Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Democrats Haunted by Corporate Ties
President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are promising a climactic clash with Wall Street, but there's a complication in their battle plan: The Democratic Party is closer to corporate America - and to Wall Street in particular - than many Democrats would care to admit.
Wall Street connections could hurt Democrats as the White House pushes for regulatory reform. (AP photo composite by POLITICO)
Former White House counsel Greg Craig has just signed on as an
institutional Sherpa for Goldman Sachs, the iconic financial firm
facing fraud charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt lobbies for Goldman Sachs, Visa and the coal industry. Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle - Obama's first choice to head Health and Human Services - is an adviser for a lobbying firm that represents Charles Schwab, Comcast, Lockheed Martin, Verizon and a host of other corporate interests.
Attorney General Eric Holder once lobbied for Global Crossing - sometimes described as the Democratic Enron - and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel made eight figures in a little more than two years as the Chicago-based managing director at Wasserstein Perella & Co. between jobs as a senior aide in President Bill Clinton's White House and as the congressman representing Illinois's 5th District.
And the Democrats rode to their majorities in the House and the Senate on a wave of cash Emanuel and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer helped them raise from Wall Street. Earlier this month, a hedge fund manager at the center of the Goldman Sachs fraud case held a fundraiser for Schumer in New York.
"It's pathetic," Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said of news that Goldman Sachs has hired Craig. "But it's what goes on around here."
The Republican Party is still emphatically aligned with business, but in most cases unapologetically so. For Democrats, the dance is trickier: How do you reap the financial rewards of corporate America without offending your core political beliefs - or your party's committed base?
Democrats say their willingness to tackle Wall Street with a tough regulatory reform bill is the best evidence that they aren't compromised by their corporate connections. But the regulatory reform push is also evidence that they know just how hard the political winds have shifted against a pro-business wing of the party that gained influence when Democrats were out of power.
The sensitivity is so great that, when a little-known aide to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frankjumped ship for K Street earlier this month, Frank took the unusual step of vilifying him in public.
"I wanted to make clear I share the unhappiness of people at this, and my intention [is] to prohibit any contact between him and members of the staff for as long as I have any control over the matter," Frank said in a press release. "I am therefore instructing the staff of the Financial Services Committee to have no contact whatsoever with [the former aide] on any matters involving financial regulation."
Sensing partisan advantage, Obama - a onetime Wall Street favorite who raised nearly $1 million from Goldman Sachs employees for his 2008 campaign - has been blasting away at Republicans, most notably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who opposes the current Senate version of an overhaul of financial services regulation.
"Now, the Senate Republican leader, he paid a visit to Wall Street a week or two ago. He took along the chairman of their campaign committee. He met with some of the movers and shakers up there," Obama said at a Monday night fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). "I don't know exactly what was discussed. All I can tell you is when he came back, he promptly announced he would oppose the financial regulatory reform."
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn said the president had "demeaned himself and his office" by issuing "political attacks" against Cornyn and McConnell for "doing what Rahm Emanuel did."
Cornyn was referring to a report in The Washington Post noting that, on the same night Obama was blasting McConnell for visiting Wall Street, Emanuel attended a private cocktail reception with Democratic donors there.
Emanuel, in the unusual role of good cop, appears to be working to assuage the fears of investors with less strident language than that used by his boss.
"This is important for America's leadership in the world. We lead in the financial sector. It's one of the parts in the economy we lead. But if people don't trust our market, we can't maintain that leadership. That's why this regulatory reform is not against Wall Street; it's fundamentally in the interest of the economy," he told television interviewer Charlie Rose. "Wall Street, though, has advanced beyond the regulatory supervision, and we need to catch up in a way that ensures that we don't have the crisis we had in the past and we're prepared for future ones."
Schumer's taking heat back home for not protecting the lifeblood of his state's economy, but standing up for Wall Street could cost him dearly in a future bid to be the Senate majority leader.
Some Democrats acknowledge that the legislation - and the harsh anti-Wall Street rhetoric - could cost them campaign contributions from the financial services sector in what is already shaping up to be a tough election year. But that's a price they say they are willing to pay.
"This is a time when politics has to take a back seat to what's good for the American people," said Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "If that means we can't raise money on Wall Street, so be it."
One congressional Democrat said the financial meltdown has forced the party to address regulation.
"It's not as though Democrats got elected and decided, ‘We're going to go after the financial services industry,'" he said.
Craig's hiring shows that even as the Democratic political leaders abandon the Wall Street ship, the party still has people on board.
And though he's getting a cool reception from elected Democrats, Craig has defenders within the party, too.
"Lawyers have a particular degree of latitude in this regard because we still believe that every client is entitled to a defense," said Jack Quinn, chairman of Quinn Gillespie & Associates, who served as counsel to Clinton from 1995 to 1997. "Greg is a superb lawyer, and Goldman is fortunate to have him on its team."
The White House says its rules prevent undue influence from former administration officials, even though former officials can work as advisers rather than as lobbyists to circumvent them.
"The president thinks that he does have tough rules in place, and he's going to continue to make sure that people abide by that rule," White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters Tuesday.
A senior Senate aide disagreed.
"Barack Obama has done his best to demonize lobbyists. [But] we can pretty much predict that [National Economic Council Director] Larry Summers will be making millions working for some hedge fund in two years. And Rahm Emanuel made millions working for Wasserstein Perella. But it's a distinction without a difference: All these folks are cashing in on their contacts to make tons of money. ... We all become more valuable after we serve in government," the aide said.
For liberals, many of whom remain skeptical of Democratic Party ties to the corporate world, the jury won't be in on the regulatory overhaul until the fine print is set.
Only then will they know "whether the Congress has the ability to regulate Wall Street or Wall Street continues to regulate the Congress," Sanders said.



71 Comments so far
Show AllThe more "bi-partisan" the bill is, the least effective it will be. The health reform bill was made bi-partisan and not a single Republican voted for it. The fix is in. The Obamabots will dance and sing and say he fixed health care and tamed Wall Street. I wanna be sedated.
Both the Obamacare and bankster "reform" legislation discussions started at center-right positions.
After more than a year of political theatre, the Obamacare legislation signed last month is simply a 2010 reprint of a 1990 Republican health care "reform" proposal that meets none of the goals Obama ariculated on 1/20/09.
Even if the Democrats' current bankster bill remains unaltered by Republican interests all the way to signing (this would be a first for Obama), it will not have any effect on banksters' behavior or taxpayer risk.
We are more likely to witness Obama capitulate to Republicans on the bankster bill thereby enhancing the banksters' power and increasing US taxpayers' risk in the serial financial crisis sure to follow.
I thought the Bankster will have to put their own money into a bailout fund and even then the Bank would be dissolved.
Sorry, glenn ford, that's in some other universe.
Our only chance is publicly financed elections and no votes for corporate funded politicians. Until then, it will just get worse. Check out American Independent Movement on Facebook. Let's all become fans.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Gephardt and Daschle are both perfect examples of corruption within the Democratic party. They both serve their corporate masters after having passed through the revolving door from government to the private sector where they are now being paid back for having served the corporations while they were in office.
Interestingly, Gephardt and Daschle are, along w/John Kerry, responsible for sandbagging Howard Dean in his run for the presidency in 2004. These craven dems preferred to see Bush in office for another 4 years than to have someone bring real change to government.
Trusting Gephardt and Daschle to reform Wall Street is like trusting Wile E. Coyote to keep the roadrunner safe.
After wintnessing how successful Rove was in getting record corporate campaign contributins by kicking the moderates out of the Republican Party during the Dubya era, Rahm has applied the same model to the Democratic Party.
Now that Rahm has winnowed the party down to only pro-corporate electeds, the Dems are getting more corporate money than the Republicans.
Republicans and Democrats have only one mission...to outdo the other party in corporate contributions. Every time we vote for either party we are contributing to the problem and hampering the solution.
They're all tied at the hip ... pocket that is. Until the revolving door(government <-> corporate <-> lobby) is shut down, stamped out, blasted into the stratosphere nothing less, nothing else will cure the problems we have faced and will continue to face. Regulations/laws are only as good as they are written and interpreted and enforced. All that is dependent upon a government willing to do what is just(as in justice) for the people ... not for corporate benefit or financial gain on anyone's part ... present or future.
We are all quite familiar with how Congress writes regulations/laws ... with special interests, corporations, lobbyists 'pushing the pen'. Then when you have corporate hacks appointed to government agencies ... are WE THE PEOPLE going to actually believe government has any interest in doing what is just?
Remember, whatever is written has then to be interpreted and then has to be enforceable. Granted, yesterday's SCOTUS decision on the dog-fighting videos as free speech has nothing to do with the Wall Street/banking/government connection and corruption but it just goes to show you it all depends on who is doing the interpreting and what size shoes they're wearing. Same as what happened with SCOTUS deciding corporations have the same right to free speech as the individual ... and we all know money talks really loudly and powerfully in the Capital ... of capitalism.
I believe your good idea will never come about until public financing of elections is the only method of candidates getting money.
No money from private sources, no money for issue adds 30 days before the election, no more media run "debates."
Absolutely! I have always fully endorsed complete campaign finance reform. Keeping money out of campaigns is critical. Your suggestions are right to the point.
DCH, SCOTUS has made it clear we cannot keep corporate money out of politics, but we can provide publicly funded election money to noncorporate candidates, and I believe that publicly funded candidates will look more and more attractive to voters in spite of corporate efforts to smear them.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Or if there are media run debates, they must include every candidate who has achieved ballot status, in any state if it is a national election. The MSM high-handedly excludes all alternate voices from major debates. And we need lots more improvement in the questions and the format of any debate so that people have a chance to explain, not just sound bite.
Joe
Aha! Somebody else actually heard about that!
These seem to be people that have a death wish for the United States.
They must have taken a course on how to make money while the nation sinks.
Could it be this is what the tea baggers are all up in arms about?
While the tea baggers are indeed reacting to this dysfunction, they are only acknowledging 50% of the root of the problem.
Teabaggers view government as the sole root of the problem whereas corporate control of government is the 50% of the root that they not only don't acknowledge, but support.
The Teabags need to be educated to the corporate control.
If I had my choice I certainly would choose less government over too much government, but I certainly would dissolve corporate power through legislation.
Since the Finance Capitalists and Corporate Fascists own the duopoly lock, stock, and barrel--with a few exceptions--lots of luck on the "legislation".
The US has two parties: Right (Democrats) and Even More Right (Republican).
That's how you got a Democrat Health Insurance "Reform" that "reforms" by expanding and even compelling buying insurance from for profit Health Insurers.
Don't the 'Tea baggers' know that the Boston Tea Party was against the East India Company? A global corporation? What kind of history do they teach in the US?
Corporations did 9/11. Just like in 1933 when Smedley Butler exposed the coup attempt against FDR by corporations.
The tea baggers are bought and sold by the corporations--hired, bused in, and the events choreographed and publicized for the main stream media.
Hundreds of thousands demonstrated against Iraq under Bush--millions--and how much play did they get?
The Right Wing's usual playing of the petite bourgeoisie card and National Socialism disguised as "populism".
It includes racism, naturally, and organizations like "Oath Keepers" designed to infiltrate the local police forces.
Merely by the way and a fine point the petite bourgeoise are usually too thick to grasp, since their reading, besides the "Bible" and "Mein Kampf" seldom extends to Das Kapital--Marx specifically excluded them as an economic class from the definition of "Capitalist", not only because they were small-scale but because of his definition of how the genuine Capitalist exploits labor.
As long as it oodles of money to get elected to and stay in office, this problem will remain.
You are right on. Without meaningful campaign reform this country is going down the tube. The recent Supreme decision that gives unlimited voice to entities who cannot be prosecuted has rung the death knell for our democratic system. Lobbying must be made illegal and public campaign financing instated. As long as congress is paid for by corporate America we will be disenfranchised. The late health insurance reform debacle is a case in point.
Vice versa --- or just vice.
R lie: you will do better if your boss does.
D lie: we help you do well, not just your boss.
R's a hard sell because it makes no sense. D's a hard sell because it is subject to empirical test: voters helped; D did not.
The rest of the myths of wussy Ds and stubborn Rs stem from this. The Ds sell one line to sponsors, another to the public. This can be little mystery to lobbyists: this is what they pay for.
"Give me $X figures for PR, and I will say Change but not change *you.*"
It's not a one-way negotiation. The pol comes with a proffer. The Dem often comes with a threat: "Treat me right or I will fulfill a campaign promise."
Yesterday, somebody asked me why the Republicans are speaking out against the next round of bailouts. Does anyone have a pithy answer?
Joe
jclientelle, sure, they're just trying to get elected. Once people realize that corporate politicians lie, and will always be corporate politicians, the answer is clear. DON'T vote for them!
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
The elite will sober up a bit when they realize the next phase of trickle down is their blood.
Goldman Sachs realizes they can make more money on bad mortgages than good ones. They make loans to the most unqualified people they can find, sell the mortgages to other investors and then turn around and short sell them. When the mortgages go bad Goldman Sachs make a near 100% profit on the short sell.
Doesn't this sound like the plot of "The Producers"? Two guys decide they can make more money with a Broadway flop than a Broadway hit, so they deliberately put on the most awful play they can, i.e. "Springtime for Hitler, a Romp in the Berchtesgaden with Adolf and Eva".
It would be really funny if only it were a Mel Brooks movie.
So funny - another comment that is exactly what I was taling about with my spouse a few days ago. I wonder if the Goldman Sachs guys used "The Producers" as a model. It is too close. Also it resembles The Producers in the fact that for one failing show, there would be many, many times 100% lost, as the same bad investment was sold over and over again.
If by some miracle the people upped and paid off their mortgages, then the Bialystocks of Wall Street would have been in quite a jam.
Joe
To be the party of the people or the party of Main Street? That is the question the Democratic Party continues to face. You might be surprised that even today, most Democratic voters still believe that the Democratic Party is trying to be fair to everyone and the clowns over at Daily Hoax and Fluffington Post are living proof. But I believe that the real problem for voters who don't want the Republican Party to come back is who to turn to if not the Democrats. I am ready to give third parties that aren't right wing my ears and will most likely vote for them but most Democratic Party voters, especially the soft ones more than the hard cores, are neutral minded and feel that third parties are powerless and are unwinnable. Granted, I have issues with too many small progressive third parties being scattered everywhere (e.g. Green, Peace, Nader, Socialist, etc...) and if I were presented with all those choices in addition to Democratic and Republican candidates on the ballot, I would have a hard time trying to pick one of them since all of them would beat voting for a Democrat or Republican. I am torn between what to do. On the one hand, I can choose all of those third party progressive candidates but my vote won't count or I can select one of them but still feel bad that the others did not get my vote when they deserved to. I just wished that they would all unite and form one big progressive third party.
"...the clowns over at Daily Hoax and Fluffington Post" Well put, Stanley! You gave me a good laugh. I checked out those sites once and ran for cover.
I understand your dilemma. But I don't think we will get very far with progressive third parties, I think social issues are a corporate set up to divide us - and it's working. I'm promoting independent candidates who take no corporate money. I don't think they will get very far without publicly funded elections, due to corporate media ignoring them and an avalanche of corporate money burying them. But with some cash, they can be heard. And I think the public is getting ready to listen. And if not yet, Wall Street round two is coming up. That should do it.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"And if not yet, Wall Street round two is coming up. That should do it."
I hope so but I am in fear that it will take more than 9 rounds to wake up enough people. About 8-9 months ago when I was introduced to these informative sites, I was so different in thinking. Now that a lot of things are becoming clear but very painfully true, I am not sure about the future except to be prepared for the worst. On the one hand, there are the usual Republican voters and then on the other hand, people still not only clinging to the Democratic Party but also flattering and spoil-bratting them. Good luck on your push for independent candidates out there.
BeForKids--I think just what you do about social issues, divide and conquer is one of oldest games going. But, I think even publicly funded elections won't help as much as Instant Runoff Voting. Otherwise, we will just fund the duopoly.
And I admire your efforts to support independent candidates.
Hand written ballots...Absolutly no voting machines...Diebold and the rest of you screw off...
Also, how about "None of The Above" option on every ballot until we get A realistic choice....
I really really think that if the masses could somehow fund A REAL, OBJECTIVE NON CORPORATE TELEVISED NEWS STATION {similar to LINK TV/DEMOCRACY NOW}, RADIO STATION AND NEWS PAPER there might be some hope in future elections...Hell, we might even get some campaign finance reform past that 5 stooges SCOTUS!!!!!
I think IRV is better but NOTA works for me too. Believe it or not, on my bulletin board is a Wall St J editorial from 1991 The title "Just Say No" supporting NOTA.
I think I saved it because it was one of the rare times I actually agreed with a WSJ editorial, even before it became the War St J. A quote: "...we suspect NOTA would improve the nation's abysmal voter turnout. It might even discourage highly negative campaigning, since candidates would be running for the approval of voters, and not just to offend fewer people than their opponents."
That is totally out of character for the WSJ...Sounds like one of their editors dropped the ball, or maybe at one time they were more sensible and not totally owned by the enemy...
I also feel that the "LOBBYIST PANDEMIC" is an almost insurmountable hurdle, not to mention the INSANE SCOTUS decision to give corporations unlimited campaign spending {and citizenship}...Talk about A boot in the face...Where did they find these people...A NOTA with these "appointed for life" vultures would sure be appropriate, but we really have no say what so ever in this arena...
I am equally blown away with the Bradley Birkenfeld incarceration...I watched Nat. Whistleblowers Association defence attorney Mr. Cohen yesterday on Democracy Now telling Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez that his Investigation has revealed that the "tax evasion" rap was less worrysome than the fact that this was dirty money from Bribes, Judge pay-offs, Third world charity debt ripoffs, payolla to politicians etc. which makes perfect sense..Little wonder this guy got 40 months not to expose 19,000 of the richest millionaires/billionaires in this country for tax evasion...And then to hear about Obama teeing off with U.S A./UBS Chairman Wolf who's vice chaiman is none other than Phil Grahm...A potential Blueprint of who's who in the money buys power scheme of things....All bases covered...
Every thing seems so orchestrated, as if they are just daring the populace to get in their way...I am beginning to believe the Rothschild conspiracy theory, UBS was once called UBS-Warburg from my understanding and their tentacles have been wrapped tightly around the FED since 1913, not to mention the value of gold, price of oil, MAJOR banking from the top down, DeBeers, Mining,Israel,Fiat currency profiteering, yada, yada, yada......
The US has two parties: (1) The Right (Democrat) and (2) Even More Right (Republican).
FDR was a Corporate Fascist and middleman.
Stalin had his number--he called him a cunning man who had extended the life of Capitalism a generation or more.
The real lefists were expelled in the 1950's so that the Democrats could get down with the Republicans in a serious military industrial complex and predatory warfare Capitalist state.
There was a brief crisis in the '60's when a real left reasserted itself and almost brought the whole machine down.
Hubert Humphrey that GREAT PROGRESSIVE WORKING MAN'S COLD WARRIOR EXTRAORDINAIRE WAS JUST PLEASED AS PUNCH I TELL YOU.
But the Democrat and Republican Corporate Fascists got back to business as usual with Reagan and reached close to an apotheosis under the second Bush.
Poor little fellas, with Obama they have so far only managed a mocha-flavored Bush Lite.
Give them time though.
That's all they need--a little more time.
"FDR was a Corporate Fascist and middleman."
The Democratic Party may have seriously regressed over the decades but I see no clear evidence that FDR was a corporate fascist or an enabler of the idea. He passed the New Deal and got a lot of progressive and liberal ideas passed to help the working class. Could you please elaborate on your remark about FDR ?
No.
I will, FDR was a corporate fascist that
saved capitolism from the labor movement
because the streets were getting ready to burn.
The final fix was to take the US into war
invoking European style nationalism.
Yes.
You can't blame the evolution of where America is today on FDR. While the GI bill educated a ton of folks after the war,far too much of this country continued to allow others to do their thinking for them, and all too often that was either a preacher or a politician(¿) with a capitalist/corporatist agenda disguised as Christian populism. We on the left have a tendency to laugh at the complete absurdity of their histrionics, so we miss the fact that our opponents are simply not going to be swayed on certain topics because their magic man in the sky told them *the truth* in a book written by a bunch of circumcised shepherds and goatherds in the middle eastern desert a few thousand years ago.
Support your local organic family farmers.
Thank you nosmokes for a thoughtful and thorough response.
"Emanuel, in the unusual role of good cop... " The authors misunderstand Emanuel. His role hasn't changed. On his right, good cop. On his left, bad cop. If he reversed that behavior, now THAT would be unusual and not only unlikely, but irrational and inconceivable.
It's Obama who is playing the role of two faces. Poor guy will end up with multiple personalities by the time his tenure ends. But that's what happens when you make deals with the devil. Oh well, at least he will be very rich.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Exactly my reaction to that "good cop" comment, BeForKids. Rahm is definitely a suck upwards, kick downwards kind of guy.
Joe
The Republicrats fall into two sides. Republicans are GOP and Democrats are GOP lite.
When are we going to learn that the easiest and most efficient way to stop these ongoing and relentless corporate "confrontations" with our political system is to correct the source of all of these problems -- which are under regulated corporations. Until we at least remove the personhood from corporations, all of our systems -- political, legal, military, health, etc. -- will be continually under "attack." Here is a site that I put up in 1993 that goes into more detail regarding the damage that these sociopathic organizations are inflicting upon us; it also offers some practical (but difficult) solutions:
http://www.sonic.net/~taryfast/us.html
There are several different ways to remove Corporate Personhood.
Tea baggers get lots of media coverage, anti war movement gets very little [even tho the anti war movement is numerically bigger].
Sarah Palin gets lots of media coverage, Noam Chomsky gets little.
Few know who Evo Morales is, most Americans can name three sports stars, four TV actors and three newscasters.
Get the picture? Television is the device via which the corporate elite defines YOUR intellect.
Kill your television.
"Kill your television."
I don't know that killing the television alone will do the trick. The media, not the television, is the problem and they are the ones that need to be punished. I may keep the TV off but I won't kill it because we never know when we just might finally get our days of rejoicing should we ever live to see the days when progressive and liberal causes finally win and see the light of day.
You have gotten to the root of the problem. TV is the poison that keeps us enslaved. If most people stopped watching it could change things very quickly. Unfortunately, it's a habit I don't see most American's kicking until things get a lot worse.