| BREAKINGOCCUPY WINS Bloomberg backs down | MoveOnOrg Here's the amazing, energized scene when the announcement came down. front.moveon.org/breaking-
Protesters are upset that the billions of dollars in bank bailouts doled out during the recession allowed banks to resume earning huge profits while average Americans have had no relief from high unemployment and job insecurity. The Occupy Wall Street movement has sparked nationwide protests in more than 1,400 cities, according to Occupy Together, which has become an online hub for protest activity. It also inspired solidarity rallies on Thursday that were due to take place at more than 140 U.S. college campuses in 25 states, according to Occupy Colleges. Some social media photos showed about a dozen or so protesters at various colleges. According to the website of United for Global Change,there are 869 cities in 71 countries where protests are being planning. Hundreds of people have been arrested at rallies in New York and police have used pepper spray. Dozens have also been arrested during the past couple of weeks from Boston and Washington D.C. to Chicago and San Francisco. In Austin, Texas four protesters were arrested on Thursday for criminal trespassing after refusing to leave the protest site when city workers came to clean the area. Occupy Wall Street live: NY protesters vow to block park clear-up The Guardian Members of the Occupy Wall St movement react after an announcement that a planned cleaning has been suspended in Zuccotti Park. Photograph: Lucas Jackson/Reuters 8.23am: Meanwhile in Denver, Colorado, where protesters have set up a similar camp, ... See all stories on this topic »- On George Soros, Occupy Wall Street, and Reuters Reuters By Felix Salmon at Felix Salmon Wouldn't it be ironic if Occupy Wall Street — the soi-disant “99%” — were being secretly funded by billionaire Davos Man George Soros, exemplar of the 1%? Well, no, it wouldn't, actually. As Noreen Malone points out, ... Wall Street protests planned across Pennsylvania BusinessWeek For now, the protesters continue to maintain their encampment and express an array of messages, one of them in unison with the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York. The group opposes the influence of corporate greed on politics, but protesters have ... Clean up postponed for Occupy Wall Street encampment park Washington Post The deputy mayor of New York City says a planned cleaning of the protest encampment in lower Manhattan has been postponed. The protesters had said the planned cleanup at 7 am was merely a pretext to evict them. (Oct. 14) (/The Associated Press) ... See all stories on this topic » Is Occupy Wall Street About Me? - Ask Noah TheStreet.com Sometimes, I feel like I should quit my job and join the Occupy Wall Streetmovement. I may be ranting here, but needed to get it out! On its website, "Occupy Wall Street" states it is: "...a leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, ... See all stories on this topic »-TheStreet.com Clash near Wall St. after park showdown averted CBS News A New York City police officer shoves a demonstrator affiliated with the Occupy Wall Street protests as they march through the streets in the Wall Street area Oct. 14, 2011, in New York. (AP Photo) NEW YORK - Just a few hours after protesters learned ... See all stories on this topic » Occupy Wall Street comes to Stanford The Stanford Daily While the recent Occupy Wall Street movement has been spreading to major cities across the nation over the past month, the campaign has now recently appeared on campus. Earlier this week, fliers advertising a “general assembly” to be held today at noon ... See all stories on this topic » Occupy Wall Street: Riot Police Attempt to Forcefully Evict Denver Protesters International Business Times The news immediately follows reports of a similar forced eviction in the Occupy Wall Street protest. News broke Thursday that Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD had notifiedOccupy Wall Street participants that they planned to clean the site of the Wall ... See all stories on this topic »-International Business Times Rachel Maddow At Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS) Huffington Post Rachel Maddow journeyed down to Occupy Wall Street in the early hours of Friday morning, just as the protesters in the Lower Manhattan encampment were preparing to face off with New York City police trying to eject them from the park they have been ... See all stories on this topic » Occupy Wall Street protest gets a visit from Anonymous target Aaron Barr Techworld.com Barr, who is now director of cybersecurity for a company called Sayres and Associates, dyed his hair blue and mingled with protestors on Wall Street on September 17, an action supported by Anonymous, the loose collective known for its cyber protests. ... See all stories on this topic » Koreans to Occupy (their) Wall St Financial Times (blog) The country's vociferous civic groups and militant labour unions plan to join the “Occupy Wall Street” movement in the US and hold a massive rally this weekend in Yoido, where most of the major financial institutions and regulators are based. ... See all stories on this topic »-Financial Times (blog) Occupy Wall Street: All the Power to Them, But Get the Targets Right truthout Last week we paid a visit to the Occupy Boston outpost of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The group has pretty much taken over Dewey Square in front of the Federal Reserve. They had a couple hundred people there, but the numbers seem to be growing by ... See all stories on this topic » Top Stories: Occupy Wall Street; Berlusconi; Retail Sales NPR (blog) by Mark Memmott — Baseball: Texas leads Detroit three games to two in American League championship series; Milwaukee and St. Louis tied at two games each in National. (MLB.com) Detroit Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander walks to the mound during the ... See all stories on this topic » Occupy Wall Street crackdown is postponed Inquirer The news was immediately welcomed by the @OccupyWallStNYC Twitter account, which tweeted, "People power triumphs! Brookfield declares indefinitely postponed cleaning! #wewon," it said. This weekend the Occupy movement goes global, with protests ... See all stories on this topic » DeWayne Wickham Column: Occupy Wall Street a 2nd revolution Wisconsin Rapids Tribune Patton said the Occupy Wall Street protest is the counter-narrative to the Tea Party movement, which is demanding that government become smaller and less involved in people's lives. But many Wall Street protesters want government to do more to end home ... See all stories on this topic » Occupy Wall Street march down Broadway from Zuccotti Park YouTube Ows. See all stories on this topic » Occupy Wall Street "Cleans Up," Eviction Postponed Human Events by John Hayward The owners of Zuccotti Park in New York City, where the Occupy Wall Street mob has been camping, had been planning to clean up the filth deposited by the squatters today. This would have involved evicting Occupy Wall Street from the ... See all stories on this topic » Ayatollah: Wall St. protests toppling capitalism CBS News Demonstrators walk through the make-shift tent city as part of the Occupy DC demonstration at Freedom Plaza, in Washington on Oct. 11, 2011. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) NEW YORK - TheOccupy Wall Street movement, which has spawned grass-roots ... See all stories on this topic » Occupy Wall Street: Tasks for the movement Workers World Occupy Wall Street has opened up space. This development, mostly white now, is getting more multinational. It's growing, and it is affecting oppressed sectors of our class. In the hundreds of cities that are now either engaged in or planning protests, ... See all stories on this topic »-Workers World Occupy wall street event coming to Manhattan KSNT A group calling itself “Occupy MHK” is planning a three hour effort, as part of international protests against what they call corporate greed. The movement started on a national level on September 17 in New York City,” Jeremy Smith, one of the event ... See all stories on this topic » Hey, Occupy Martinez, Why Don't You? Patch.com Is there some reason we're the Contra Costa city no one wants to occupy? By Jim Caroompas Walnut Creek got to host the county's version of Occupy Wall Street this week. So what, Martinez isn't good enough to occupy? We're not “Wall Street” enough? ... See all stories on this topic » Occupy Wall Street Minneapolis movement continues to attract followers Examiner.com Nevertheless, recent reports have signaled these efforts slowly making its way across 130 college campuses proclaiming themselves as 'Occupy Colleges'. Their message is targeted at the high tuition rates and increasing college expenses. ... See all stories on this topic » Wall Street protesters in NJ told to remove tents 6abc.com Mike Jarkowski holds a sign as he sits in a park across from the the Statehouse in Trenton, NJ, Friday, Oct. 7, 2011, after a small group from the "Occupy Wall Street" movement camped overnight following a demonstration Thursday. ...See all stories on this topic »-6abc.com The “Occupy” movement that is sweeping the nation hit Oakland, California, on Monday. Well over 1000 people turned out in downtown Oakland on a rainy afternoon to kick things off. At the start, different people stood up and spoke about why they were here – the loss of jobs, the rich getting richer while everybody else gets poorer, etc. I was there for something that happened in 1944. That was when the State of South Carolina executed little 14 year-old George Stinney. As they strapped him down to the electric chair, the death mask fell off his little face to reveal the tears streaming down his cheeks as he prepared to die all alone in this world. The state wouldn’t even let his parents be with him in his last few minutes on this earth. Can you imagine the terror and inconsolable loneliness he felt in his last minutes on Earth? Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement? (updated below) When I first wrote in defense of the Occupy Wall Street protests a couple of weeks ago, I suggested that much of the scorn then being expressed by many progressives was “grounded in the belief that the only valid form of political activism is support for Democratic Party candidates.” Since then, even the most establishment Democrats have fundamentally changed how they talk about the protests — from condescension and hostility to respect and even support — and The New York Times todaymakes clear one significant factor accounting for this change: Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party’s powerful House fund-raising arm, is circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to declare that “I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests.” The Center for American Progress, a liberal organization run by John D. Podesta, who helped lead Mr. Obama’s 2008 transition, credits the protests with tapping into pent-up anger over a political system that it says rewards the rich over the working class — a populist theme now being emphasized by the White House and the party. The center has encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities. Judd Legum, a spokesman for the center, said that its direct contacts with the protests have been limited, but that “we’ve definitely been publicizing it and supporting it.” He said Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012. Politico similarly noted today that “the White House wants to make it clear that President Barack Obama is on the same side as the Occupy Wall Street protesters.” Can that scheme work? Can the Occupy Wall Street protests be transformed into a get-out-the-vote organ of Obama 2012 and the Democratic Party? To determine if this is likely, let’s review a few relevant facts. In March, 2008, The Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline “Democrats are darlings of Wall St“, which reported that both Obama and Clinton “are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions.” In June, 2008, Reuters published an article entitled “Wall Street puts its money behind Obama”; it detailed that Obama had almost twice as much in contributions from “the securities and investment industry” and that “Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from” that industry. When the financial collapse exploded, then-candidate Obama became an outspoken supporter of the Wall Street bailout. After Obama’s election, the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House for the first two years, and the White House and Senate for the ten months after that. During this time, unemployment and home foreclosures were painfully high, while Wall Street and corporate profits exploded, along with income inequality. In July, 2009, The New York Times dubbed JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon “Obama’s favorite banker” because of his close relationship with, and heavy influence on, leading Democrats, including the President. In February, 2010, President Obama defended Dimon’s $17 million bonus and the $9 million bonus to Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein — both of whose firms received substantial taxpayer bailouts — as fair and reasonable. The key Senate fundraiser for the Party is Chuck Schumer, whom the New York Times profiled — in an article headlined “Champion of Wall Street Reaps the Benefits” — as someone who repeatedly supported “measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis” and who “took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules” and thus “became a magnet for campaign donations from wealthy industry executives, including Jamie Dimon, now the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; John J. Mack, the chief executive at Morgan Stanley; and Charles O. Prince III, the former chief executive of Citigroup.” That servitude to Wall Street is what consolidated Schumer’s power in the Party: As a result, [Schumer] has collected over his career more in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry than any of his peers in Congress, with the exception of Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts . . . In the last two-year election cycle, he helped raise more than $120 million for the Democrats’ Senate campaign committee, drawing nearly four times as much money from Wall Street as the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Donors often mention his “pro-business message” and record of addressing their concerns. Upon being inaugurated, Obama empowered as his top economic adviser Larry Summers, who had “collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the [prior] year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees by several troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations,” including a fee of $135,000 for a single day of speaking at Goldman, Sachs, and who also led the orgy of Wall Street deregulation in the 1990s. Obama installed as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whom the New York Times explained had “forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street’s giant financial institutions.” When Obama chose him, Geithner had just participated in a secret meeting along with Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, at which it was decided that a bankrupt AIG would be saved and then — with taxpayer money — would pay Goldman every penny owed to it. Summers, in February, 2009, defended gaudy AIG bonuses as compelled by “the rule of law” even after the administration forced auto union workers to take sizable cuts in their contractually guaranteed pay. As his Chief of Staff at Treasury, Geithner chose Mark Patterson, the former top lobbyist for Goldman, Sachs. Goldman replaced Pattersonwith Michael Paese, who at the time was the top staffer to Democratic Rep. Barney Frank in his capacity as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which regulates Wall Street. Obama’s choice to oversee America’s futures markets was Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive who, during the 1990s, was known for his shockingly lax enforcement of regulations governing derivative products. Obama re-appointed Bush’s Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, and named CEO of GE Jeffery Immelt to head his panel of jobs advisers, along with several other job-cutting corporate executives. When Rahm Emanuel — who had made $16 million in three years as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton White House — left as Obama’s Chief of Staff to run for Mayor of Chicago, Obama chose as his replacement Bill Daley, who at the time was serving as JP Morgan’s Midwest Chairman and a director of Boeing. Shortly after Obama’s star director of Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, left the administration, he became a top executive at Citigroup. The DCCC, recently headed by Emanuel and now feigning support for the protests, is characterized by little other than a strategy of supporting corporatist, Wall-Street-revering “Blue Dog” Democrats as a way of consolidating power. One of the most significant aspects of the Obama administration is the lack of criminal prosecutions for leading Wall Street executives for the 2008 financial crisis. Obama recently opined — even while there are supposedly ongoing DOJ investigations — that Wall Street’s corruption was, in general, not illegal. The New York Times recently reported that top Obama officials are heavily pressuring New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to join a woefully inadequate settlement agreement that would end all investigations and litigations against Wall Street firms for pervasive mortgage fraud. Given these facts, does the Center for American Progress really believe that the protest movement named OccupyWallStreet was begun — and that people are being arrested and pepper-sprayed and ready to endure harsh winters and marching to Jamie Dimon’s house — in order to devote themselves to ensuring that these people remain in power? Does CAP and the DCCC really believe that most of the protesters are motivated — or can be motivated — to turn themselves into a get-out-the-vote machine for Obama’s re-election and the empowerment of Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party? Obviously, Presumably, people who are out protesting and getting arrested are politically astute enough to be aware of some, probably most, of these facts. A rejuvenated outburst of “populist rhetoric” from Obama — a re-reading of the 2008 Change script — just as election season is heating up and Obama again needs progressive enthusiasm to remain in power seems quite unlikely to make people forget all of this. As Robert Reich recently pointed out, OWS and the Democratic Party are not exactly natural allies given that “Obama has been extraordinarily solicitous of Wall Street and big business” and that “a big share of both parties’ campaign funds comes from the Street and corporate board rooms.” As Naomi Klein explained after speaking to the protesters, the reason they are out on the street rather than working for the DNC or OFA is precisely because they concluded that electoral politics or working for either party will not address the issues motivating them; part of what they’re protesting is the Democratic Party. For an FDL Book Salon discussion this weekend, I reviewed Lawrence Lessig’s excellent new book on our corrupted political system, Republic: Lost, and he documents exactly why he transformed from an enthusiastic supporter of his long-time friend and colleague Barack Obama in 2008 into a harsh critic of both parties: because the political system itself has been subverted by oligarchical control. As he put it in his book: : “Democracy on this account seems a show or a rule; power rests elsewhere. . . . the charade is a signal: spend your time elsewhere, because this game is not for real.” So best of luck to CAP and the DCCC in their efforts to exploit these protests into some re-branded Obama 2012 crusade and to convince the protesters to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested all to make themselves the 2012 street version of OFA. I think they’re going to need it. UPDATE: Here are the top recipients of campaign donations from the “securities and investment” industry from 1989 through 2010 (h/tmuddy thinking): Hardly a month goes by without some politician's private interests coming under scrutiny in the media. They should learn from Dick Cheney. In 2003, as the re-election campaign of George W Bush was heating up, his main challenger, the redoubtable John Kerry, said the following in an election ad: "As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get? You mean, besides lies about Cheney's actual ties to the company while vice president? I raise this example in light of the scandal that is brewing over General Siphiwe Nyanda's security services firm, in which he retains a 50% stake though having resigned as director. According to the Mail & Guardian, he failed to declare to Parliament that this firm had landed big contracts with Gauteng provincial government and several government-owned transport firms, including Transnet. It is under an even darker cloud because of fraud allegations against its CEO and Nyanda's business partner, Sylvester Sithole, and alleged irregularities in the award of the Transnet contract. If Nyanda had simply sold his stake upon taking office, none of this would have happened. Other cabinet ministers are no less involved in private business. Most notable is probably Tokyo Sexwale, the minister of human settlements, whose long list of interests includes several property-related investments. However, most other ministers have at least a handful of interests, many of them in obscure holding companies or investment vehicles. Almost all state that they have declared their interests to Parliament, as required by the Executive Members' Ethics Act number 82 of 1998, and that they have resigned any positions in which they might have operational involvement with the firm(s) in question. Some of the declared interests are clearly small family businesses. It would be churlish to challenge anyone over a beadwork project or a poultry farm. In many cases, however, the decisions ministers take as public officials could materially affect the well-being of the companies in which they own shares, leading to personal profits or losses. What makes ministers think that merely resigning their directorships removes the conflicts of interest which the Ethics Act forbids? It is between their executive positions in the government and their financial interests that the conflict lies, not just in being able to sign for both parties to a contract. I don't propose to challenge in detail each alleged case of conflict of interest. Such things are better left to full-time investigative reporters. However, claiming, as Nyanda has done, that the media is merely conducting witch hunts out of political motive is both disingenuous and besides the point. Politicians will do this all on their own. Cope, the DA, and the ID have been falling over each other in the rush to challenge conflicts of interest like those of which Nyanda stands accused. Perhaps our cabinet should learn from Dick Cheney. Before his appointment, he had been the CEO of Halliburton, which provides various services useful to a military force that's doing military things in faraway places. This connection raised suspicions among neutrals, and had his political opponents salivating. They painted him as a corrupt self-enricher. The truth, however, is instructive. He took important steps to distance himself from his former interests when he became vice president. So when the Kerry campaign launched the advert quoted above, Cheney could respond immediately, as follows. It is true that he received $2 million in deferred compensation, though fully $1.6 million of that had been received before he became vice president, and while he was still Halliburton's CEO. Immediately, it was clear that Kerry simply lied. Unless you think nobody who has ever worked for compensation should ever serve in political office, you cannot deny someone the right to earn a salary. This leaves about $400 000 which he did receive "as vice president", which legally amounts to "financial ties". To deal with this, he insulated it from any influence he might have in that position by insuring it. It was his due, but there was a risk that it might go unpaid should Halliburton go bankrupt. Preventing a bankruptcy might give Cheney a motive to influence government actions in favour of Halliburton. The insurance removed this motive. No matter what happened to Halliburton's profit or loss, it could not affect in any way the compensation Cheney was still (legitimately) owed. Then there were the stock options, which the Kerry campaign soon latched onto. These had been part of his compensation, but had not yet reached maturity, and could not therefore be exercised. Realising that it would be used against him if his executive decisions in government could influence the value of these options, he took steps to ring-fence them. He signed an irrevocable legal agreement to cede them to charity. As a result, he could neither gain nor lose. His measures were equivalent, in terms of his motives regarding Halliburton, to no longer having any interest in the company at all. The company's success or failure could in no way affect his personal wealth. He complied, in every respect, with the requirement of having no "financial interest" in Halliburton, as the term is defined in US law: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee... as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." It is notable that Cheney wasn't, in fact, required to do any of these things. His office (like those of the US president, all members of Congress, and federal judges) is exempt from the usual conflict-of-interest laws that apply to executive-branch civil servants. And even if Cheney wasn't exempt, he could have legally avoided conflicts merely by recusing himself from matters involving his interests. Yet, he took all these measures, because he well knew that the political opposition, and the media that sympathized with them, would hound him. They wouldn't be satisfied with only vague claims that he might one day corrupt his office out of... who knows, some sense of loyalty to former colleagues, perhaps. So while the attack dogs continued to claim that he personally benefited from Halliburton's government contracts, he was in a better-than-usual position to deny it, having gone way beyond even the legal requirements in this regard. His defense had been prepared long before the trouble struck, and it was both legally and politically watertight. Anyone who thought he was going to get impeached over Halliburton was drinking partisan Kool-Aid. Our cabinet ministers, by contrast, appear to do the bare minimum. They declare their interests, and that's it. They have no Cheney defence. But they should do. Nobody expects them to forfeit their private property. However, they should be isolating themselves from conflicts of interest. That means they – and their family trusts – must be required to sell private interests in private companies. If they cannot do that because of contracts such as Cheney faced with his deferred compensation and unvested stock-options, they must take similar measures to ring-fence such benefits, so they no longer depend on government actions. Public officials should not only have no other income, as the Ethics Act requires, but should own no investments that can be influenced by their decisions. Cash deposits are fine. So are pension funds, unit trusts, or index trackers, provided they fall outside the purview of the official (such as a mining index for the minerals and energy minister, or a property unit trust for the housing minister). Shares in individual companies, even if they're family businesses, are not fine. Ever. They're political trouble. They stink. Just get rid of them. Keep the proceeds, of course. Nobody expects a ministerial family to become poorer because of their public service. But they should not stand to personally gain or lose from anything they do as government officials. Because even if they're clean as a whistle, the allegations will come. They should be in a position, like Cheney, to face down their accusers as political partisans, instead of having to retreat into a smelly weasel hole with a "no comment" sign outside. |
Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement?
(Credit: AP/Salon)
(updated below)
When I first wrote in defense of the Occupy Wall Street protests a couple of weeks ago, I suggested that much of the scorn then being expressed by many progressives was “grounded in the belief that the only valid form of political activism is support for Democratic Party candidates.” Since then, even the most establishment Democrats have fundamentally changed how they talk about the protests — from condescension and hostility to respect and even support — and The New York Times todaymakes clear one significant factor accounting for this change:
Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party’s powerful House fund-raising arm, is circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to declare that “I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests.”
The Center for American Progress, a liberal organization run by John D. Podesta, who helped lead Mr. Obama’s 2008 transition, credits the protests with tapping into pent-up anger over a political system that it says rewards the rich over the working class — a populist theme now being emphasized by the White House and the party. The center has encouraged and sought to help coordinate protests in different cities.
Judd Legum, a spokesman for the center, said that its direct contacts with the protests have been limited, but that “we’ve definitely been publicizing it and supporting it.”
He said Democrats are already looking for ways to mobilize protesters in get-out-the-vote drives for 2012.
Politico similarly noted today that “the White House wants to make it clear that President Barack Obama is on the same side as the Occupy Wall Street protesters.”
Can that scheme work? Can the Occupy Wall Street protests be transformed into a get-out-the-vote organ of Obama 2012 and the Democratic Party? To determine if this is likely, let’s review a few relevant facts.
In March, 2008, The Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline “Democrats are darlings of Wall St“, which reported that both Obama and Clinton “are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions.” In June, 2008, Reuters published an article entitled “Wall Street puts its money behind Obama”; it detailed that Obama had almost twice as much in contributions from “the securities and investment industry” and that “Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from” that industry. When the financial collapse exploded, then-candidate Obama became an outspoken supporter of the Wall Street bailout.
After Obama’s election, the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House for the first two years, and the White House and Senate for the ten months after that. During this time, unemployment and home foreclosures were painfully high, while Wall Street and corporate profits exploded, along with income inequality. In July, 2009, The New York Times dubbed JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon “Obama’s favorite banker” because of his close relationship with, and heavy influence on, leading Democrats, including the President. In February, 2010, President Obama defended Dimon’s $17 million bonus and the $9 million bonus to Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein — both of whose firms received substantial taxpayer bailouts — as fair and reasonable.
The key Senate fundraiser for the Party is Chuck Schumer, whom the New York Times profiled — in an article headlined “Champion of Wall Street Reaps the Benefits” — as someone who repeatedly supported “measures now blamed for contributing to the financial crisis” and who “took other steps to protect industry players from government oversight and tougher rules” and thus “became a magnet for campaign donations from wealthy industry executives, including Jamie Dimon, now the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase; John J. Mack, the chief executive at Morgan Stanley; and Charles O. Prince III, the former chief executive of Citigroup.” That servitude to Wall Street is what consolidated Schumer’s power in the Party:
As a result, [Schumer] has collected over his career more in campaign contributions from the securities and investment industry than any of his peers in Congress, with the exception of Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts . . . In the last two-year election cycle, he helped raise more than $120 million for the Democrats’ Senate campaign committee, drawing nearly four times as much money from Wall Street as the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Donors often mention his “pro-business message” and record of addressing their concerns.
Upon being inaugurated, Obama empowered as his top economic adviser Larry Summers, who had “collected roughly $5.2 million in compensation from hedge fund D.E. Shaw over the [prior] year and was paid more than $2.7 million in speaking fees by several troubled Wall Street firms and other organizations,” including a fee of $135,000 for a single day of speaking at Goldman, Sachs, and who also led the orgy of Wall Street deregulation in the 1990s. Obama installed as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whom the New York Times explained had “forged unusually close relationships with executives of Wall Street’s giant financial institutions.”
When Obama chose him, Geithner had just participated in a secret meeting along with Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, at which it was decided that a bankrupt AIG would be saved and then — with taxpayer money — would pay Goldman every penny owed to it. Summers, in February, 2009, defended gaudy AIG bonuses as compelled by “the rule of law” even after the administration forced auto union workers to take sizable cuts in their contractually guaranteed pay.
As his Chief of Staff at Treasury, Geithner chose Mark Patterson, the former top lobbyist for Goldman, Sachs. Goldman replaced Pattersonwith Michael Paese, who at the time was the top staffer to Democratic Rep. Barney Frank in his capacity as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, which regulates Wall Street. Obama’s choice to oversee America’s futures markets was Gary Gensler, a former Goldman Sachs executive who, during the 1990s, was known for his shockingly lax enforcement of regulations governing derivative products. Obama re-appointed Bush’s Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, and named CEO of GE Jeffery Immelt to head his panel of jobs advisers, along with several other job-cutting corporate executives.
When Rahm Emanuel — who had made $16 million in three years as an investment banker after leaving the Clinton White House — left as Obama’s Chief of Staff to run for Mayor of Chicago, Obama chose as his replacement Bill Daley, who at the time was serving as JP Morgan’s Midwest Chairman and a director of Boeing. Shortly after Obama’s star director of Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, left the administration, he became a top executive at Citigroup. The DCCC, recently headed by Emanuel and now feigning support for the protests, is characterized by little other than a strategy of supporting corporatist, Wall-Street-revering “Blue Dog” Democrats as a way of consolidating power.
One of the most significant aspects of the Obama administration is the lack of criminal prosecutions for leading Wall Street executives for the 2008 financial crisis. Obama recently opined — even while there are supposedly ongoing DOJ investigations — that Wall Street’s corruption was, in general, not illegal. The New York Times recently reported that top Obama officials are heavily pressuring New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to join a woefully inadequate settlement agreement that would end all investigations and litigations against Wall Street firms for pervasive mortgage fraud.
Given these facts, does the Center for American Progress really believe that the protest movement named OccupyWallStreet was begun — and that people are being arrested and pepper-sprayed and ready to endure harsh winters and marching to Jamie Dimon’s house — in order to devote themselves to ensuring that these people remain in power? Does CAP and the DCCC really believe that most of the protesters are motivated — or can be motivated — to turn themselves into a get-out-the-vote machine for Obama’s re-election and the empowerment of Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Party? Obviously, if
Presumably, people who are out protesting and getting arrested are politically astute enough to be aware of some, probably most, of these facts. A rejuvenated outburst of “populist rhetoric” from Obama — a re-reading of the 2008 Change script — just as election season is heating up and Obama again needs progressive enthusiasm to remain in power seems quite unlikely to make people forget all of this.
As Robert Reich recently pointed out, OWS and the Democratic Party are not exactly natural allies given that “Obama has been extraordinarily solicitous of Wall Street and big business” and that “a big share of both parties’ campaign funds comes from the Street and corporate board rooms.” As Naomi Klein explained after speaking to the protesters, the reason they are out on the street rather than working for the DNC or OFA is precisely because they concluded that electoral politics or working for either party will not address the issues motivating them; part of what they’re protesting is the Democratic Party. For an FDL Book Salon discussion this weekend, I reviewed Lawrence Lessig’s excellent new book on our corrupted political system, Republic: Lost, and he documents exactly why he transformed from an enthusiastic supporter of his long-time friend and colleague Barack Obama in 2008 into a harsh critic of both parties: because the political system itself has been subverted by oligarchical control. As he put it in his book: : “Democracy on this account seems a show or a rule; power rests elsewhere. . . . the charade is a signal: spend your time elsewhere, because this game is not for real.”
So best of luck to CAP and the DCCC in their efforts to exploit these protests into some re-branded Obama 2012 crusade and to convince the protesters to engage in civil disobedience and get arrested all to make themselves the 2012 street version of OFA. I think they’re going to need it.
UPDATE: Here are the top recipients of campaign donations from the “securities and investment” industry from 1989 through 2010 (h/tmuddy thinking):