The banking industry does Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) a favor.

She will probably send them all fruit baskets:

Four major banks are threatening to withhold campaign donations to Senate Democrats in anger over Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) attacks on Wall Street.

Representatives from financial powerhouses Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America recently met in Washington and discussed the growing hostility towards big business within the Democratic ranks, according to a Reuters report Friday.

We’re not talking about a lot of money, here: in total, probably less than hundred grand or so (there’s a $15K cap per committee per bank).  So it’s not enough to actually hurt the Democrats, but is enough for the Democrats to excite their base with.  To the point where you almost have to wonder whether the fix is in.

…Nah.  It’s a dirty little secret of This Thing Of Ours that there really isn’t much in the way of clever machinations going on.  Heck, there are days when people aspire to the level of mediocre machinations. Which is mildly depressing, in its way. It would be nice to think that somebody out there has a plan…

Moe Lane

PS: No, you’re correct: I’m not worried about this. Democratic rhetoric on big banks is like their rhetoric on global warming and the ‘War on Women:’ it’s intended to be red meat that’s strictly for their base only.  The average voter doesn’t really care.


7 thoughts on “The banking industry does Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) a favor.”

  1. No it isn’t much money per bank. Start adding the contributions of the people who work at the bank, those have an interest in the bank, and all of those who have an interest in the deals made by the bank and soon you’re talking about a lot of money.

    1. Yeah, but .. long tale demonstrating that people *do not vote their class interest* snipped .. people do not vote their class interest .. what makes you think they donate their class interest?

      1. I did not say class interests at all.

        I implied personal interests – these banks as an employer. I implied interests of those who have an ownership in these financial institutions – personal interests. I implied the personal interests of those who have a stake in the deals these banks make.
        Class interests are a lot more nebulous than the interests that surround the pocketbook or other interests – which I did not mention – that go towards deeply held beliefs; beliefs that have nothing to do with rationality or economics.
        I am not saying you are a Marxist A Cat – far from it – I am saying that the motivations of humans are not based solely on the things Marx argued about. Human motivations are a mish-mash of one thing or another thing – lots of things – and trying to make generalizations apply to individuals is a foo”s errand.

          1. Okay, I guess you need the long story.
            Former friend used to talk about the small town he grew up in. The main employer in town was an oil refinery, I forget which major gas station chain they sold to but it’s one you’d recognize. For purposes of the story, let’s pretend they were Union 76.
            There was a Union 76 station three blocks from the refinery, but there was a competitors’ station only one block away .. and the refinery workers *routinely* gassed up there.
            In short, you are correct that I’m not a marxist .. but I do not find your assertion that employees of major banks or Wall Street firms would understand, let alone agree with the goals of their employers .. and that’s kind of a perquisite for them to *donate* in line with ’em.

  2. One wonders what the point here is .. I mean, it’s gonna be spun a bunch of different ways – “Warren is effective! The right people hate her!” – “The banksters are in league with the GOP! That’s why they won’t fund Dems!” – ..
    So .. which of these goals were the intended one(s)?

    1. The one positive is that Big Businesses are less likely to use Democrats against reform minded Republicans ( remember the VA Gov race?)

Comments are closed.