"This type of donation...makes me question his ability to challenge power."

[BeyondGeography]

The financial sector is lining up behind Pete Buttigieg. He leads his 2020 campaign rivals in Wall Street contributions.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The financial sector, blamed by progressives for spawning the 2008 economic collapse, is lining up behind Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign. The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has collected more campaign cash from donors and political action committees tied to the financial, insurance and real estate sector than any other White House hopeful, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

...One top Wall Street law firm could pose particular challenges for Buttigieg with progressives. He's the top recipient of cash this cycle from Sullivan & Cromwell, which has worked on some of the biggest corporate mergers in recent history, including Amazon's acquisition of Whole Foods, AT&T's purchase of Time Warner and Bayer's merger with Monsanto. The firm also represented some of the largest financial institutions that received federal bailout money.

...The firm's work on mergers in particular could raise concerns among voters in Iowa, where Buttigieg has staked much of his candidacy on a strong showing in the nation's first caucuses. Sullivan & Cromwell worked on one of the biggest agricultural company mergers in history in 2018 when drug and chemical company Bayer combined with agricultural giant Monsanto....Austin Frerick, a native Iowan and former Treasury economist who now heads up an antitrust enforcement research program at Yale University, said "seed cost increases are a direct impact of ag mergers like these,"

Frerick helped Buttigieg develop his agriculture plan in which Buttigieg pledges, among other antitrust planks, to double funding for antitrust enforcement and "launch investigations of the seed market's recent mergers for anticompetitive behavior."

Frerick said he was initially "really inspired" by Buttigieg running for president as a young, gay candidate with a message of change. But after seeing the donations from Sullivan & Cromwell lawyers, he decided to support Warren instead. "Antitrust is about power, and are you willing to trust power," Frerick said. "This type of donation from a law firm makes me question his ability to challenge power."

More at https://amp.businessinsider.com/buttigieg-leads-2020-rivals-in-wall-street-contributions-2019-12?__twitter_impression=true

[George II]

1. He's NOT getting any money from Sullivan & Cromwell, NOT A PENNY! It would be illegal.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Sorry, but he is awful popular there

Employees of the law firm have contributed more than $83,000 to Buttigieg's presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. At least 20 Sullivan & Cromwell partners have given to his campaign.

[SCantiGOP]

3. and those are all individual, not corporate, donations

[BeyondGeography]

4. Seems it was enough for his ag plan advisor to bail

Send him a note, tell him he’s overreacting.

[beastie boy]

6. There are over 1800 employees and nearly 200 partners in the firm.

That translates to a $46 contribution per employee and 10% of partners contributing to Buttigieg's campaign.

I wouldn't call that awful popular.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Over 10 percent of the partners are with Pete then

Here’s another Iowan opposed to the merger who isn’t comfortable with that (from the article):

Indeed, David Weaver, a corn and soybean farmer from Rippey, Iowa, said he worries about the impact the merger could have on his business, because he won't be able to shop around for different seeds and pesticides.

"As these mergers happen, you're really not having much of a choice because you have to buy everything from one company," he said.

Weaver's considering caucusing for either Warren or Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and said Buttigieg's Sullivan and Cromwell donations "raise questions about his commitment to antitrust enforcement."

"Money dictates a lot of things, and where your money comes from dictates a lot of things," he said.

[beastie boy]

13. That's way below Buttigieg's primary standidng in Iowa, no?

How are the opinions of two Iowans make the facts any different?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

7. Sullivan & Cromwell is a very large law firm.

It has over 800 lawyers and 1,800 employees. If each lawyer contributed the maximum $2800, we'd be looking at $2,240,000, not a measly $83,000. The average contribution for 800 lawyers would be a mere $104.00.

[George II]

8. Elizabeth Warren seems to be popular at Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and IBM:

Employees at those corporations have contributed:

Google: $120,364.05
Microsoft: $41,863.91
Amazon: $26,218.05
Apple: 21,508.94
IBM: $18,902.39

That's almost a quarter million dollars, and what she received from "Google" is about 30% more than what he received from Sullivan & Cromwell.

And would it surprise you to learn that Warren received money from both Sullivan & Cromwell AND Sullivan & Cromwell LLP?

That's just the way it is.

[OilemFirchen]

15. And let's never forget the picayune contributions to Sen. Sanders 2016 Primary run:

Alphabet Inc $361,408
University of California $290,354
National Nurses United $212,396
Microsoft Corp $169,329
US Postal Service $134,449
Apple Inc $131,618
Roswell Infographics $130,500
US Dept of Veterans Affairs $123,094
Kaiser Permanente $119,535
Amazon.com $105,842
IBM Corp $102,853
US Navy $100,743
Boeing Co $96,655
State of California $91,127
Moveon.org $87,520
US Air Force $81,346
US Army $80,995
AT&T Inc $79,500
US Government $78,461
US Dept of Defense $77,890

... with my bold, just for giggles.

[OldRed2450]

16. I don't trust her ability to call out social media giants with those contributions

to her campaign. No way. All this calling people corrupt seems could be projection.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Maybe this helps, if you're actually curious

Why Google employees are donating to Warren and Sanders — presidential candidates who want to break up Google

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/7/30/20694619/google-employees-warren-sanders-presidential-election-donations-break-up-tech

[George II]

27. The point is that it's unreasonable simply look at where contributors work, it means little.

[blm]

25. Sure, Old, it's Warren who is corrupt and she is

Projecting her massive corruption onto the telecom and health insurance industries.

[blm]

21. Interesting that she still calls for reform of that industry, too.

I’m with the anti-corruption candidate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Corporations can't donate to campaigns - only individuals can.

A law firm is treated like a corporation unless it files tax returns as a partnership. But whenever a partnership makes a contribution to a candidate, the contribution is attributed proportionately to each participating partner and counts against the individual contribution limit of those participating partners. So, if a Sullivan & Cromwell partner has already contributed to a candidate's campaign, any additional funds donated by the partnership count against the partner's total of $2800. I don't know whether S&C files as a corporation or a partnership (probably the latter, since it's an LLP), but its contributions are limited by the individual partner's contributions. https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/partnership-llc-contributions/

The point is this: When we see claims that a candidate gets contributions from corporations or other business entities, those claims are not accurate. Corporations are forbidden by law to contribute to political campaigns, and partnerships can only add to the existing contributions of an individual partner up to the individual limit. When a claim is made that a corporation donates to a candidate, that's just false. It means only that some of the corporation's employees have done so. Contributions by janitors, secretaries and IT people who work for, say, Citibank, do not constitute contributions by Citibank and should not be represented as such.

[mjvpi]

32. Bingo

This whole argument needs to be made after examining super pacs. That’s where the "I need a favor" money shows up. Adding up individuals who work at a certain business is BS unless they are being coerced by management.

[comradebillyboy]

9. More purity testing?

[BeyondGeography]

11. Weak...ask Pete's former ag advisor why he's so squeamish

[comradebillyboy]

12. I don't understand attacking people who are playing by the rules.

All of those donations are quite legal. Should we ban all people with corporate jobs from donating?

[BeyondGeography]

18. It's called vetting

[comradebillyboy]

28. I call it counterproductive nonsense.

[LongtimeAZDem]

30. No, it's calld a Guilt by Association ad hominem fallacy

[BeyondGeography]

33. Why did Buttigieg return Sullivan & Cromwell bundler Rodgin Cohen's $5k just yesterday then?

Link to tweet

[LongtimeAZDem]

34. Because of idiotic attacks like this OP

[BeyondGeography]

35. Funny that Cohen was one of the names he omitted from his initial list of bundlers

Link to tweet

And then a few days later, the day after he feels some heat for his coziness with Big Money, poof, Cohen is gone.

[LongtimeAZDem]

14. Top Contributors, federal election data for Elizabeth Warren, 2020 cycle:

University of California $219,086
Alphabet Inc $201,726
Harvard University $116,264
Amazon.com $80,416
Microsoft Corp $73,006
Apple Inc $69,247
US Government $64,150
Kaiser Permanente $54,235
City of New York, NY $50,769
IBM Corp $47,588
AT&T Inc $46,593

https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/contributors?id=N00033492

[BeyondGeography]

17. Feel free to link to any articles showing advisors bailing on Warren because of her donors

[LongtimeAZDem]

22. That just means her advisors rationalize more than his

[BeyondGeography]

23. Ya got nothing then?

Ok.

[LongtimeAZDem]

24. Actually, her finance director quit because he though her strategy was stupid:

"He pointed out that winning over wealthy fund-raisers across the country helped build networks that could translate into political support, not just checks," the Times said. "But Mr. Pratt lost the argument to two of Ms. Warren's closest advisers, Dan Geldon and Joe Rospars, who made the case about standing apart from the field and freeing up her schedule."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-michael-pratt/index.html

None of this changes the fact that Warren's attack on Buttigieg are hypocritical in the extreme; this is just goalpost-moving.

[OilemFirchen]

20. Huh. I posted my list of Sanders' 2016 contributors (#15) before reading this.

Kinda fascinating...

[evertonfc]

26. these donation debates are futile

and silly. You need money to run campaigns. Sorry, you do. Trump will have 500 million before we get started. Main St isn't financing the 2020 race. Wake up

[George II]

29. Not only what you point out, but merely looking at the "employer" of contributors is silly, too....

Employees of big corporations can range from CEO all the way down to clerks, lunchroom workers, maintenance workers, etc. And the TOP amount that anyone can give is $2800. People act like candidates are getting millions from those people.

[zentrum]

31. Yes, he makes me

...very uneasy. Would vote for him of course against Trump. But not with trust.

[dansolo]

36. And her behavior is making me trust her less and less

Her hypocritical attacks is just one more step in her very disturbing campaign. I was astounded that someone who was supposed to be a brilliant economist had to make up numbers and fantasy cost estimates to get her plans to add up. Then she continues to promise everything in the world with non-existent money (all the tax revenues will be needed to pay for her healthcare plans). I understand that her plan is to try and outlast Bernie and get the hard left voters, but I thought she was going to at least try and devise a reasonable path to getting things accomplished.

[PatrickforO]

37. I take these kinds of posts with a grain of salt, and I'll tell you why.

First of all, what we're talking about is individuals AT a certain firm, not the firm itself.

Secondly, in a world full of dark money and super pacs, it isn't realistic for ANY of the candidates to eschew donations from individuals working for any firm.

I mean, I see this about Buttigieg from Sullivan & Cromwell, but there's also one showing Warren has had lots of donations from individuals at Google, Amazon, etc.

Any of the candidates, with a couple exceptions who shall remain nameless, would be much, MUCH better than Trump.

Let's keep that in perspective.

[NYMinute]

38. So fkn what?

If those people want a Democrat to be POTUS, more power to them.

This kind of class warfare is stupid.

A rich person with progressive ideals is no different than a poor or middle-class person with progressive ideals.