The Big Banks Pick The Winner — It's Willard Romney

Source: Decline of the Empire

In a story that didn’t get nearly the attention it deserves, McClatchy’s Andrew Dunn informs us that Big banks have picked their candidate, and it’s Romney. The story appeared in the Charlotte Observer because that’s where Bank of America is headquartered. Let’s give this story a little love, shall we?

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The country’s biggest banks are overwhelmingly supporting Mitt Romney’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination, an analysis of federal campaign contributions shows.

[left, a cartoon from the America's original Gilded Age, source.]

Employees at the five largest U.S. banks by assets, including Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., had given Romney about $600,000 through the first three quarters of 2011, according to the most recent filings available from the Federal Election Commission.

The second-largest recipient of bank employee contributions, President Barack Obama, had far less, about $200,000, the analysis showed. The Republican presidential hopeful with the second-highest total, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, dropped out of the race in mid-August.

Romney received more from employees of those top five banks than all the other candidates combined, helping make the former Massachusetts governor the best-financed candidate in the Republican nomination battle, which is heating up in South Carolina ahead of Saturday’s primary.

$600,000 going to Mitt Romney is a drop in the bucket. The more interesting data came later in Dunn’s piece.

Charlotte-based Bank of America’s employees and PACs have given more than $1 million to candidates for president and Congress this cycle, according to the latest data from the research group Center for Responsive Politics. That’s half of what peer Goldman Sachs has donated so far.

The commercial banking industry as a whole has donated more than $10 million, the center’s data show. The entire finance, insurance and real estate sector is the top political giver this election cycle, with more than $135 million so far.

“The financial sector at large is continuing to be the largest sector in terms of campaign contributions and trying to influence policy through political money,” said David Donnelly, national campaigns director at Public Campaign, an organization that pushes for campaign reform. “Even as the economy is not doing so well, campaign contributions from the banking sector seem to be increasing.”

Now we’re talking! That phrase the “finance, insurance and real estate sector” may be familiar to you. It is often abbreviated as the FIRE sector of the economy, meaning the parasitic, non-productive, wealth-extracting, rent-seeking sector of the economy. Looking at past bribes campaign donations from finance alone, the numbers are staggering.

“We’ve seen a massive shift from Obama to the Republican candidates on the part of the financial industry,” said Carmen Balber of Consumer Watchdog, a California nonprofit that advocates for taxpayers and consumers. “Obviously, part of that has to do with a competitive primary. But we’ve definitely seen the financial services industry publicly chastise the president for going after financial reform.”

But with the stakes so high, some consumer advocates believe the financial services field will take advantage of the unshackling afforded by Citizens United.

“We have no doubt that the industry will wade in significantly once the players are set,” Balber said.

The influence of corporate money has long been decried by consumer advocates, and giving from banks even more so in the wake of the financial meltdown.

The final report from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission cited the fact that between 1999 and 2008, the financial sector spent more than $1 billion on campaigns as a factor.

“What troubled us was the extent to which the nation was deprived of the necessary strength and independence of the oversight necessary to safeguard financial stability,” the report reads.

And here come the super PACs.

The influence of deep-pocketed donors is under particular scrutiny this year with the growing influence of super PACs. Those organizations can accept unlimited contributions from corporations or individuals so long as they do not coordinate directly with a candidate.

They were created after the landmark Citizens United case in 2010, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that campaign contributions are political speech protected by the Constitution.

Even I must admit that this story is stale. The story is always the same — No Change or Things Getting Worse (e.g. Citizens United). So let’s liven this discussion up a bit. As you may know, Stephen Colbert formed his own super Pac and handed off control of the money to Jon Stewart (Bonus Video below). Apparently, Colbert has raised a lot of money (unlike this blog) and has even started putting out TV political ads.

And what are Colbert and Stewart doing with their money? Look and learn.

This is the same kind partisan nonsense that you might expect any special interests to run. Hopey-Changey knows that corporations are people too. He just doesn’t say it outloud like Romney does. Colbert could be using his super PAC money to satirize the role of money in politics. Hopeless.

Bonus Video — From the Comedy Channel

Read more at Decline of the Empire