Goldman Sachs has reformed its rules for donating to politicians...

[Independent voter]

Goldman Sachs gives about as much to the Republicans as it does to the Democrats. Why? They are covering their bases, why make one group mad?

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...?id=d000000085

*Republican National Cmte $371,245 $371,245 $0
*Right To Rise PAC $300,250 $300,250 $0
*Right To Rise USA $260,017 $260,017 $0
*Rubio, Marco $210,875 $210,875 $0
*Bush, Jeb $206,250 $206,250 $0
*Clinton, Hillary $201,119 $201,119 $0
*National Republican Congressional Cmte $196,800 $166,800 $30,000
*DNC Services Corp $191,332 $191,332 $0
*Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $101,285 $66,285 $35,000
*Priorities USA Action $100,000 $100,000 $0

[Shilling]

Chris Dodd received massive contributions from AIG and amended the AIG bailout to not include terms limiting excessive executive pay. His wife sits on several boards that are associated with wall street and is paid $500,000 per year for doing so.

Barney Frank is now a director on the board of Signature Bank where he makes at least $375,000 per year as well as additional stock compensation.

Do you really trust people like these guys writing your wall street regulations?

Dude quote me if you are answering to me. Anyway have you read it?

[Sunseeker]

Don't know what reality you're living in where Hillary is going to do shit about corporate money in government.

[alexw]

So now Goldman Sachs has banned donations to Donald Trump, but its ok because they still allow donations to the Clinton campaign. I am just so absolutely shocked by this, I thought Hillary was going to clean up Wall Street and had even brought Elizabeth Warren on board. I am deeply worried that Hillary Clinton is going to betray the left on the important issue of financial reform that caused half of the democratic party to support Bernie Sanders. Then again, maybe this is just another case of lots of smoke but no fire. Still, it seems rather odd that Goldman has gone so far as to ban donations to Donald Trump.




http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/07/goldm...mp-report.html

Smart rich people don't want a complete lunatic who hasn't the slightest idea about governance elected. This is a surprise to you, why?

[Alvito]

as in they banned their employees from donating to trump? or the company itself only will donate to clinton now?

They have business with the state of Indiana and Pence is the governor there so they cannot donate to him. People will try to spin this however they like, but it is common for companies to avoid donating to politicians under these circumstances. Even more so for Goldman Sachs after the legal shit storm they have been in for the last decade.

[zEmini]

Gary Johnson 2016! He is looking better and better each day.

[Calfredd]

Don't know what reality you're living in where Hillary is going to do shit about corporate money in government.

Wait people actually think this?

[Venant]

Dude quote me if you are answering to me. Anyway have you read it?

Yeah I meant that last post to be a reply to you, are you asking if I have read Trump's position on Dodd-Frank or have I read Dodd-Frank itself? In my opinion, instead of Dodd-Frank we should have had a 1 sentence constitutional amendment stating that the Federal Government will never engage in the bailout of private industry, and with the mood of the country after 2007/2008 it could have passed. The banks shouldn't have the power to hold a proverbial gun to everyone's head and demand bailouts or the world financial system will end. Dodd-Frank will not stop the next crisis, because when a crisis emerges the law tends to be ignored anyway, and you end up with shady backroom deals like happened in the last crisis.

Furthermore, Trump has suggested that he would re-implement Glass-Steagall, which may explain why Wall Street is extremely apprehensive of his candidacy. I'm curious what you think of Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall.

[Rasulis]

This has more to do with economy than politics.

Most States/Counties/Cities/Municipalities have some type of statutes against Pay-To-Play (started around 2010). The exact wording varies, but the basic concept is that politician who have received campaign contributions in excess of a certain amount (as low as $10 for L.A. Metro Board members) within the previous years (anywhere from 2 - 4 years) are prohibited from participating in contract decisions that involve those donors. Some states (Connecticut) went as far as to prohibit state government contractors from making political contributions to candidates running for statewide and state legislative offices and also political party committees.

Then there is also the soon to be implemented SEC rules which can be summarize below.

“It prohibits an advisory firm and certain executives and employees from soliciting or coordinating campaign contributions from others — a practice referred to as "bundling" — for an elected official who is in a position to influence the selection of the adviser. It also prohibits solicitation and coordination of payments to political parties in the state or locality where the adviser is seeking business.”

A big part of Goldman Sachs’ business revolves around managing local governments’ pension funds. So it is critical for them to minimize the potential of their partners/employees from violating the Pay-To-Play rules.

The Federal Government actually has a similar Pay-To-Play rule. Except their pension fund is managed in house by OPM. So Goldman Sachs has nothing to loose by contributing to politicians at Federal level.

[Vash The Stampede]

By Goldman Sachs not donating to Trump, this makes Trump look good. Nothing for Goldman Sachs to be proud of.

[Shilling]

Yeah I meant that last post to be a reply to you, are you asking if I have read Trump's position on Dodd-Frank or have I read Dodd-Frank itself? In my opinion, instead of Dodd-Frank we should have had a 1 sentence constitutional amendment stating that the Federal Government will never engage in the bailout of private industry, and with the mood of the country after 2007/2008 it could have passed. The banks shouldn't have the power to hold a proverbial gun to everyone's head and demand bailouts or the world financial system will end. Dodd-Frank will not stop the next crisis, because when a crisis emerges the law tends to be ignored anyway, and you end up with shady backroom deals like happened in the last crisis.

Furthermore, Trump has suggested that he would re-implement Glass-Steagall, which may explain why Wall Street is extremely apprehensive of his candidacy. I'm curious what you think of Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall.

1. The bailout was necessary. The financial institutions were too big to fail, the dodd frank act attempt to solve this problem by regulating "good" big banks and divide those whose size cause more harm than good.
2. I think it was shitty to remove glass steagall, however the lack of it did not cause the recession.

[CMartel]

This only covers donations from TOP employees. Milo Yiannopoulos said all the Goldman Sacks men are bottoms.

[SupBrah]

They have business with the state of Indiana and Pence is the governor there so they cannot donate to him. People will try to spin this however they like, but it is common for companies to avoid donating to politicians under these circumstances. Even more so for Goldman Sachs after the legal shit storm they have been in for the last decade.

Sorry... refresh my memory, but isn't Tim Kaine STILL a US Senator?



Edit: Also lol @ all these liberals trying to defend a candidate openly being bankrolled by Goldman Sachs after spending over a year shitting on Goldman Sachs and anyone they donated to.


Strong mental gymnastics are strong

[Ryme]

Shock the world and vote for neither.

[McFuu]

Shock the world and vote for neither.

Most Americans see that as throwing their vote away. The irony of their action flys so far over their head they'd need a telescope to see it.

[Rasulis]

Seriously. It is not always about politics. This time it is about management contracts for billions upon billions of States, Counties, Cities and Municipalities retirement funds. If the Federal Government ever decide to have a contract out for management of its pension fund, you can bet that Goldman Sachs would extend the new rules to members of congress also.

[Alvito]

Sorry... refresh my memory, but isn't Tim Kaine STILL a US Senator?



Edit: Also lol @ all these liberals trying to defend a candidate openly being bankrolled by Goldman Sachs after spending over a year shitting on Goldman Sachs and anyone they donated to.


Strong mental gymnastics are strong

Ignore the 2nd half and try to put your own spin on things. Goldman sacs is a group of shitbags. There are clear reasons why they are acting the way they are in this case. There are more then enough valid reasons to dislike everyone involved in this shitshow of election without making issues out of non issues and buring the real problems with noise and distractions.

[Deleted]

Hillary is the best candidate that big corporations can hope for.

She is the best Replublican candidate out there, just running under a different banner.

[Masark]

Most Americans see that as throwing their vote away.

For the presidential election, it is. The third party either acts as a spoiler, or if they are actually "successful" and obtain a significant share of the electoral college, you get a repeat of 1824, which with the current arrangement, means the Republican wins.

[Vilendor]

Supporting Trump is like supporting an overgrown child who has never learned the basic rules of adult society. Goldman Sachs is just avoiding a bad investment.

But this is not about Goldman Sachs as the company and their investments, they banned their employees, partners and clients from doing whatever they want with their own money... well, except if they want to donate to Hillary