Posted on 07/23/2007 9:36:19 AM PDT by shortstop
An ABC News analysis shows that many of the nation's largest banks and investment firms are leaning towards donating money to top Democratic 2008 presidential candidates rather than to Repbulicans.
Wall Street — often thought of as a bastion of Republican ideals — is leaning toward Democrats these days.
As campaign contributions pour in to the 2008 presidential race, employees at some of the nation's largest banks and investment firms are deciding more often than not to write out big checks to Democratic candidates.
Workers at Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and elsewhere are putting their cash behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards over the Republican front-runners, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by ABC News.
At Goldman Sachs, the largest of the firms, employees donated $542,000 to the top three Democrats and the top three Republicans from Jan. 1 through June 30.
More than 63 percent of those dollars went to Democrats, with Obama getting the bulk of that cash — $184,750, according to the ABC analysis.
Don't be mistaken — there are still plenty of Republican supporters on Wall Street. But, for the first time in more than a decade, Democratic donors outnumber those supporting Republicans.
And while Wall Street workers are small in number compared to some other industries, they tend to earn substantially more and are more likely to donate to politicians.
The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that tracks money in politics, found that, among corporate contributors in all industries, no company has put more money into the 2008 presidential race than Goldman Sachs.
Mack now backs Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Starts? Wall Street is in NYC. Has leaned left for many, many years. Big money to Clinton. Every Dem candidate for statewide office gets big Wall Street money.
sure....I can see Wall St backing socialists like hussien obama or clinton once the big money starts rolling in sarcasm)...any idea what the donation numbers looked like in Aug ‘03 versus Aug ‘04??
This is baloney. They are holding their contributions until Fred declares himself as an actual candidate.
Well let’s see..... GS gave us the monstrosity of Jon Corzine, among other liberal disasters. It’s not like they’ve been known as some conservative bastion in recent years, is it?
Major BS. Wall Street has always been very Democratic. Dominated by rich, secular Jews. (Not an anti-Semitic swipe - my wife is Jewish - just a statement of fact.)
Think Richard Corzine, Robert Rubin, etc.
obama’s recent statements to unions that he will walk the picket line if elected will do wonders for him...
oops - JON Corzine - my bad
Afraid that the Dems will win, they are getting on their best side early.
If the Republicans win they won’t retailiate, as the Dems would. All will be forgiven.
THIS is crazy.....not that many people can be even GIVING to candidates yet.....as compared to previous Presidential races....we are EARLY in the race.....sheesh. ABC is HOPING again! And, trying to MAKE IT TRUE!
It makes sense. Corporations are in huge support for “free” health care paid for through taxpayers’ own money. This gets the corporations off the hook for employee insurance policies.
Goldman Sachs
Goldman Sachs is one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks. Like others in the securities industry, it advises and invests in nearly every industry affected by federal legislation. The firm closely monitors issues including economic policy, trade and nearly all legislation that governs the financial sector. It has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry. In August 2002, following months of corporate scandals, congressional investigators launched a probe into whether stock analysts at Goldman Sachs issued biased investment advice in order to protect corporate clients. The firm tends to give most of its money to Democrats. Goldman Sachs’ former chief executive, Jon Corzine, served in the U.S. Senate as a Democrat from New Jersey. He’s now the state’s governor.
Dems vs. Repubs Source of Funds
Election Cycle
Total Contributions
Dems
Repubs
% to Dems
% to Repubs
2006
$3,393,316
$2,069,111
$1,290,255
61%
38%
2004
$6,424,438
$3,963,753
$2,442,185
62%
38%
2002
$3,520,035
$2,299,040
$1,219,995
65%
35%
2000
$4,432,977
$2,764,185
$1,663,292
62%
38%
1998
$1,932,166
$1,225,252
$677,914
63%
35%
1996
$1,816,063
$997,247
$816,316
55%
45%
1994
$1,007,535
$556,760
$449,975
55%
45%
1992
$1,658,310
$906,295
$751,515
55%
45%
1990
$717,621
$473,716
$243,905
66%
34%
TOTAL
$24,902,461
$15,255,359
$9,555,352
61%
38%
While he is certainly a Richard, Governor Corzine's name is Jon.
Thompson has nothing to do with it. Business has always hedged its bets. Now that it looks like the Democrats will likely win, they will give money to the Democrats.
He (SCOTT MAYEROWITZ) is a 2000 graduate of Wesleyan University, where he was the editor of the student newspaper.
Mayerowitz, a 28-year-old Wesleyan grad who started at the ProJo as a two-year reporter-intern shortly after his graduation in 2000, says his new assignment will be doing Web-based reporting for the national business desk of ABC News. “The Journal has been great to me,” he says. “I felt it was time to move on and this was a great opportunity.”
Oh, really?
Citigroup Inc
Citigroup is the world’s second largest financial services firm, with $1 trillion in assets. One of the company’s subsidiaries is brokerage firm Salomon Smith Barney, which has been plagued with lawsuits and government investigations into its financing of bankrupt Enron and ailing WorldCom. In 1998, Citigroup’s lobbying helped repeal a federal law that prevented banks from getting into other businesses, allowing the company to acquire an insurance firm. Citigroup continues to lobby on a number of issues, including financial privacy, bankruptcy reform and terrorism reinsurance.
Dems vs. Repubs Source of Funds
Election Cycle
Total Contributions
Dems
Repubs
% to Dems
% to Repubs
2006
$2,545,616
$1,362,317
$1,117,949
54%
44%
2004
$3,045,090
$1,579,715
$1,457,973
52%
48%
2002
$3,137,375
$1,480,754
$1,655,621
47%
53%
2000
$4,157,626
$2,204,236
$1,942,340
53%
47%
1998
$2,751,229
$1,131,170
$1,614,809
41%
59%
1996
$2,472,160
$858,685
$1,611,775
35%
65%
1994
$1,218,329
$615,605
$598,959
51%
49%
1992
$1,033,273
$569,881
$460,893
55%
45%
1990
$639,298
$367,009
$272,289
57%
43%
TOTAL
$20,999,996
$10,169,372
$10,732,608
48%
51%
Just calling it as I see it. It’s gonna be a tough election to run as a Republican, no matter who your Chosen Savior may be.
They’re buying protection from the mob.
That's not true. There were always some limousine liberals in the bunch, but the vast majority of investment bankers, traders, brokers, research analysts, asset managers, etc have always been republican.
This shift is not a good sign. As I see it, it means one of two things: 1) an ideological shift or 2) they think Hillary has the election in the bag, so they're going with what they think is a sure winner, even if they prefer one of the GOP canidates. I don't think it's #1. So that leaves #2. I think they're wrong, but it's still not an assuring sign that most of Wall Street is betting on a Hillary win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.