Wall Street loves Hillary! She's their girl! Raises More Than Obama, Giuliani, Romney Combined!

[flpoljunkie]

Perhaps this explains why Hillary has been so quiet about Harry Reid saying the Senate does not have time to deal with private equity, hedge fund reform this year...

Clinton Eclipses Obama, Giuliani, Romney in Wall Street Money
By Kristin Jensen and Julianna Goldman

Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton raised more money on Wall Street last quarter than Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney combined.

Clinton beat Democratic presidential rival Obama in donations from employees of the top 10 underwriters of U.S. stock offerings, a reversal from previous quarters. The New York senator brought in $748,896 from the firms in July through September, compared with $177,456 for Obama, an Illinois senator.

The former first lady ran even further ahead of top Republicans, led by Giuliani, who brought in $149,925, and Romney, who raised $133,875, federal regulatory filings show.

Clinton's lead in public opinion polls and disciplined campaign is persuading Wall Street to invest in her, said Rogan Kersh, associate dean of New York University's Wagner School of Public Service. ``The reason they call it the smart money is because in the end they bet on the horse that wins,'' Kersh said.

Because of Clinton's strong fundraising, she and Obama widened their advantage in Wall Street cash, bringing in three times as much as the top two Republicans. In the second quarter, she and Obama raised almost twice as much as the top two Republicans -- Giuliani and Arizona Senator John McCain.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ajK1PQvX6tk4

More on this from The Nation's Ari Berman...

Posted 10/09/2007 @ 4:29pm

Dems Fail Litmus Test

The Washington Post reported today that Sen. Harry Reid has informed private-equity funds that the Senate will not be closing the obscenely inequitable tax loophole that allows mega-billionaires to be taxed at 15 percent – lower than most working Americans. Harry says there simply isn't time in the busy Senate schedule. Seriously. And the Post points out that if there isn't time in 2007, there almost certainly won't be in 2008 either – "Congress tends to be leery of tax increases in election years."

I'm sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with the private-equity firms and hedge funders putting "more than 20 lobbying firms" to work for them in the Halls of Congress. Nor is Reid's about face a sign of the Wall Street Execs "increasing their campaign donations to members of Congress." It's simply a jam-packed schedule – who has time to address the shafting of revenues for public infrastructure investment? Rebuilding the shredded social contract? funding health care, education, or new sustainable energy programs? Making up for lost revenues due to insane Bush tax cuts?

As I posted previously, this was a litmus test for Democrats – to see whether the party is capable of truly taking a stand for working people. They have failed it. Rick Perlstein blogged today of Democratic capitulations on this issue and FISA.

Ari Berman noted that Barack Obama – and kudos to him – wasted no time in calling out this bad decision. Within hours, John Edwards had done the same, saying in a released statement, "Incredibly, for an investment of about $6 million dollars in lobbying fees – and another $6 million in political contributions – these elite Wall Street traders preserved a $6 billion tax break for themselves…. We have to end the rigged system in Washington that rewards big corporate interests at the expense of hard-working families."

more...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=241286

[Deep13]

1. Wow, HRC is unstoppable.

It won't be a 49-state sweep or anything, but she is going to crush them in November.

[durrrty libby]

3. I hope so. I am looking forward to it

[emilyg]

19. So am I.

[mark414]

21. and America will blow a huge opportunity

[Deep13]

22. I don't think that opportunity ever really existed.

American imperialism is real and established. Nothing we do on election day will change that.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Two things:

One, Wall Street (i.e. New Yorkers) donating to a New York senator is hardly shocking, no?

Two, Wall Street doesn't love Hillary. Wall Street loves a winner. And given the state of the Republican primary, Hillary's the only candidate that looks even remotely like a sure thing.

Between these two things, I'm not surprised at all by this. What would be far more shocking is if Hillary wasn't leading in donations by stock brokerages.

[flpoljunkie]

4. One thing. All the more reason not to vote for Hillary, the hedge fund/private equity candidate.

More on this from The Nation's Ari Berman...

Posted 10/09/2007 @ 4:29pm

Dems Fail Litmus Test

The Washington Post reported today that Sen. Harry Reid has informed private-equity funds that the Senate will not be closing the obscenely inequitable tax loophole that allows mega-billionaires to be taxed at 15 percent – lower than most working Americans. Harry says there simply isn't time in the busy Senate schedule. Seriously. And the Post points out that if there isn't time in 2007, there almost certainly won't be in 2008 either – "Congress tends to be leery of tax increases in election years."

I'm sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with the private-equity firms and hedge funders putting "more than 20 lobbying firms" to work for them in the Halls of Congress. Nor is Reid's about face a sign of the Wall Street Execs "increasing their campaign donations to members of Congress." It's simply a jam-packed schedule – who has time to address the shafting of revenues for public infrastructure investment? Rebuilding the shredded social contract? funding health care, education, or new sustainable energy programs? Making up for lost revenues due to insane Bush tax cuts?

As I posted previously, this was a litmus test for Democrats – to see whether the party is capable of truly taking a stand for working people. They have failed it. Rick Perlstein blogged today of Democratic capitulations on this issue and FISA.

Ari Berman noted that Barack Obama – and kudos to him – wasted no time in calling out this bad decision. Within hours, John Edwards had done the same, saying in a released statement, "Incredibly, for an investment of about $6 million dollars in lobbying fees – and another $6 million in political contributions – these elite Wall Street traders preserved a $6 billion tax break for themselves…. We have to end the rigged system in Washington that rewards big corporate interests at the expense of hard-working families."

more...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=241286

[rinsd]

15. More of that politics of hope from Team Smear 4 Obama

Private Equity

Employees at the top 10 hedge funds and private-equity firms, whose tax rates are under assault from lawmakers including Obama and Clinton, didn't give nearly as much to White House hopefuls. The leader in both groups was Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a Democratic presidential candidate who is also chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Dodd, 63, took in $78,900 from the top 10 private-equity companies and top 10 hedge funds, compared with $50,573 for Clinton, the only rival to come close. The top Republican to raise money from private-equity firms was Romney, 60, with $13,500.

Dodd's Senate job also helped him raise more from top banks than former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 54, who ranks third in national polls of Democratic presidential candidates. Edwards collected just $23,625 from the banks in the third quarter, compared with $54,150 for Dodd.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Exactly why I do not support Chris Dodd who has not spoken out either about Reid's decision.

[creeksneakers2]

23. "Hillary Clinton slams private equity tax rate" Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/07/13/hillary_clinton_condemns_private_equity_tax_break/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News

We're glad to see Senator Clinton has joined us. We hope the other candidates will join in our efforts to ensure hedge fund and private equity managers making hundreds of millions a year no longer pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries," said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.

Very sloppy and biased reporting by the Nation for the OP article. Hillary endorsed ending the tax rate loophole well before the Nation article was published.

Hillary showed great integrity by refusing to back the tax loopholes after receiving so much money. That proves she can't be bought.

[flpoljunkie]

28. Hillary has remained silent since Reid pulled the plug on hedge fund/private equity reform.

[wyldwolf]

5. I'm sure this is perfectly fine with you.

[Major Hogwash]

6. But, remember the meme - she's not a corporatist!

But, when she starts doing commercials for Pepsident toothpaste, I think her cover will be totally blown!

[durrrty libby]

25. And when you start doing commercials for Preparation H.?

[sufrommich]

7. I think Walk Street throws money at whomever they

perceive as the eventual winner. It would be interesting to see if past elections prove that out.

[kstewart33]

8. They're giving $$$ to her because they know

that she's sharp as a tack and she'll be competent and she'll be a centrist.

As greedy as Wall Street can be, their support is essential to winning the presidency.

It's a hard truth, but Clinton knows it, and she's campaigning accordingly.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. And once elected she will take a principled stand against the

obscene tax breaks these guys get, to show her true support for working americans, just as any self-proclaimed progressive would do.


















:sarcasm: for the irony impaired.

[Cameron27]

9. Wallstreet's betting on a winner

and this is surprising somehow?

[Major Hogwash]

11. $12 million to secure $6 billion. That's pretty cheap, but then I always thought she was.

I wonder what her speaking fees will be when she retires and hits the talk circuit.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Whatever it is, it won't be as much as Bill gets.

She just doesn't have the charisma.

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Amazing How People Around Here Will Justify Their Complete 180 Turns

One minute they're talking about how absolutely right Bill Moyers is on corporate influence.

The next minute they sound like Mad Money with Kramer.

Just so they won't feel uncomfortable with their choices.

When I backed Kerry, I was always willing to admit the times when his decisions were problematic.

I guess the world really has turned black and white. All or nothing.

Shame.

[mr715]

30. Kind of like Kucinich

And his 180 degree flip on abortion, stem cell research, burning the flag...




Ahhhhh saints.

[rinsd]

14. Way to mix apples and oranges while smear Hillary!

From the bottom of your first link

"Private Equity

Employees at the top 10 hedge funds and private-equity firms, whose tax rates are under assault from lawmakers including Obama and Clinton, didn't give nearly as much to White House hopefuls. The leader in both groups was Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, a Democratic presidential candidate who is also chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Dodd, 63, took in $78,900 from the top 10 private-equity companies and top 10 hedge funds, compared with $50,573 for Clinton, the only rival to come close. The top Republican to raise money from private-equity firms was Romney, 60, with $13,500.

Dodd's Senate job also helped him raise more from top banks than former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 54, who ranks third in national polls of Democratic presidential candidates. Edwards collected just $23,625 from the banks in the third quarter, compared with $54,150 for Dodd.

Just more bullshit from TEAM SMEAR 4 Obama. Thankfully its stupid and obvious therefore easy to debunk.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. America did quite well with Bill Clinton's choice of investment broker advisors vs.

the usual banking-world economic advisors.

The Goldman-Sachs appointees at Treasury did a good job. The only period of declining income disparity in decades.

[Perry Logan]

17. Somebody needs to alert all these progressive organizations that don't know Hillary is Evil...

The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php
===============================================================================================================================
Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%

[SaveElmer]

18. Excellent...good news for Hillary...

I'll K&R that though I know that is not the reason you posted it!

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. I think they expect her to win in 2008

Did you notice how, in 2006 after overwhelmingly backing Republicans for Congress for over a decade, that corporate money began flowing to Democrats across the board for Congressional elections?

Here is New York State where I live, no one was tougher on Wall Street than Attorney General Elliot Spitzer who spear headed all the investigations of abuse and corruption on Wall Street that the Bush Administration refused to touch. And then a funny thing happened. Elliot Spitzer became the overwhelming favorite to be elected Governor in 2006 and suddenly Wall Street money began pouring into his campaign coffers. Rats like to flock to a floating ship.

[SergeyDovlatov]

26. I don't think they give HRC money because altruistic love for humanity

I think they expect her to win and take care of them.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. They didn't expect Spitzer to take care of them. They did expect him to win

So they gave him money. I think that is the clearest case in point I can think of for how big money operates in the electoral process in this nation. First they look for someone who will take care of them who can win, but once they are convinced of who is likely to win they give money to them regardless. When push comes to shove smart big money always wants to approach whoever wins with "we supported you" as the opening line for all subsequent dialog.

[UGADUer]

29. I don't think it's humane to want the HMO's favorite Senator

to be President.

[flpoljunkie]

31. Dem strategist, "Barack's future is going to be determined not on Wall Street, but on Main Street.."

Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that while Wall Street ``behaves like a futures market,'' Obama still has a good shot at the nomination. "Barack's future is going to be determined not on Wall Street, but on Main Street -- in small towns all across Iowa and New Hampshire and if he wins there, Wall Street doesn't matter,'' said McMahon, who isn't aligned with any campaign.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=ajK1PQvX6tk4

[cobalt1999]

32. Of course, she leading with the Wall Street money.

It's like Vegas, the majority of money is going to the favorite. If anyone else was leading like Hillary, then they'd get the lions share of money too.

No surprise.

[Fabio]

33. She is the Senator of NY

and a known quantity around here. (I live in Manhattan). Either way, I am happy there are more finance types looking and giving to Dems.