Wall Street Contributing Nearly Twice As Much To Obama As McCain

NY Daily News :

Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.

Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.

Read the whole story: NY Daily News

Comments

[Vyvjala]

Wall Street, better known as "Robber's Row."..........................

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

It must be a great comfort to some, that these Wall Streeters also backed gWb, aka worst pResident ever!

[imalonghorn]

Am I just being a wide-eyed Obama supporter by saying : "Is this bad'? Almost every hard core economist on CNBC , i.e. Kudlow, hates Obama and any democrat for that matter because of the promise of raised taxes. They also think that Bush administration should take no blame for current economic despair. So this article is quite surprising to me.

Obama 9.5 million-Mccain 5 million. With all of the money that Obama's raised isn't the percentage of Wall St donations still smaller?

Okay now I'm rambling goodbye.

[tel8034]

This says a lot.

The Republicans have always been the BFF's of Wall Street, but even now Wall Street is saying that Obama is better for the economy.

This must be a blow to McCain and the Republicans .......... They are losing ground with the Christian Conservatives, and now Wall Street ............... Who's next?

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Good sign for 0bama, Wall Street always backs winners it looks like.

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

BTW has anyone seen the "Straight Talk Plane"? A fully customized Boeing 737 that he just traveled to visit the dictator in Columbia. McBush is for a free trade agreement with Columbia with few environmental and trade rules while 0bama is against the trade agreement. I guess Columbia and other foreign dictators that are paying most of McBush's campaign staff for him are reaping the benefits of their lobbyist money. People can try and bring 0bama down in the mud with McBush but you could not have two different types of campaigns.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5285639

[dentuso]

Unfortunately it flipped on the tarmack this morning. Everyone's alright, though, because it flopped immediately thereafter.

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

ROTFL. He should have painted it with a picture of Shamu like Southwest has on some of their planes going to Orlando.

http://www.skytanking.com/images/Shamu.jpg

[hoopesaz]

Obama's objection is simply that it will cost him union votes if he were to support it. Nothing more.

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

We have quid pro quo with McBush and none with 0bama. We have too clear cases where McBush has written letters or more to curry favors for his lobbyist buddies. First he wrote a letter for Paxon communications to get a FCC license. Second McBush started and investigation into the air fuel tankers so that Charlie Black's clients at Airbus would be awarded a huge military contract. I'm sure McBush has given his lobbyist buddies dozens of special favors behind the scenes through the years. That's why even B ush calls him the most sanctimonious politician in Washington when he talks about reform. To be fair 0bama has not been in Washington long enough to have enough power to have the influence that lobbyists want to buy.

[nogimmicks]

The current regime, carefully supported by the Media, 1/3rd of the big money and 2/3rds of the Goverment, brought misery to the ordinary people: inflation, gas prices, decline in education, science, healthcare, housing, sinking dollar. However, most of the companies, with the exception of the oil companies and those directly benefiting from the war, suffer under the current regime just as well. I think that is the reason.

[dentuso]

Hear hear. Well said.

[williamg]

Wall Street realizes that an attack Iran is bad for business.

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

Three reasons Wall Street is donating to 0bama instead of McBush.

1. Would you as a businessperson donate to a presidential candidate that says the economy is not his "strong suit"? Answer unequivocally NO.

2. 0bama is not only ahead in EVERY poll he is an over 2-1 favorite to win the presidency. Wall Street does not back losers.

3. The last reason is most obvious like most Americans B ush has been a terrible failure for Wall Street as well as Main Street. McBush will govern with all the same failed policies. At the end of the Clintoon presidency the Dow was at 11,500 today over 7 years later the Dow is at about 11,200 and that does not factor in the fall of the dollar and the losses are huge. For comparison when Clintoon started his presidency the Dow was at 3,500.

So anyone trying to spin this as Wall Street wanting to own one candidate versus another, you are just lying.

[dentuso]

Vegas currently has O bama as a 70-30 bet, actually.

[firewmn]

I invest in Barack everytime I donate to his campaign.. I would rather pay his campaign than the "additional surcharge" I currently pay on my electric bill. I pray his election the rid me of this hidden tax by the corp Northwestern Energy..

[aristippe]

but but Obama doesn't take special interest money. . .suckers

[MichiganJFrog]

Polly want a cracker?

[aristippe]

chirp chirp

[dentuso]

Wall Street contributions to O - 4%
Wall Street contributions to McGoo - 9%

PAC/Lobby contributions to O - 0%
PAC/Lobby contributions to McRib - 6%

You got us there! Why in God's name would Wall Street want O to be President, really. Seeing as the DOW has dropped more recently than the 1930's.... why on Earth would some people within the financial sector want to see a better economy. This just doesn't make any sense at all.

Idiot.

[MichiganJFrog]

"Idiot."

I think you are on to something there.

[ThunderclapNewman]

He refuses money from registered federal lobbyists.
He refuses money from PACs.

If individuals who work on Wall Street want to make contributions to his campaign, they are as entitled to do so as any other individual.

Your bitterness has overwhelmed your ability to think.

[aristippe]

his idea that obama doesn't take PAC/ lobbyist money as a matter of principle is B.S. misdirection. Pac money has never made a significant dent in any presidential coffer.

[hoopesaz]

Maybe he's just confused by the double standard you'all have set. The "big business bad" mantra was eventually going to catch up with you. In the past Wall Street was evil and anyone they support must also had been evil. But today they back Obama. So, today, Wall Street is smart, they only back the winners, they know a loser when they see one.

I can't blame them. They have to chose between an idiot (McCain) and an unknown, but seemingly intelligent liberal (Obama). Obama likely has my republican vote as well.

[eden4barack08]

The sucker here is you! READ then comment! These are donations from INDIVIDUAL employees of Wall St companies. Make what your limited mind wants of it, but they are donors just like you and me, only with a larger bank account.

[Beelzebul]

Wall Street backing The Thin Man with a Marlboro dangling from the side of his mouth. Stock Market collapsing.

Nuff said.

[williamg]

When you are outraising your opponent 3:1, it would be pretty difficult to find an industry in which aren't outraising your opponent.

[dentuso]

And they wonder where the term "where is the smart money going?" came from.

[PublicAdvocate]

According to the NYT, a full 45% of Obamas contributors are from small donors $200 or less While a majority of supporters are more big ticket contributions from the financial industry. Goldman Sachs employees lead the group in contributions according to the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/opinion/01brooks.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=david+brooks&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Others in the financial community have also been generous. As investors, I would guess they are hedging their bets against McCain and also buying future protection from hedge fund mismanagement, write downs, off shore accounts, and securing favor for corporate socialism (a.k.a. Bear/Stearns bailout) in case Wall Street continues to sink. Ralph Nader on the other hand takes no corporate cash and therefore has no hidden payback clauses to repay if elected this fall.

[ThunderclapNewman]

Nader's chances of being elected dogcatcher are zero.

Why would anyone believe he has a chance of being elected president.

And it's perfectly legal and aboveboard for individuals in the financial sector to donate to candidates.