After the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, phones at the party committee started ringing.
Banking executives personally called the offices of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC Finance Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) last week demanding answers, three financial services lobbyists told POLITICO.
“They were livid,” said one Democratic lobbyist with banking clients.
The execs asked the lawmakers: “What are you doing? Do you even understand some of the things that they’ve called for?” said another lobbyist with financial services clients who is a former Democratic Senate aide.
Democrats’ friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you can’t have it both ways.
President Barack Obama and other top Democrats are parroting the anti-corporate rhetoric running through the Occupy Wall Street protests, trying to tap into the movement’s energy but keep the protesters at arms’ length.
But many bankers aren’t buying the distinction. And some financial services lobbyists and industry insiders say the liberal line will make swing givers think twice before opening their checkbooks this year.
“Most Wall Street guys, they feel like they’re going to be burned in effigy,” said Anthony Scaramucci, managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, who gave to Obama in 2008 but is now fundraising for Mitt Romney. Some moderate donors, who have given to both parties, “fled from Obama in his support of the Wall Street protests,” he said.
In 2008 Obama edged out John McCain in Wall Street fundraising and Democrats overall raised about as much as Republicans. Giving patterns went back to normal in 2010 when the GOP came out back on top.
This cycle Democrats have a particularly tough sell, since they pushed through a financial regulatory reform law last year and Mitt Romney has emerged as a Republican presidential front-runner, whose deep Wall Street ties clash with Obama’s recent populist overtures. The lip service to occupiers is only hurting an already rocky relationship.
“You can’t have it both ways,” said one in-house financial services lobbyist. “It just makes it harder for people who are Democrats in New York, Boston, Chicago to on the one hand be demogagued and then be asked ‘Hey, you can get your picture with the president for $30,000.’ It doesn’t square.”
And the rhetoric strikes a nerve.
“In some ways, I think this is worse than [Dodd-Frank] because it is more symbolic,” said a Democratic financial services lobbyist. “People from Wall Street can deal with regulation, they deal with it all the time … I think it’s just the bashing that sort of drives them crazy.”
Asked last week about Wall Street’s reaction to the email, Crowley said, “I haven’t spoken to anyone.”
Democrats, meanwhile, make no apologies for the email, publicly.
“We stand with Americans across the country who are angry about the Republican policies that led to lower home values and incomes, fewer jobs and weaker retirement savings,” said DCCC spokesman Jesse Ferguson. “They’re right to be angry and our priority is fight for those middle income families, not protect K Street lobbyists.”
The DCCC hasn’t sent another pro-occupier email and its counterpart in the Senate hasn’t either.
Obama has tried to walk the fine line of sympathizing with the protesters without vilifying bankers. Speaking at a Martin Luther King tribute on Sunday, Obama said if the civil rights leader were still alive, “I believe he would remind us that the unemployed worker can rightly challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonizing all who work there.”
But the White House has also adopted the rhetoric of the protesters. White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Sunday echoed the “99 percent” slogan that demonstrators have used to criticize the wealthiest one percent of Americans, noting that Obama would make sure “the interests of the 99 percent of Americans are well-represented” during a three day bus trip to North Carolina and Virginia.
Meanwhile, Obama and other Democrats are still cashing in on Wall Street. Last month, Obama’s campaign held a fundraising dinner hosted by Warren Buffett at Manhattan’s Four Seasons restaurant, the Los Angeles Times reported. Obama has hauled in $3.9 million from the finance, insurance and real estate sector so far this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But he’s been outpaced by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has received $7.5 million from the sector.
Goldman Sachs employees – who contributed more than $1 million to Obama in the 2008 election cycle — are now spending more on Romney than Obama, according to CRP. Goldman Sachs employees, along with their spouses, have contributed $352,200 to Romney. That’s more than seven times the $49,125 they’ve given to Obama.
Overall, the commercial banking industry spent roughly the same amount in the 2008 election cycle to back congressional Republicans and Democrats, spending about $14.9 million and $14.2 million on the parties, respectively, according to the CRP. But that balance tipped heavily to the GOP’s favor in the 2010 cycle, and congressional Democrats are now trailing far behind Republicans so far in the 2012 cycle when it comes to Wall Street support.
Publicly, many Democrats insist that they’re not concerned about irking their Wall Street donors.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said taking money from a group doesn’t equate to supporting them. “It’s what you fight for and how you vote, it always has been,” Kerry said in a recent interview. “It’s hard to run for office and not have somebody in some sector or some industry have contributed to you; but the question is, are you voting commonsense and values and for the interests of the people, broadly?”
Democrats also point to recent polls showing that Americans view the demonstrations in a positive light. A Time Magazine survey conducted last week found that 54 percent of Americans had a positive view of the protests, compared with 23 percent who viewed them unfavorably.
But apart from the high-profile mudslinging, many Democrats are keeping a low profile on the issue. In recent interviews, Democrats with ties to the financial services industry expressed only qualified support for the demonstrations. And some Democratic political groups appear to be waiting to see how the protests play out before publicly jumping on board.
“I think the smart Democrats are walking a fine line by trying to embrace a shared sense of frustration and resentment, while keeping some distance because the protesters don’t have a clearly articulated goal and the endgame of the protests is unclear,” said Rich Tarplin, a financial services lobbyist who worked in the Clinton administration and for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).
“I don’t know if I’m supportive of it,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). “I think what it is, is a reflection of a deep-seated economic anxiety that exists in the country.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A5F5D3FF-AC48-45E9-9196-97236DC5D01D
