Tuesday, January 19, 2016
The Democratic Debate: One Shocking Fact
As I have said before, there is a lot to admire about Hillary Clinton. For example, she showed remarkable strength and poise during the marathon Benghazi hearings.
On Sunday night, though, Bernie Sanders dropped a bomb. In the middle of a discussion of bank regulation (an important topic, and one they discussed with knowledge and fervor), Sanders noted that Clinton had received $600,000 in speaking fees from one investment bank, Goldman Sachs, in just one year.
Boom! I was floored. First of all, no one is that good at public speaking, to genuinely be worth that kind of money. It's clearly a purchase of influence. It was a shocking revelation.
And that's not even a campaign contribution-- it is a straight up payment. The campaign contributions don't give you much confidence she will rein in banks, either. Here are her top contributors, to Senate and Presidential campaigns, dating back to 1999:
| Citigroup Inc | $824,402 | $816,402 | $8,000 |
| Goldman Sachs | $760,740 | $750,740 | $10,000 |
| DLA Piper | $700,530 | $673,530 | $27,000 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $696,456 | $693,456 | $3,000 |
| Morgan Stanley | $636,564 | $631,564 | $5,000 |
| EMILY's List | $609,684 | $605,764 | $3,920 |
| Time Warner | $501,831 | $476,831 | $25,000 |
Not reassuring, if you think banks already have too much power. And I won't be surprised if, over time, her Democratic opponents make more of this. They should.
One of my primary disappointments in President Obama was the failure to punish the criminal actions of bankers after the mortgage crisis, and the bailouts those banks were given. Only one candidate offers the hope of something different in the future, and that is Bernie Sanders.
Bank regulation is certainly not the only issue in this campaign, or even the most important one. But it does matter, and it does not favor Clinton or any of the Republicans, none of whom have offered up significant reform in this area.
Comments:
<< Home
Unfortunately, the power of money has been cemented in our politics. The banks can buy as much favor as they need. Right on Mark's subject, today the New York Times editorialized about new legislation emerging in the Senate. Pretty scary stuff and bipartisan.
Here is part of today's editorial.
"If you think Congress is hopelessly divided on party lines on every issue, think again. When it comes to regulating — more precisely, deregulating — corporate America, Republicans and Democrats are all too eager to find common ground.
This week a bipartisan group of senators — four Republicans, three Democrats and one independent — is expected to introduce legislation that would slow and complicate the already laborious process by which federal regulations are issued and enforced.
The winners would be big banks and big businesses. The losers would be ordinary Americans who would be deprived of timely and effective protection from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other bank regulators, as well as from agencies that oversee consumer product safety, nuclear safety, investor safeguards, workplace rights and a host of other issues and activities. These agencies are supposed to work independently, with Congress providing oversight. Under the legislation, however, Congress would actively interfere in the rule-making process."
AND SO IT GOES.
Here is part of today's editorial.
"If you think Congress is hopelessly divided on party lines on every issue, think again. When it comes to regulating — more precisely, deregulating — corporate America, Republicans and Democrats are all too eager to find common ground.
This week a bipartisan group of senators — four Republicans, three Democrats and one independent — is expected to introduce legislation that would slow and complicate the already laborious process by which federal regulations are issued and enforced.
The winners would be big banks and big businesses. The losers would be ordinary Americans who would be deprived of timely and effective protection from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other bank regulators, as well as from agencies that oversee consumer product safety, nuclear safety, investor safeguards, workplace rights and a host of other issues and activities. These agencies are supposed to work independently, with Congress providing oversight. Under the legislation, however, Congress would actively interfere in the rule-making process."
AND SO IT GOES.
I welcome your endorsement of Bernie Sanders. But I am a bit "floored" (to use your phrase) that these Clinton facts came as revelations. I do not blame you, however, I blame the media. It is a shame that a well-educated, well-informed, and politically connected American could go so long without encountering those basic items of public record. Our Fourth Estate is really dropping the ball.
Kudos to Bernie for breaking through the gauntlet.
Kudos to Bernie for breaking through the gauntlet.
I'm not endorsing Bernie-- just saying that on this issue he has a moral platform that no other candidate possesses.
As for Hillary Clinton's support from banks, I had a general idea that she had received large contributions-- but did not know how much they dominated the list of her top financial supporters.
As for Hillary Clinton's support from banks, I had a general idea that she had received large contributions-- but did not know how much they dominated the list of her top financial supporters.
I wonder if anyone's looked closely at her voting record in the Senate, to try to correlate it with those huge bank contributions . . . although there may have been plenty of actions she could have taken but didn't, on bank reform. And those omissions can't be measured.
Interesting to see Emily's List being able to contribute the big numbers, too. I guess it speaks to the dichotomy that is Hillary.
Post a Comment
Interesting to see Emily's List being able to contribute the big numbers, too. I guess it speaks to the dichotomy that is Hillary.
# posted by 
: 1:19 AM
: 1:19 AM << Home
