Tuesday, July 6, 2010 - 2:52 PM
In the wake of financial regulation moving its way through Congress, both the Washington Post and Politico have stories out on Wall Street's backlash against the Democrats. The Post's lead:
A revolt among big donors on Wall Street is hurting fundraising for the Democrats' two congressional campaign committees, with contributions from the world's financial capital down 65 percent from two years ago.
The drop in support comes from many of the same bankers, hedge fund executives and financial services chief executives who are most upset about the financial regulatory reform bill that House Democrats passed last week with almost no Republican support. The Senate expects to take up the measure this month.
This fundraising free fall from the New York area has left Democrats with diminished resources to defend their House and Senate majorities in November's midterm elections. Although the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have seen just a 16 percent drop in overall donations compared with this stage of the 2008 campaign, party leaders are concerned about the loss of big-dollar donors.
And now Politico:
With the financial reform bill likely to hit President Barack Obama’s desk in coming weeks, Wall Street's top political players are warning Democrats to brace themselves for the next phase of the fight: the fundraising blowback.
Democrats who backed the bill are finding big banks far less eager to host fundraisers and provide campaign cash heading into the tightly contested midterm elections this fall, insiders say.
Some banks, in fact, have discussed not attending or hosting fundraisers at all for the next few months. Goldman Sachs is already staying away from all fundraisers, according to two sources. The company would not comment.
“I think at least in the short term there is going to be a great deal of frustration with people who were beating the hell out of us — then turning around and asking for money,” said a senior executive of a Wall Street bank.
Based on these stories, when if the Democrats get hammered come November, expect a lot of pixels and ink spilled on the awesome power of the financial sector to get what it wants in Washington. And don't believe a word of it.
This is the lobbying equivalent of a good but struggling baseball club calling a team meeting right before they play the worst ballclub in the league. That is to say, sports managers often save their rousing speeches before a game they're pretty likely to win, so they can claim that their motivation was what led their team to victory.
As Charlie Cook notes, the Democrats are heading into a Category 5 political disaster come November. This has nothing to do with FinReg, and everything to do with a struggling economy, an ecological disaster in the Gulf, fired-up conservatives, and disaffected liberals. Wall Street antipathy is really the least of their problems.
I'm laying this marker down now -- unless we see some shocking upsets among the New York delegation (the real target of Wall Street's ire), analysts who proclaim the awesome political power of financial sector will be doing so with sloppy facts and sloppy argumentation.
In recent years, I've seen some very... let's say exaggerated arguments about the power of political lobbies in Washington. They do possess political influence, but much of that influence rests on the perception that they can make or break electoral fortunes. In Wall Street's case, however, they're pushing on a door that was already wide open.
Which is not surprising. Powerful interests tend to apportion their money to candidates they think will win. Indeed, to use a term of art, Wall Street's political preferences appear to be -- dare I say it -- pro-cyclical.
.... but this is a rebuttal to commentary that has not yet appeared.
What I've seen so far are stories about how Wall Street's contributions to Democratic campaign committees are down. That's it. The WaPo story contains some hints that part of this was due to frustration with the campaign committees as much as with the Democrats or the Obama administration, but wasn't clear as to whether this frustration was shared by financial industry contributors or was primarily a liberal thing.
Basically, Wall Street is facing a situation in which its money is welcome in politics, and politicians' association with Wall Street is not. Association with Wall Street is politically toxic right now, an unusual position for moneyed interests. If financial regulation were the only thing driving reduced contributions to Democratic committees right now, the Republican campaign committees would be cleaning up right now -- especially since the GOP is projected to make big gains in November -- but that doesn't seem to be happening.
I have a different theory about the influence of moneyed interests on the parties that I will have to save for another time. Hint: it involves the people who work at those party committees.
I've read stories about how Republican big donors have been holding off giving because they don't like Steele.
I think all these figures actually have to get reported out, though, so at least we should have some idea of what is really happening.
I recall a certain seat (I think it was for the House) that was neck and neck when the limitations on spending were still strong. After the Supreme Court greatly lowered those restrictions the richer candidate simply blew away his opponent. The Democrats are looking to loose seats for a number of reasons, but don't discount the power of money.
Okay I'm sorry but I'm not convinced that lobbyists don't have immense power over Washington. Or that a lobbyist for a big bank would be no less inclined to support a Democratic congressman who championed strong financial reforms that could hurt the bank's bottom line. And isn't much of lobbyists power in paying close attention to the non-sexy policy stuff and details of large, complex legislative texts? There was an article recently on TheAtlantic.com about 5 ways financial lobbyists had already changed the Dodd-Frank bill (see http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/5-ways-lobbyists-influenced-the-dodd-frank-bill/59137/) and I feel like this kind of meddling in details is one of the most significant ways lobbyists have power.
I would just like you to perhaps elaborate a little on why you think that financial lobbyists aren't reacting to Democrat's pressure on their industry and why you think "arguments about the power of political lobbies in Washington" are so "exaggerated."
PS. I'm going to Tufts next year, thinking of majoring in IR, maybe going to Fletcher someday, I enjoy your blog!
Fund raisers and campaign donations may get less, but it will not dry up and it will simply move to the other party that probably best fulfill the interests of the banks and financial institutions. Plus they can always pay more for lobbying and introduce complex legalase into bills that gives room to the institutions to continue to profit. Financial insitutions will always look out for their own interest and like other companies will spend millions to make sure the law get passd in a way that minimize damage to their existing business models - Greg
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE