Wall Street gives much to lawmakers in reform debate

WASHINGTON Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:13am EDT

A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange watches a screen showing U.S. President Barack Obama's speech at Cooper Union in New York, April 22, 2010. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

A trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange watches a screen showing U.S. President Barack Obama's speech at Cooper Union in New York, April 22, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Brendan McDermid

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress may want to look tough on financial reform in front of voters but that has not stopped them from filling their re-election war chests with plenty of Wall Street cash.

The political action committees of six Wall Street banks spent the first quarter of 2010 giving handsome donations to Republicans and Democrats who are critical to passing legislation that could determine the future of the U.S. financial sector.

The banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs -- gave about $106,000 to 12 members of the Senate and House of Representatives who sit either in leadership positions or on the committees that forged the measures.

The sum is 40 percent of the $272,000 that the same institutions donated overall to political campaigns and committees between January and March.

But it is only a tiny fraction of the more than $30 million that has flowed into campaign coffers from the PACs and employees of banks, securities firms and finance companies since the 2010 election cycle began on January 1, 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the non-partisan watchdog that tracks the role of money in U.S. politics.

Wall Street lobbyists this year have hosted fundraising events for at least 10 senators who sit on the banking and agriculture committees, which have advanced separate pieces of financial regulatory legislation, according to the Sunlight Foundation, another money in politics watchdog.

Senator Blanche Lincoln, chairwoman of the agriculture panel, decided to stop accepting contributions from Goldman's PAC and employees now that the Securities and Exchange Commission has charged the firm with civil fraud, allegations Goldman denies.

But she already has plenty of money from the financial sector. The Democrat has received $7,000 from the Goldman PAC during the current campaign, part of $920,935 that has flowed into her re-election coffers from securities and other financial institution PACs and employees.

"The contributions have no impact on Senator Lincoln's public policy decisions," Lincoln's campaign said in a statement.


Wall Street has maintained a long and robust relationship with Washington decision-makers over the years, providing nearly $1 billion in campaign funds since 1990 and millions of dollars more on behind-the-scenes lobbying.

Analysts say big spending in Washington helps explain the evolution of the financial regulatory reform debate in the Senate, from harder-edged Democratic proposals last year to modifications that seem headed for a bipartisan deal with Republicans.

President Barack Obama, who counted four Wall Street firms including Goldman Sachs among his top 2008 contributors, told an audience including Wall Street executives that regulation is necessary despite the industry's "furious efforts" to lobby against it. A vote to open debate in the Senate on reform legislation is set for Monday.

"They're going to get a bill. The question is how rigorous, and it looks like it'll be a bipartisan bill that doesn't go after the industry like the original drafts. Wall Street's winning that way," said James Thurber of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.

Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation said: "It's hard to be tough on somebody you're taking money from."

The biggest financial sector beneficiary in the current election cycle is Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who has received $1.6 million from securities firms and commercial banks, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Close behind are Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with $1.5 million and fellow Republican Senator Bob Corker, who broke party ranks to open reform talks with the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd. Corker raised $1.4 million from financial sources.

Other big Wall Street recipients are Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid with $920,000 and Senator Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on Dodd's committee, with just over $800,000.

(Editing by Eric Beech)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (25)
jebahoula wrote:
The media’s fanfare about SEC fraud charges against Goldman Sachs is designed to scare politicians into passing the so-called financial reform bill, which will increase the power of the monopoly banks, reduce competition from other financial institutions and ultimately raise borrowing costs to consumers and lower returns to investors.

This show is a smoke and mirrors ploy to pass the Bill.

This Bill will give to the Federal Reserve, a puppet of huge monopoly banks like Goldman Sachs, control over their remaining banking competition, what their media calls the “shadow banking system”. This competition is composed of financial institutions, such as, Fidelity, Vanguard, Charles Schwab, American Century, etc… which act like banks with checking accounts, savings, mutual funds, lending and brokerage services.

Contrary to the media hype of a “new” financial order, the recent financial crisis created by the Federal Reserve has destroyed their banking competition and kept the “old” financial order in power that has governed the U. S. since the reign of Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865).

In three years these monopoly banks have bankrupt, bought, or gained control of much of their banking competition, from Lehman Brothers to CIT.

It should be no surprise that the largest monopoly banks left in power are Goldman Sachs, Citibank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Mellon Bank of New York and Morgan Stanley.

All, except Bank of America, are part of the “old” financial order that mushroomed into power about 150 years ago during and after Lincoln’s Tax War. Remember, Lincoln declared in his First Inaugural Speech (paragraphs 4, 21 and 32) that he started his war solely to collect his new 40% import tax from Southerners under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

With the passage of his National Bank Act of 1863, Abraham Lincoln, a puppet of Northern banks and industries, re-established Alexander Hamilton’s centralist banking system in the United States, which set the foundation for the present day Federal Reserve System.

Under his First Legal Tender Act of 1862, Lincoln printed worthless paper money displaying images of Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase (as in Chase Bank), which ultimately destroyed State banking.

Consumers and small businesses will have to lick the boots of the few elitist banks of the “old” financial order to obtain a loan. Investors and savers will have few options in their choices for high yields and returns on their investments.

Right now these monopoly banks are borrowing from the Federal Reserve at 1% and lending to consumers, via credit cards, at up to 30%. Price gouging is always the result of establishing monopolies.

Apr 23, 2010 8:43am EDT  --  Report as abuse
I would say that Wall Street is taking more than it is giving. For example, Senate Majority Wip, Dick Durbin, is proposing an amendment to Dodd’s bill that would place an interest rate ceiling of 36% on consumer loans. durbin said that he wanted to pick an interest rate high enough that even the biggest banks would not argue with:


Apr 23, 2010 9:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
rhoadie wrote:
“If Usury be allowed, it is a sure bet that at the end of the game, the Banker will hold all the marks.”
Sir Francis Bacon – “On Usury”

Apr 23, 2010 9:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.