Wall Street donors look to block Warren VP pick

Scoop

All Star
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Messages
6,111
Reputation
-2,680
Daps
9,713
Reppin
Tampa, FL
Wall Street donors seek to block Warren VP pick

If Clinton chooses the Massachusetts senator as her running mate, donations will dry up, fundraisers warn.
By BEN WHITE
06/20/16 05:17 AM EDT

90

Elizabeth Warren speaks at a convention on July 17, 2015, in Phoenix. | AP Photo

NEW YORK — Big Wall Street donors have a message for Hillary Clinton: Keep Elizabeth Warren off the ticket or risk losing millions of dollars in contributions.

In a dozen interviews, major Democratic donors in the financial services industry said they saw little chance that Clinton would pick the liberal firebrand as her vice presidential nominee. These donors despise Warren’s attacks on the financial industry. But they also think her selection would be damaging to the economy. And they warned that if Clinton surprises them and taps Warren, big donations from the industry could vanish.


“If Clinton picked Warren, her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” said one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”

Most big donors don’t want Warren on the ticket because she is the most accomplished anti-Wall Street populist in the Democratic Party. But many also think her presence would drive a potential Clinton administration too far to the left, poison relations with the private sector from the start and ultimately be damaging to the economy.

A constant theme that emerged in the interviews is that executives in the financial industry believe the first 100 days of a Clinton administration could feature potential deal making with Republicans, who are likely to maintain their majority in the House of Representatives.

The dream deal for Wall Street would be a combination of targeted infrastructure spending that appeals mostly to Democrats and corporate and international tax reform that could bring Republicans along. The fear is that Warren would make such a deal more difficult.

“Clinton is going to face a divided government unless there is a total tsunami,” said one moderate Washington Democrat with close ties to the banking industry. “What you want in a vice president is someone who can negotiate for you on the Hill, someone like Joe Biden. And that is not a Warren strength.”

All of the donors and senior Democrats interviewed for this story demanded that their names not be used both because they were not authorized to speak about the Clinton campaign’s internal deliberations and because they feared Warren’s wrath. “There is no upside to my talking to you on the record,” one big donor said. “Either I piss off the Clinton campaign or I piss off Warren, or both.”

Several donors said they did not really fear Warren going on the ticket because they do not believe Clinton has a strong relationship with the senator and would not trust Warren to be a loyal No. 2, either on the campaign or in the White House.

“First of all, they don’t particularly like each other,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who has raised millions for Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton before her. But, the manager added, “The absolute predicate for a vice presidential nominee is they have to understand they are No. 2 both during the campaign and once you take office, and I just don’t think Elizabeth Warren is that type of person.”

The distaste for Warren in the banking industry is not surprising. No American politician in recent history has done more to harness the powerful anti-Wall Street sentiment that continues to rage in the country since the financial crisis of 2008.

Warren created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that many bankers dislike, and she continues to push for far stronger regulations including breaking up the nation’s largest financial institutions into smaller, simpler pieces. This is exactly the reason that many on the left, including ardent backers of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, want to see Warren on the ticket.

“It’s very clear that Wall Street guys don’t like her because she has been a lot more effective than most in communicating an anti-Wall Street message that has been part of the Democratic Party for 80 years, since the 1930s,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian at Manhattan College. “It’s not so much that Wall Street doesn’t like her personally, most of them don’t even know her, but they don’t like anyone that espouses that particular ideology.”

A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment for this story. A representative of Warren did not respond to requests for comment.

Clinton earlier this month said she thinks Warren is “qualified” to be vice president. “I have the highest regard for Sen. Warren,” she said in an interview with Politico. “I think she is an incredible public servant, eminently qualified for any role. I look forward to working with her on behalf of not only the campaign and her very effective critique of [Donald] Trump, but also on the issues that she and I both care about.”

Warren has maintained the typical stance of potential vice presidents, saying she is perfectly happy in her current job. But she has some powerful backers pushing Clinton to pick her for the vice-presidential slot, including outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

People close to the Clinton campaign say that while Warren might not wind up as the vice-presidential selection, Wall Street executives are dead wrong to think that it couldn’t happen.

They say Warren is very high on the list of possible vice presidential candidates along with Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Cory Booker of New Jersey; Labor Secretary Tom Perez; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; and Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, among others. “We are not at the point of ruling anyone in or out,” a person close to the process said.

Picking Warren would be risky for Clinton’s fundraising operation. The presumptive Democratic nominee hopes to raise $1.5 billion for her campaign against Trump, and Wall Street has been a big source of funding for her over the years.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton and outside groups supporting her have raised $289 million so far in the 2016 cycle. The securities and investment industry is easily Clinton’s top source of cash, donating over $28 million so far, according to the CRP.

“Things are so volatile now with all of the outside groups that all it can take is pissing off one billionaire on Wall Street to make it difficult,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the CRP. “And you don’t run national campaigns for as many years as Clinton has without some serious support from Wall Street, they are just too much of a heavy hitter.”

The progressive case for Warren holds that she would immediately energize the liberal base and bring Sanders voters into the fold. And Warren backers note that the senator has been an early and enthusiastic basher of Trump and shown a knack for getting under the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s skin.

“Elizabeth Warren very effectively called out Donald Trump for cheering the Wall Street collapse because it would make him money — and that moment reminded Democrats how powerful Warren’s megaphone can be,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “Whether it’s as vice president or as co-chair of the presidential transition committee, it’s hard to imagine Hillary Clinton not wanting a very large role for Elizabeth Warren at the table.”

But more moderate Democrats in the financial services industry argue that Sanders voters will come on board anyway and that Clinton does not need to pick Warren to help her win.

“We are going to win this. Trump shouldn’t be president and he isn’t going to be president,” said one senior executive at a Wall Street bank who is close to Clinton. “Picking Warren would indicate weakness and panic for no reason and make them look like they are running scared of Trump. There will be plenty of time to galvanize the left and get them to come out. And Warren would be a nightmare to try and manage.”

Another argument against putting Warren on the ticket is that she can be just as effective a surrogate while maintaining her power base in the Senate.

“In the current era of presidential politics, social media has allowed more people to assume the role of attack dog that was traditionally left to the vice-presidential nominee,” said Jason Rosenstock, an analyst at Thorn Run Partners who covers the financial industry. “Warren has shown an excellence in the platform that would allow her to help the campaign incredibly while maintaining her growing position of power in the Senate.”

On the economic front, some moderate Democrats and financial executives worry that having Warren as vice president would poison relationships between business and the White House from the beginning of a potential Hillary Clinton administration.

These people say there is an opportunity for much better relations between business and the White House than during President Barack Obama’s tenure, as well as more effective deal making with Congress to avoid the kind of fiscal crises that damaged the economy the past six years. In addition to cutting deals on taxes and infrastructure, Wall Street worries about the return of the debt ceiling as a potentially big issue in 2016, as well as the return of sequester spending cuts.

“There is going to be a lot to deal with in the first 100 days, and I’m not sure going left and picking Warren would be particularly helpful,” said a top financial services lobbyist in Washington.

This Democrat, along with several Wall Street donors mentioned Kaine as the ideal vice-presidential pick. The Virginia Democrat comes from a key swing state, is fluent in Spanish, sits on the Armed Services Committee and is generally palatable to both progressives and more business-friendly Democrats.

“He checks every box,” the moderate Washington Democrat with close ties to the banking industry said. “You could see him step in as president, he is credible with the base of the party, and he’s also comfortable spending time with the rich people you need to raise money from.”

Read more: Wall Street donors seek to block Warren VP pick
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
78,239
Reputation
9,694
Daps
233,386
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
Attacking Elizabeth Warren? Political Reporters Will Grant You Anonymity

Lee Fang


June 21 2016, 9:34 a.m.

elizabeth-warren-article-header.jpg

Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

The fast rise
of Sen. Elizabeth Warren within the Democratic Party has coincided with another phenomenon: the continual use by elite-media journalists of anonymous sources in articles that either criticize Warren directly or warn other politicians about the dangers of embracing her, her political style and the policies she advocates.

That journalistic trend manifested itself most recently on Monday, in a piece by Ben White in Politico that quoted fully five anonymous sources — including “one top Democratic donor,” “one moderate Washington Democrat” and “one prominent hedge fund manager” — to the effect that Hillary Clinton would be making a major misstep by selecting Warren as her running mate. Warren is an expert in bankruptcy and predatory lending and a leading critic of the financial industry.

Is the “top Democratic donor” Politico quoted a self-interested executive at Citigroup or Goldman Sachs fearful that Warren would influence policy decisions? We’ll never know. Journalists in this way let powerful individuals take potshots without any fear of accountability and without the reader being able to discern what conflicts of interest might be involved.

And when it comes to Warren in particular, pretty much any “administration official” or “political strategist” interested in advancing a narrative gets the anonymous treatment. The Intercept in short order compiled a list of 15 other articles and political newsletters over the last few years of the anonymously sourced, anti-Warren genre. Not surprisingly, given its institutional affinity for establishment sources and contempt for political idealism, Politico was the worst single offender, its reporter Ben White in particular:

Politico’s Morning Money newsletter in 2013 reprinted a lengthy email from “One top exec” slamming Warren for demanding that bank regulators step up enforcement on banks during a committee hearing. “Perhaps someone ought to remind the senator that the campaign is over and she should act accordingly if she wants to be taken seriously,” the anonymous executive wrote.

— A few months later, Politico’s Morning Money newsletter quoted a “senior DC Republican” to say that Warren’s call for Wall Street banks to disclose donations to Washington think tanks and advocacy groups “sounds uncomfortably like the kind of demand that Joe McCarthy would have made in the 1950s.”

Politico, in a 2015 article on Warren’s opposition to the nomination of a Lazard banker Antonio Weiss to a prominent Treasury Department role, provided anonymity to a “senior Wall Street Democrat” to claim, “In this case, the thing Warren was against — adding another Wall Street anti-regulatory guy — wasn’t even remotely true.” The source, Politico’s Ben Whitenoted in his piece, “like many interviewed for this article, declined to be identified by name to avoid Warren’s wrath.”

Politico, previewing candidates for the 2016 presidential election, reported that “one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan” that Warren would be a “nightmare.”

Politico, reporting on Warren’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2015, gave anonymity to “one Washington operative” to argue that Warren might not have an impact on the politics of the trade agreement. In the following paragraph, “one Democrat” was quoted mocking Warren’s “protectionist fears.”

— In another article about Warren’s opposition to the TPP, Politico quoted “one person close to the White House” to call Warren’s stance a “sign of desperation.”

— A 2015 Politico magazine feature about Warren’s political ambitions provided a “a top adviser to Obama” anonymity to say “there’s a loyalty question with Liz.”

Politico allowed anonymous lobbyists to mock Warren’s appointment as part of the Senate Democratic leadership team in 2014, including “one financial services lobbyist” who called Warren’s new roles as “a meaningless position.”

Politico allowed “a financial services industry insider and former GOP Senate aide” to preview the ways in which bank lobbyists were planning to defeat Warren during her 2012 Senate election bid.

— The Washington Post quoted an anonymous “Democratic aide” in 2015 to dismiss concerns that Warren did not endorse Clinton’s campaign early in the race, claiming “I don’t think it’s hugely notable that she is not there.”

— “I don’t see the Senate being spurred into action by Elizabeth Warren,” the American Banker quoted “one former Hill aide” as saying in a 2013 story about efforts in Congress to shield the Consumer Financial Protection Agency from legal challenges.

— As Congress debated an omnibus legislative package that included potential changes to the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill in 2014, Politico gave a “GOP aide” anonymity to blame Warren in case the bill failed.

— When Warren drafted an effort to give regulators more authority over auto dealers in 2014, the Hill granted anonymity to “one lobbyist familiar with the congressional discussions” to downplay the effort as “not going to go anywhere” unless Warren could bring on “a Democrat who is more credible than her.”

— CNN in January let “one Democratic senator who asked not to be named” criticize Warren for not endorsing a candidate, presumably Clinton, earlier in the Democratic presidential primary.

— The Hill granted anonymity to “one former Democratic staffer turned financial services lobbyist” in 2015 to claim that “Elizabeth Warren is the mirror image of Ted Cruz, and if we aren’t careful, she’ll drive the Democrats into the same ditch.”

The use of anonymous sourcing for quotes has been a topic of debate for ages, with many journalism ethics experts arguing that the privilege should only be granted under rare and exceptional circumstances, such as when the safety or livelihood of the source is at risk. “Identify sources whenever feasible,” says the Society of Professional Journalists guide on the issue. “The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.”

Attacking Elizabeth Warren? Political Reporters Will Grant You Anonymity
 

hashmander

Hale End
Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
20,704
Reputation
5,481
Daps
89,315
Reppin
The Arsenal
they wouldn't have been able to stop uncle joe from picking her. although i don't think hillary was going to pick her anyway because politicians still subscribe to the balance ticket theory and it makes sense why they do.
 
Top