The Obama Adminstration's Handling of Wall Street.

This doesn't answer my question -

how much did Goldman Sachs, Inc. contribute?

 

So for the last 12 election cycles, which probably had, conservatively speaking, at least 10-20 billion in total contributions- Goldman Sachs Inc. contributed nothing, but indirectly contributed . . . .9.5 million? Over 22 years? I'm not a math guy but that doesn't seem like very much.

The math has been done, and discussed ad nauseum on this BBS. It's not that much and pales in comparison to contributions from other interest goups.

 

Uh, no I'm not saying $4.6 million over 22 years and isn't much compared to what profit Goldman makes (though it's not) - it's not much compared to what others give.

The Koch brothers alone funnel at least that much, and probably more money than that into political activities every single year...The SEIU spends at least $10-20 million each election cycle...etc.

Again, considering that you're measuring 11 elections, each one with hundreds of individual races - over a 21 year span - it's really not as impressive as you think it might be.

 

...they ARE the government.

 

Uh, no, again, read what I wrote.

I'm talking about the brothers themselves - not Koch industries, and the money they spend on think tanks, PR campaigns, fake grassroots orgs, and other machinery - which is well in excess of $100 million.

 

Uh, that's just the amount they contributed - on their own, they spent millions more (~10 miillion or more last cycle, I don't feel like looking it up) in independent expenditures.

But you don't see me running around saying they own the government - because they don't.

 

How many former employees do the Koch brothers have operating in cabinets at the federal level?

What exactly are you defending here?

 

I'm not defending, I'm taking aim at the stupid "GS bought the government for a few millon dollars!" argument that appears every so often around here.

That would be greatest trade they ever made if so, but it's really not the case.

 

I'm not sure who's arguing that GS bought the government - but it's difficult to overestimate the influence GS has in government action when so many of their members are in powerful positions in the federal government - many, if not most, of them with a direct line to the President.

 

What you're missing is that you're only looking at a tiny slice of the pie. As SF noted, the Koch brothers and the labor unions spend far more than than on direct investments. Labor unions don't donate much to candidates - they just spend tons of money directly, on fliers, ads, etc. None of that is counted in your soft money or individual contributions. Goldman doesn't spend money like that. If you include all that money, these other groups on both sides of the aisle dwarf anything that most corporations, Goldman included, spend.

 

Goldman Sachs doesn't need to donate the most money in order to influence policy - they have seats in government that allow them to make policy, and they have had these seats for quite awhile.

 

Which ones do they currently have?

 

Well, they've spent about 1% as much - so it's probably not buying that much. Corzine bought himself a senate seat and a governorship and he was last seen losing to a fat jerk.

LOL - what's the "revolving door SEC" about? Explain?

I like how you use economic principles like rent-seeking then completely ignore the economics of election finance, in which GS and its employees are marginal players at best - as for Lehman, please, that's just asinine.