Traders at Goldman Sachs have a keen sense of value, and it is most unlikely that they are trading $675,000 just for the entertainment value of Hillary Clinton appearances, suggests the WSJ.
The long-standing arrangement between Democrats and financial giants like Goldman is that the politicians collect money and get to pose as populists by publicly attacking the big banks, and in return the big banks enjoy high regulatory barriers that prevent smaller firms from competing with them. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer has perfected this bargain, which may have reached its zenith with the Dodd-Frank law of 2010, which brought Wall Street giants and Washington into a historically intimate embrace.
President Obama has railed against Wall Street for the last seven years, arguing—quite truthfully—that the U.S. economy is rigged for the benefit of wealthy financiers. The conundrum now facing the Democratic Party is how it will persuade voters to support Wall Street’s favorite Democrat, even as Mrs. Clinton promises that she is going to break up the big banks and “jail them if they should be jailed”?
She can tell people whatever she wishes. But according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which maintains a searchable database of contributions reported to the Federal Election Commission, the securities and investment industry is Mrs. Clinton’s single greatest source of support. Financiers have given her campaign and other pro-Clinton political operations more than $17 million, compared with a little less than $78,000 for Mr. Sanders.
It’s not hard to connect the dots as to why Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 for giving three speeches. Is the bill for the political price of accepting money from Wall Street’s den of thieves finally coming due for Hillary Clinton? Read more here.