It is no secret that corporations generally favor the party in power in their political giving. The same is true for industries at a macro level. For example, the defense sector as a whole favored the Democrats by 57% and 51% during the most recent two election cycles (2010 and 2008) despite the common perception that, as a whole, they generally support Republicans by a similar margin. When it comes to corporate political giving, the rule of thumb is simple: in order to influence favorable legislative agenda, give primarily to those candidates who will likely remain in, or come in to, power. The same has been true for all other industries except for Oil and Gas industry which has steadfastly supported Republicans through thick and thin. At the risk of being side tracked, I would like to point out that they have not got their money’s worth since oil exploration remains a daunting task in Washington; and, at least in the U.S., they have paid record taxes and royalties unlike any other sector of the economy.
It is only ideologically driven special interest groups like the unions and trial attorneys that usually favor one party over the other consistently. It all made sense, that is until earlier this week.
A ‘progressive’ friend and I were discussing Goldman Sachs and I did not really know why GS was so much more Democrat leaning in their political giving than any other Wall Street institution (though others all leaned to Democrats in 2008, obviously it was for political convenience since they slightly leaned the other way pre 2006 – but not GS, which has always favored the Democrats). For the readers' benefit:
Year..................Contributions.................% given to Democrats
2008.................$5,938,700...................................75%
2006.................$3,458,800...................................62%
2004.................$6,411,000...................................62%
2002.................$3,487,800...................................66%
2000.................$4,432,000..................................62%
1998..................$1,938,200...................................63%
.
.
Totals..............$31,684,500..................................64%
Source: Open Secrets
It took me a while to put one and one together, but eventually it all clicked when I researched some of my archived articles.
The mechanism for carbon trading in the U.S. is in the form of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The Joyce Foundation (which is tightly linked to The Soros Open Society – a powerful advocacy lobby that envisions global socialism) in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start CCX when Barack Obama sat on its board. This is where it starts getting really interesting: The largest single shareholder of CCX is Goldman Sachs. Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs.
CCX founder Richard Sandor estimates the climate trading market could one day (soon) be "a $10 trillion dollar market." Not bad for trading an intangible, kind of like complex financial instruments of various kinds Goldman is so familiar with. GS seems really good in making money out of 'thin air'.
From another angle, one might wonder why then would GS give any money at all to Republicans who would de-rail their gravy train in the way of Cap and Trade? Well they haven’t really. Of the 25% of their contributions to Republicans, some of the biggest recipients were:
McCain
Specter (was a Rep. then)
John Sununu
Chris Shays
Mark Kirk
…..All liberal Republicans with luke warm views towards Cap and Trade legislation! GS gave, by my calculations, less than 10% to non cap and trade friendly Republicans, mainly to hedge their bets in a very minor way.
Well, the 'carbon connection' does not end there because, then there is General Electric. GE - a giant corporation that paid $0 in U.S. taxes last year - as we all know, is the parent company of the NBC family, including MSNBC and CNBC; or also known as the unofficial press organ of the Obama White House. Was it a coincidence that, as Pew and other surveyors of the political scene pointed out, NBC group distinguished itself from every other news outlet in one sided favorable coverage of the Obama campaign, and later the administration while the CEO and the parent company tilted heavily, 2:1, to the Democrats in their giving? Is it a coincidence that Jeffrey Immelt sits on the President's economic council, presumably having the ear of the president and having influence over economic policies? Furthermore, is it coincidence that the combined alternative energy market and medical record transcription businesses - both Democrat only ideas - that are estimated at $2-3 trillion, happen to benefit GE directly and disproportionately?
For those not in the know, GE has not tried to hide its massive lobbying efforts on behalf of Cap and Trade legislation. They are not only the single largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, but also stand to be the sole secondary market trader of carbon credits. Under the Obama plan, those cap and trade credits would be issued by the federal government, and ultimately traded like any other stock or bond. GE has created an entire unit that would deal in the secondary market trading of the carbon credits. In other words, first they are going to take in billions from government contracts in wind energy. Second, they are going to have exclusive control over the secondary market for these credits. That effectively makes GE the gate keeper for every dollar produced by the carbon scheme which will cover all carbon emmiting energy sources including the manufacture of almost all consumer goods using these resources.
Thus is the explanation of what I suspected before: Obama (+Democrats in general) is in bed with GS and GE; and there are potentially 10 trillion+ excellent reasons. Follow the money. But then again, as my friend claims, I am delusional and there are absolutely no connections to be made in these incestuous relationships that I highlighted.
No comments:
Post a Comment