It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Upset by Warren, U.S. banks debate halting some campaign donations

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:31 AM
I think all donations from businesses should stop. It does not make the better person available for any job.
We should have limited campaign funding. Businesses should certainly be cut out as well as other countries. It will never get better any other way.

Its pure corruption right out in the open and these Banks prove it. It's another word for bribe and it's laughably legal.

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:37 AM

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: Spider879

(Reuters) - Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.

Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party's tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.

Bank officials said the idea of withholding donations was not discussed at a meeting of the four banks in Washington but it has been raised in one-on-one conversations between representatives of some of them. However, there was no agreement on coordinating any action, and each bank is making its own decision, they said.

The amount of money at stake, a maximum of $15,000 per bank, means the gesture is symbolic rather than material

Moreover, banks' hostility toward Warren, who is not a presidential candidate, will not have a direct impact on the presumed Democratic front runner in the White House race, Hillary Clinton. That's because their fund-raising groups focus on congressional races rather than the presidential election

Pls klik for the rest and to view video.
This is exactly why in my not so humble opinion she should run for president,I wished she would change her mind,for even if Hilary end-up beating her, hopefully she and the corporatist Dems would get the message..which I doubt but there shouldn't be a coronation.

We don't get to have a say in who is coronated.

Because it makes no difference..The King Is Dead!...Long Live The Queen! ..naaw what we think or say don't really long as things remain as is.

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:44 AM

originally posted by: works4dhs

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: Spider879
Campaigns should be financed directly from the Taxpayers, everyone the same. As it is the cost is far higher when the Money Maggots are the backers, destroyers of the Republic.

Limit election/campaign spending if you will, but taxpayer-funded elections? bad idea. who determines how much tax $ gets spent?
maybe, maybe, a voluntary $1 thing, but no more.

No it's a Good idea. You don't think we are paying for it by letting Goldbag Suchs run the Country? Wages in stagnation because Corporations are basically Banks. Was fought to fill their pockets. Money Changers.

Public access TV and Websites for debates and Campaign Ads. Instead of constantly being bombarded by BS annoying name calling ads. Perhaps the would address some issues and what they would do about it, instead of pointing a finger and after being elected go to work exclusively for their sickening money friends.

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:32 PM
You know its a sad day when banks can openly admit they are buying politicians!

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 12:46 PM

originally posted by: amicktd
You know its a sad day when banks can openly admit they are buying politicians!

No not really for now "WE"..U and I and everyone reading this knows it. now the question is are " WE" gonna remain apathetic.

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 05:07 PM
Dynasties of any sort are anti-American... I'm sick of Bush-Clinton.

Warren is a grounded, smart cookie with good focus on what needs change, with no special interests pulling her strings... which is what we need... and is why she won't run/win.

To get good representational democracy we need to separate money from politics... and an educated, engaged public wouldn't hurt, either.

Opposite of what we have now.

Campaign finance reform, of some sort, is needed. I understand some of the resistance... in that money equates with free speech to some (esp those who's political side is richer) but ... we really need to stop corporate lobbying and legislating for the highest bidder.

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 11:38 AM

originally posted by: Baddogma

Warren is a grounded, smart cookie with good focus on what needs change, with no special interests pulling her strings... which is what we need... and is why she won't run/win.

(lol) Warren is a hyperpartison idealogue left wing nut out of touch with reality (as are half the democrat elected officials).
I would love to see a cap on spending, or maybe limit the time frame for campaigns, but these things just can't happen becuase there are too many ways around. if, say, we tell Hillary she can't campaign till next February, she'll go on tour promoting a new book or a cause (womens' right in the service industry workforce or whatever). Political campaign? what political campaign?
that's the problem with blocking 'corporate contributions'. remember, they tried McCain/Feingold, and a bunch of people/groups started setting up special organizations (5013C or something) that can take $ and promote whatever cause., Tea Party and others are just excuses to bypass 'campaign finance reform'.
The dems want to block businesses from giving money (even though they get tons of it) but they'll never consider for a moment outlawing, say, union money. as always, the democrat party is promoting the interests of the democrat party.

Honestly, I like the concept of telling big corps they can't donate, or at least cap the donations, but
1) impossible to enforce (Joes' Widgets give their board of directors a $10k bonus a month before elections, and whatya know, every member of the board the next week donates the legally max $10k to Cadidate X); and
2) constitutionally, you can't limit political speech.
imagine a law is made that says 'banks can't give money to campaigns'. the individuals working for the banks still can (see above example). and LSC Bank might decide to 'invest' in a 'startup company' that decides to (legally) give money to the favored candidate. It would be obvious that LSC Taco Stand, which grosses $500 a week and donates $10k to candidate X, is a front designed solely to bypass the law, but legally it would be legit.
there's a reason laws like this aren't done. impossible to enforce.
edit on 1-4-2015 by works4dhs because: add thoughtful concepts.

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:17 PM
a reply to: works4dhs

True enough, and why this is a complex issue... and why legislation is composed of so many caveats and subclauses.

Well, true enough except for the label of 'ideologue' attached to Warren... I'm not so sure she's inflexible... and I'd bet that even the most fervent Right-wing cheerleader is open to compromise solutions in private... same for the Left... and the two major sides have far, far more to agree on than not.

Unfortunately, that agreement has (mainly) been to stick it to the little people... Warren, at least, is paying lip service to the average guy... and lip service is a start.

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:22 PM
a reply to: Spider879

Proof that donations buy favors. She will be pushed to the fringe of her party over this. Domations may still be made to the DNC....but the DNC wont fund warren.

A perfect higjlight for why we need campaign finance reform.

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:55 PM
So Warrens position just got some money out of politics and the banks have reduced leverage with a party? And best of all, it didn't cost anyone a dime. You can't buy that type of publicity, or efficiency in a policy.

Good for Warren. Moves like this could make her president.

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:02 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm with you completely. I've accrued a little bit of debt. Not that much in the grand scheme of things but equal to about 50% of a years income. Over the past couple years I've managed to pay it down and I look to be debt free in a couple months. In addition to that despite being a student right now I've got no student loans and I have to say it feels damn good to have financial conversations with my fellow students where they speak of having 100k or more in student loan debt while I can proudly proclaim having zero. Conversations like that make all the skipped nights of going out to the bars, or attending a fancier school, or eating modest dinners opposed to the school cafeteria worth it.

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:12 PM
This right here is why this woman kicks butt IMO. Go get 'em Warren. Smash 'em!!

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 07:23 PM

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Spider879

Proof that donations buy favors. She will be pushed to the fringe of her party over this. Domations may still be made to the DNC....but the DNC wont fund warren.

A perfect higjlight for why we need campaign finance reform.

Exactly Bigfurry,she can never be rewarded for her stance good people can only go so far in politics today everyone is on the take including the SCOTUS that made that terrible ruling for no apparently good reason.
edit on 1-4-2015 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:23 PM
a reply to: Spider879

now the question is are " WE" gonna remain apathetic.

Well, *ahem* it seems to me that "WE" are remaining pretty pathe--------

Wait........oh, you said "Apathethic."

Sorry, misread it at first.

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:45 PM
a reply to: Spider879

ya know, some American's get pissed when foreign nationals criticize our politics.

Me....i just take it as confirmation that our government is so screwed up even other countries are starting to notice.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 05:41 AM
a reply to: tothetenthpower
I couldn't agree more... It would be like bidding against yourself..Will never happen in my opinion.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 06:22 AM

Guess What Happened When JPMorgan's CEO Visited Elizabeth Warren's Office

When the conversation turned to financial regulation and Dimon began complaining about all the burdensome rules his bank had to follow, I finally interrupted. I was polite, but definite. No, I didn’t think the biggest banks were overregulated. In fact, I couldn’t believe he was complaining about regulatory constraints less than a year after his bank had lost billions in the infamous London Whale high-risk trading episode. I said I thought the banks were still taking on too much risk and that they seemed to believe the taxpayers would bail them out -- again -- if something went wrong.
Our exchange heated up quickly. By the time we got to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we weren’t quite shouting, but we were definitely raising our voices. At this point -- early in 2013 -- Rich Cordray was still serving as director of the consumer agency under a recess appointment; he hadn’t yet been confirmed by the Senate, which meant that the agency was vulnerable to legal challenges over its work. Dimon told me what he thought it would take to get Congress to confirm a director, terms that included gutting the agency’s power to regulate banks like his. By this point I was furious. Dodd-Frank had created default provisions that would automatically go into effect if there was no confirmed director, and his bank was almost certainly not in compliance with the those rules. I told him that if that happened, “I think you guys are breaking the law.”
Suddenly Dimon got quiet. He leaned back and slowly smiled. “So hit me with a fine. We can afford it.”

For those who prefer text to video klik^above, this is just crazy the shamelessness these guys bribe our?? officials,there was a time when public knowledge would get someone fired or issue an halfazzed apology now they don't even try.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 06:38 AM
And what does Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts have to say about influence peddling by the Big Wall Street Banks?

“Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to such quid pro quo corruption,” Roberts wrote. “Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties.” - John Roberts

Supreme Court Opinion

Too bad corporate media is working hand-in-hand with the Big Banks to keep news like this out of the public's awareness. Instead we get nothing but RW talking points.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:06 PM
Articles like that Huffington Post one are precisely why Elizabeth Warren could be president. She is one of the very few democrats who can legitimately point to a record of fiscal responsibility.

posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 02:56 PM
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

John Roberts has always come across to me like an MK Ultra operative.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in