Wall Street Firms Funnel Millions to Bush

[manhattan]

@elucidator

Given the everyday munificence of white Christians in suits, how can one doubt that a loving and just Providence has placed money and power in the hands of the wise and the just?

Mr. O’Neal is black. I’m unaware of his religion, if any.

No one should be surprised that Wall St. gives disproportionately to Republicans and to President Bush in particular. As the article points out, the industry is characterized by high earners who benefit from lower taxes both from personal lower taxes and from higher investment from clients whose discretionary income increases with lower taxes. Bush gets a bonus on account of his not-conservative spending habits, which has led to a lot of new government debt to trade – a major profit center for the big investment houses.

That said, Merrill is pretty far off the scale even by Wall St. standards and can’t fairly be put forth as representative of the industry. Again, unsurprising – they have someting of a reputation for being Catholic ex-Marines. Goldman is closer to 50/50 between the two parties contribution wise (that’s overall, I don’t know the specific figures for the presidential race) and as a free bonus have contributed a recent Democratic Treasury Secretary and a liberal member of the Senate. J.P. Morgan Chase is also close to 50/50. Lehman leans toward the Democrats, and the other big houses tend to be closer to 60/40 or 70/30 than Merrill’s 80/20.

My boss, a Republican, comes around every year for Chuck Shumer. Go figger. I’ve never given and there have never been any repurcussions.

[manhattan]

@Illinois_Boy

Is O’Neal coercing other executives at Merrill Lynch? Probably.

I’ve met Mr. O’Neal. I have complete, unwavering confidence that if he were coercing other executives at Merrill, he’d have gathered a lot more checks than 157, or whever the total turns out to be when it’s all added up. A lot.

[iamme99]

@Duke

Of course, with or without Merrill’s employees, the GOP will do well from its industry. Individuals employed by the securities and investment sector have donated $9,027,033 to the R’s this cycle as opposed to $5,873,017 for the D’s (source: Opensecrets) Biggest donors by sector to Republicans: retirees at $18,251,965, against a little over $6 million by retirees to the Dems. Hmmm…

And I wonder how many of the lower-level players in Merrill have seen or heard this story and hoping to curry some favor with the boss, on their own volition, kick in money to Bush also? This can be like a snowball rolling down the hill.

[Mr.Moto]

I don’t regard it as changing the subject at all, if the subject is coercing political donations. The biggest culprits in this area are America’s trade unions.

[iamme99]

@Mr. Moto

I don’t regard it as changing the subject at all, if the subject is coercing political donations. The biggest culprits in this area are America’s trade unions.

And Mr. Moto, a known Republican sympathizer coincidentally points the finger of truth at the trade unions, which of course, mostly if not totally, support Democrats. So I have to ask on what facts or evidence have you used to arrive at this conclusion? I hope you can provide a pointer to a study or something that corroborates your statement.

[Mr.Moto]

How about this, iamme99. My father and grandfather were United Steelworkers Union members for decades, and my brother is one today. They were automatically signed up when they got jobs in steel mills in Pennsylvania.

The system works today as it always has. Union members pay their dues. Unions make political contributions, both directly and indirectly. But the decisions of where these contributions go aren’t made by union rank-and-file members. They’re made by union bigwigs.

This notable example from the recent campaign should make this point nicely.

Harry Beck, in the 1980’s, objected to this. His case against the Communications Workers of America went to the Supreme Court, who found in Beck’s favor. Refunds can now be sought on costs not directly incurred by collective bargaining.

The case I cited above shows, however, that unions even today aren’t living up to their obligations under Beck. I can cite cases like George Gally’s all day. Just say the word.

Now, if you can show proof otherwise, I’d love to see it. You’ve seen my citations. Put up some of yours.

[Fear_Itself]

You gotta love the conservative mindset. Whenever they are challenged on their ethical standards, the knee-jerk response is to lower the bar. “We’re no worse than the Teamsters” is hardly a laudable goal. It’s right up there with “We’re no more brutal than Saddam”.

[Mr.Moto]

Better than the liberal mindset, which basically consists of criticizing the speck in someone else’s eye while ignoring the plank in your own.

If the Democratic Party and its lackeys were serious about cleaning up the serious problem of coercing political donations from the unwilling, they’d have to begin in their own backyard.

If they’re unwilling to do this, but want to criticize anyway, they’re hypocrites. Plain and simple.

[Shodan]

@Fear Itself

You gotta love the conservative mindset. Whenever they are challenged on their ethical standards, the knee-jerk response is to lower the bar.

No, the knee jerk response is to point out that there has been no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Republicans in this case at all. There has been on the part of the unions, who disproportionately contribute to Democrats.

Should business organizations coerce their members to donate to candidates and causes they don’t support? No. Who has been doing that? Unions, who are disproportionately Democrat.

In other words, it is not a tu quoque. Applying the same ethical standard to both sides, the Republicans pass, and the unions fail.

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr.Moto]

Dopers being a freedom-loving bunch, even the most liberal of them cannot defend the practices of labor unions in this area. I see nobody stepping to the plate to endorse the notion that it’s fine for unions to ignore the wishes of their rank-and-file and make political donations according to the whims of their leaders.

I see nobody, too, defending unions for not properly living up to their obligations under the Beck ruling and subsequent executive orders.

So, when you can’t defend the indefensible, I guess you have to fall back on that old standby - namely, attacking the messenger.

[Rashak_Mani]

Unions are wrong for not informing… but making private business employees contribute is wrong too.

[Dead_Badger]

@Mr. Moto

Dopers being a freedom-loving bunch, even the most liberal of them cannot defend the practices of labor unions in this area. I see nobody stepping to the plate to endorse the notion that it’s fine for unions to ignore the wishes of their rank-and-file and make political donations according to the whims of their leaders.

I see nobody, too, defending unions for not properly living up to their obligations under the Beck ruling and subsequent executive orders.

Precisely, which makes it all the more strange that you should use this tack to bash those objecting to Wall Street coercion. It’s not even a lame tu quoque, it’s “somebody else quoque but if we harp on about it enough we can derail the point of the thread.”

Personally I strongly dislike unions’ political donations, and here in the UK the only union I ever had the chance to join (I did not) made a clear distinction in its subs - there was a part for basic union representation services, and an optional political component. If you did not wish to pay this, you did not have to. You were actively encouraged to, which annoyed me enough not to join at all. I have no idea if this state of affairs was a matter of law but I strongly suspect that it was. Don’t get me started about student unions (my benighted colleagues while I was at university decided to use student money to fly some reprobates over to that year’s G8 summit to join in the anarchist protests).

Regardless, this is entirely irrelevant to the OP. If you’d like a thread about how naughty unions are, then by all means start one, and I’m sure it will be generously patronised. This one is not about that, or at least it wasn’t.

[Mr.Moto]

I wasn’t bashing those who objected to Wall Street coercion. However, there is no proof of such in this case, and no other instances presented.

On the other hand, there is clear evidence of coercion of donations by unions. If liberals decry coercion on Wall Street, they’re duty bound to decry coercion here as well. Otherwise, their arguments are nothing but self-serving partisan ones, printed for short-term political advantage.

I wasn’t the one who raised the issue of union corruption in this area. But I am in full agreement with it. And it is intimately connected to the topic at hand.

[rjung]

I’m just curious if Mr. Moto and Shodan consider unions to be equal in political strength to Wall Street investors. At least from where I’m sitting, it seems that organized labor in the U.S. has been in a long decline for the last twenty years. Contrast to the investment firms, which are still going strong even after the various scandals of the '80s.

[Mr.Moto]

What does your question have to do with anything, rjung?

I could have a tiny, ineffective political organization, politically insignificant in every way. My best efforts would influence hardly a single voter. I’d be a speck on the radar screen. Say, fr’instance, the International Brotherhood of Buggy-Whip Weavers, Local 1. Mr. Moto, shop steward.

I’d still be obligated to follow the law.

I don’t care if the unions are losing membership, and are politically desperate (incidentally, not the case with all unions). This in no way excuses illegal behavior.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@rjung

I’m just curious if Mr. Moto and Shodan consider unions to be equal in political strength to Wall Street investors. At least from where I’m sitting, it seems that organized labor in the U.S. has been in a long decline for the last twenty years. Contrast to the investment firms, which are still going strong even after the various scandals of the '80s.

No, I consider unions to be of greater political strength than Wall Street investors, because they have something more powerful than money: a large cadre of people who vote the union line. Bodies in the polling place give you more political clout than dollars in the bank, which is why the NRA and AARP wield the influence they do.

[Shodan]

@rjung

I’m just curious if Mr. Moto and Shodan consider unions to be equal in political strength to Wall Street investors. At least from where I’m sitting, it seems that organized labor in the U.S. has been in a long decline for the last twenty years. Contrast to the investment firms, which are still going strong even after the various scandals of the '80s.

Depends on how you define “political strength”. I imagine the willingness of unions in the cited examples to use coercion to force contributions magnifies their influence in a way that legal means do not. And I would guess that various individual unions are as powerful as many individual investment firms. If that is what you meant by “Wall Street investors”, rather than “Wall Street investment firms”.

I am currently a consultant with one of those Wall Street investment firms, and I get periodic memos detailing the rules and procedures necessary for political contributions to be legal. Contrast that with the refusal of some unions to inform their membership of their legal options, and you start to see how dishonest advantage can be used to get an edge.

Regards,
Shodan

[hawthorne]

Dewey Cheatem Undhow
Bodies in the polling place give you more political clout than dollars in the bank, which is why the NRA and AARP wield the influence they do.

It’s marginal bodies that count in a campaign.

[XT]

I don’t know guys…this seems an obvious attempt to slant this story to put it in the worst possible light.

O’Neal eliminated 24,000 jobs, froze pay and steadily pushed out competitors for executive power, including colleagues who had championed his rise up the corporate ladder. “Ruthless,” O’Neal has reportedly told colleagues, “isn’t always bad.”

So it came as no surprise that when O’Neal sent letters to senior executives at Merrill Lynch in early June asking them to contribute to President Bush’s reelection campaign, the response was prompt and generous.

So, first its shown that O’Neal and Merrill Lynch eliminated 24,000 jobs, froze pay, etc. Then it implies that by O’Neal sending out letters, its a form of coersion to the employees, that if they don’t contribute Bad Things will happen to them. And these are supposedly ‘senior executives at Merrill Lynch’ to boot…guys who make, what? 6 figures? 7?

Between June 12 and June 30 of last year, the Bush-Cheney campaign was inundated with 157 checks from Merrill Lynch executives and at least 20 from their spouses; 140 checks were for the maximum allowed by law: $2,000.

Ok, so a total of 157 checks ‘inundated’ the Republicans, supposedly because of O’Neals efforts to blackmail his employees into contributing. For a company of 200, this would be a serious thing, no doubt. However:

@Merrill Lynch's profit scores yearly record

The company, which has spent much of the past three years cutting jobs to rein in costs under Chief Executive Stan O’Neal, added 300 jobs during the quarter, bringing its total number of employees to 48,100.

We are talking about 157 checks from a company of 48,000 employees guys. So, I hardly call that inundated with checks, nor do I think O’Neal was very effective if his intent was to force his employees into contributing to the Republican cause…would you? I think O’Neal simply sent out an advisor to his senior management, most of who would most likely have contributed to the Republicans anyway.

Its a non-story guys. Its someone slanting things so that it LOOKS like there is something here…when there isn’t. And to answer RM’s earlier question:

@RM

What is scarier though to you ? Unions giving money or fat Wall Street cats ? (though giving Union money seems wrong of course…)

Unions giving money seems scarier to me, because of where the money is coming from. If guys with 7 figure salaries want to contribute their money freely, hey…more power too em. However, if I’m a union worker, I’d want my dues to go to other things than political contributions.

Of course, this question gets away from the OP, who was trying to make the case it should be illegal, or that something illegal had occured. I see nothing at all to back this up, based on the facts so far presented.

But I did enjoy 'luci’s posts…no one rants as smoothly as he does IMO. He’s definitely the master.

-XT

[Evil_Captor]

@Mr. Moto

I don’t regard it as changing the subject at all, if the subject is coercing political donations. The biggest culprits in this area are America’s trade unions.

Point conceded that trade unions sometimes coerce political donations. Still: cite? Show me that trade unions are “the biggest culprits.” I would be very surprised if trade unions could begin to approach the coerced donations of corporations.