposed by the Obama administration, Highbridge can be retained by JP Morgan because outside clients are permitted to invest in it.

A still more devious way is to have a banks own employees be the customers who are invested in the internal hedge funds. That way trading operations can remain closed to outsiders while the regulatory requirement of relating the trading to customer service is met. Goldman Sachs is rumored to be considering this approach. (Goldman isn't commenting on the regs right now.)

"This thing is about showing the public that Obama is standing up to Wall Street. So the rhetoric is heated. But the implementation will require far less change than people think right now," a person familiar with the thinking at the upper echelons of one of our largest banks said.

"The market is getting this wrong by selling off the megas," a person at another bank said.

[Fate]

Am I supposed to be outraged about this? Grrrrrrrr jewbanks...

[Faeelin]

What would "real" reform be in this case?  I associate the term with the Michael Moore left, and usually take it to mean "something that really fucks up the banks good."

The government nationalizes with them. Combined with its acquisition of the auto industry, it will have control of the commanding heights.

[Scipio]

This would not have been a problem if the bank was Golden Saxon!