71 votes

Reality Check: Railing Against Wall Street Bailouts, Then Taking Campaign Contributions From Those Firms?

(FOX19) - Political candidates who get elected demanding reform but then take money from those they have been railing against.

We all know that it happens.

And yet a new report out by Bloomberg shows how some Tea party- backed candidates have been doing just that. But are they alone?

Ben has the Reality Check you won't see anywhere else.
http://www.fox19.com/stor...

http://youtu.be/MeYqlzVkuvs



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So what?!? Ron Paul accepted money from

white supremacists. If I were a politician, it would take a lot for me to return money or insist that ANYONE not give me money. Hey, if someone wants to donate to your campaign, take the free money and put it to good use. You better believe these bailed-out banks donate to non-Tea Party candidates. If TP candidates refuse the money, they will be outspent just like Dr. Paul and the Mitt Romneys will win every primary. Like it or not, it takes big business/bank money to win elections.

Who are they?

Dear Mr. Swann, Why would you make such accusations and then not name the eleven? You name only one. Why would you not name the others? It's not in your video. It's not easily found on your webpage or Facebook page.

Add SENATOR JON TESTER to your list...

Although he voted against the Banking Bailout, he turned around and voted to re-assign Ben Bernanke to the Federal Reserve! Go figure!

Old Max Baucus (Montana) has been keeping him in line ever since!!

Probably not much to figure.

He may be a believer in the chicago school of economics (or taking advice from such). I think they still outnumber members of the austrian school. There's a lot of similarity between the two schools (e.g., free markets - and therefore anti-bailout), but they are very different when it comes to monetary policy (where chicago school supports central banks while austrian school believes money itself needs to be a free market as well).

It's entirely possible that the banks themselves encourage belief in the chicago school (for purely altruistic reasons, I'm sure /sarc).

Contributions

Institute a "Don't ask don't tell policy" If you like the message you can donate but no identifying information allowed.

Ben's view is a bit off.

A big part of what Ben is saying is a guilt by association fallacy. That's the same kind of fallacy used against Ron Paul when MSM types point out that some white-supremecist likes Ron Paul or has donated to his campaign.

If Goldman Sachs wants to donate a million dollars to the Red Cross, and the Red Cross accepts it, that's perfectly fine -- so long as the Red Cross continues to pursue noble causes. It's the same with politicians. I'm pretty sure I've heard Ron Paul say he accepts money from whoever wants to contribute it. Any money given to Ron Paul, whether by the most dedicated supporter of liberty or by the most corrupt banker, is money given towards a good cause (liberty). Rejecting money that could be used to further the cause of liberty just because you don't like the entity donating it would arguably be morally wrong.

If bankers give money to a newly elected politician that doesn't necessarily mean much. They may be "testing the waters" and seeing what kind of influence they can buy from that politician. What really matters (in terms of judging the politician) is how the politician behaves -- both their words and their actions. (So that part of Ben's video was on target -- talking about what these politicians have actually done, or not done.) If it turns out that the politician can not be bought, then contributions from corrupt sources will dry up -- not because the politician has stopped accepting the money, but because the corrupt sources have learned that their money is not buying them anything and could be better spent elsewhere (either on other politicians or, heaven help us, on things that are actually productive).

Now if corrupt bankers give a newly elected politician lots of money, and then the next election cycle they give just as much (or even more) -- that's a pretty good indication that they believe they are getting something for their money.

as he siad ..

As he said that those candidates have fail to introduced any legislation(since elected to office) to uphold their promises to the people.

Yes,

and I acknowledged that part was good: "What really matters (in terms of judging the politician) is how the politician behaves -- both their words and their actions. (So that part of Ben's video was on target -- talking about what these politicians have actually done, or not done.)"

I'm just saying that Ben has not provided reasonable evidence of a quid pro quo here. He has provided evidence that politicians are not living up to their promises (nothing new there -- that's SOP for most politicians), but not that they are failing to do so because they are being influenced/bought by campaign contributions.

WAY TO GO, BEN!!!!

If I could hire you, I'd give you a job at CNN or MSNBC, but without the shackles the rest have on them!!

I wish we had a NEW NETWORK called FNN--Freedom News Network! I can dream, huh...

Schweikert

David Schweikert is my congressman and he voted against SOPA, CISPA, and NDAA. Therefore, the Ron Paul crowd in AZ loves him and is fully behind his reelection...but not me.

He is a nice guy and all but he's no RP and has voted for several things that RP would not.

It kind of kills me to see RP activists spending time and resources on his campaign. In fact, Schweikert's campaign manager is the head RP guy in AZ - how much time is he working on RP's election now that he's busy getting Schweikert reelected? Not enough I would say considering how bad his district caucus went. He couldn't even get elected as a delegate from his own district and his (mine as well) district caucus resulted in only 2 RP delegates out of 61 spots going to the state convention.

Hopefully this will wake up some of our RP people. I'm going to call Schweikert's office and inquire about this report.

The important thing before

The important thing before crucifying these reps is to find out why they received money from these wall street pacs. If Schweikert received money because he is planning on bailing out Goldmann Sachs then that is obviously bad. But if he received donations because they like his anti governmental regulation then we as free market capitalists are probably okay with that.

there is no reason

They have mostly sold out
the big brother thing is amazing they think they are part of the eliet

So censoring and watching is a good thing right. NOT NOT NOT
this used to be a free country..
The one of few with conviction is Ron Paul

The censorship of the internet is what the powers need because its the only reason most of us even have a clue to the corruption in politics.

Not 10yr's after the fact or more..

OV

Just want what seems to be missing, Truth and Justice for ALL
What is fraud except creating “value” from nothing and passing it off as something?

Someone just sent me this

even more reason to do everything we can to save America

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/08/a_vital_and_unlearned_lesson...

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/07/the_american_character/

Ron Paul or its going to get real bad

OV

Just want what seems to be missing, Truth and Justice for ALL
What is fraud except creating “value” from nothing and passing it off as something?

TEA Party Hypocrites

The gov't gives our money to "bailout" big banks. Big banks give money [might as well be the money the gov't took from us] to political candidates to buy them off. What the f*ck is wrong with this picture?

My latest Daily Paul article: How the U.S. Media Has Had a Big Hand in Helping Ron Paul Win the Republican Nomination
http://www.dailypaul.com/231491/how-the-us-media-has-had-a-b...

Wow! Wow! Wow! Stephen

Wow! Wow! Wow! Stephen Fincher is my congressman!!! I just realized recently what he's all about when he VOTED FOR CISPA!!!!! Just wow! Posted publicly on my Facebook so all my peeps can see!! Thank you Ben Swann

Wow..he was probably paid

Wow..he was probably paid off. The Tparty should recall him.

When he was campaigning, I

When he was campaigning, I saw him in the Humboldt, TN "Strawberry Festival". He was going down the road on a very large green tractor of some kind; making a big deal of showing he was only a farmer against big government. Just comes to show how they will put on a show too to convince you they are going to stand for ordinary Americans. I know not to trust any of them now. But the problem with Fincher is he was not a politician prior and there was no voting record to look at. So how would we know? He talked a good talk. I really didn't like all the so-called "Tea Party" candidates but tried to vote as close as possible. Thinking any step closer to Constitutional government was the right step. Fincher just did a tele-townhall meeting about 2 weeks ago and he went on about how people in D.C. don't follow the Constitution anymore and 2 or 3 days after that meeting, he voted for CISPA. You just never know until they start voting.

Ben needs to start a series

Ben needs to start a series on the private shareholders of the Federal reserve.

Goldman Sachs

predicted the housing bubble collapse in time, bet short and actually came out as a winner. Therefore, it was not bailed out.

The government, however, forced everybody to take some TARP money to hide from the public who is under water and who is not to protect market shares of the weaker players. Goldman Sachs just arouses imagination and we know why. BTW, GS does not donate to campaigns, its employees do. They have the same intentions as trade unions and other special groups - job security, favorable regulations and subsidies when needed.

FYI: Goldman got billions

FYI: Goldman got billions indirectly from the bailouts of companies like AIG where Goldman was counterparty to various trades. The bailouts were ALL about Goldman. Don't believe what the mainstream docu dramas tell you.

Goldman didn't predict the collapse. They engineered it with
John Alfred Paulson hedge fund manager, he is the founder and President of Paulson & Co. - Goldman wrote or sold the Credit Default options that they knew would be a winning trade on behalf of Paulson's company.

You are pushing

your wishful thinking into ears of the eager audience. They too do not want to be called populists.

Being is speculation (market trade) business, Goldman Sachs has a betting history it had submitted to the regulatory agency. They came out solid.

In terms of "engineering" the bubble, you have no clue. Using bold text wont help. The housing bubble was created by Fannie & Freddy fractional reserve, low interest rate from the FED and affirmative-action programs from Congress. With ACTUAL fractional reserve about 2-3%, a small run on a bank (or a default from mortgage holders) creates an acute shortage of liquidity. Your education is from MSM articles. I suggest you to check an excellent lecture by George Reisman at Mises.org on that subject.

Hmm...

I have to admit you have me thinking Liberty First. I will go read that lecture at Mises. After reading this thread I have to say you make some interesting points. Most of this is over my head so you automatically get the benefit of doubt from me.

EDTIT: Ok, so there is a ton of material by this George Reisman. Would you mind giving some specifics or even better a link? I am interested.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin

But In Reality

..Your "overt" simplification of the "problem" is clueless.
To state that:
"Goldman Sachs has a betting history it had submitted to the regulatory agency. They came out solid."..is ludicrous.

Regulatory Agency?...Do some real homework on that.
...and you might also consider this motive....GREED.

Corrupt CEOs and CFOs - in collusion with those who have regulatory oversight of their industries - have defrauded companies for their personal gain.

It's NOT the people who "have mortgages they couldn't afford".
Yet you attempt to sidestep the fact that many were encouraged to sign onto these "Liars Loans" which were known -by all the "Regulators"- to be doomed to fail....

Regulators...from the top to the lowest level rode this train of corruption to line their own purses.

This failure of "regulation" fed the cycle of greed...and the warnings were there for many to see...even as far back as the S&L Scandals ...remember them??...
(Hillary cashed in on that one...BIG TIME!)
and "FBI warns against Massive Mortgage Fraud"...yet still no arrests by the DOJ.

And the MSM you mention, still- to this very day- casts a web of deceit blaming the citizens hoping to be homeowners as the primary villains in this maelstrom of deceit and greed.

Check this out...and it's not MSM "education":
Wm K. Black:
" Director of Litigation for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Black fully reveals how Charles Keating and hundreds of other S&L owners took advantage of a weak regulatory environment to perpetrate accounting fraud on a massive scale"...
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Way-Rob-Bank-Own/dp/0292706383/ctoc
or here:
http://law.umkc.edu/faculty-staff/people/black-william.asp
and finally this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pCHu1...

Which is particularly relevant since it is now known that:
The TARP FUNDS "paid back" by our corrupt bankers were actually
NOT Paid off but PURHASED by the FEDERAL RESERVE....
...Essentially this places the burden of debt back onto the
populace..the taxpayer...the citizen.

Stay tuned..more to come.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

I do not

know is it your anxiety or rage that prevents you from understanding what we are talking about. I am not defending Goldman Sachs in any way that is related to its connection to corporatism. But GS is not worse than any other big private bank out there that has a close relationship with the government. And all big banks are engaged in crony capitalism.

Also blaming GS on housing bubble is like blaming the rich on exploiting the poor or forcing mortgages down their throat. But even if we assume just that - it was not GS, but Fannie & Freddy.

Perhaps, you should be more objective instead of exerting a knee-jerk reaction and exhibit defensiveness without understanding what we are talking about.

Have you ever worked inside one of the private shareholder banks

who created and control the Federal Reserve?

The things you describe here --->"The housing bubble was created by Fannie & Freddy fractional reserve, low interest rate from the FED and affirmative-action programs from Congress. With ACTUAL fractional reserve about 2-3%,<--- Is a result of the molding by the hands of the private shareholder banks who own and control the Federal Reserve.

What you say here is a fantasy pulled out of some
academian's head --->"a small run on a bank (or a default from mortgage holders) creates an acute shortage of liquidity."

And what you say here is also false ---->"Your education is from MSM articles."

I am a retired bankster. I worked inside one of the oldest private shareholder banks of the Federal Reserve. A bank so brutally advantaged that their account holders are not partially covered by the FDIC. A bank so brutally connected and dominant in global markets that their account holders are insured by the fortunes of the bank's directors for the full amounts of their deposits. The minimum required to open a retail account is $5,000,000. They've never lost a penny.

Goldman Sachs controls the SEC through their alumni. Any 'investigation' is for show. The fines are tokens. There is never any criminal charge for anyone in the regime.

You are off the topic, we do not argue about corporatism

Every, I mean, every bank in USA (except some state municipal ones) who are part of the FED system must be a member - buy shares and become a member of one of 12 national branches. So we have thousands of banks, big and small, for each branch. Each bank has only one vote regardless of amount of shares it had bought.

All 7 members of the FED's Board of Governors are appointed by the president and approved by the Congress. The salary of Bernanke is fixed at $160,000 (less than his professorial salary at an Ivy league college)

The FED is needed to monetize our unbalanced portion of the budget, American people (via Congress) vote on every year. Pentagon is needed to scare the world to accept our paper is gold.

Talking about corporatism - the symbiotic relationship between big gov, big business and big labor - is another topic. "Goldman Sachs controls the SEC through their alumni." I can debunk that too - if alumni control something, it may be that their school/business was thought to be the best and they were appointed as such, not because they still serve that school/business. Yes, top position at the government can secure some regulations and bail outs, but they cannot improve your betting strategy on the market - nope.

And YOU are off your rocker

to state that:
"Yes, top position at the government can secure some regulations and bail outs, but they cannot improve your betting strategy on the market .."....is a downright deception.
(I won't call you a liar..let someone else)

It's common knowledge that PAULSON gave insider info to
many at the top ....in a meeting he initiated.
All while still being the Secretary of the Treaury...

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/11/29/hank-paulso...
or...http://theweek.com/article/index/221919/hank-paulsons-astonishing-insider-tip-to-wall-street

We know their agenda...WHAT is YOURS????

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Paulson

Paulson had made many decisions that benefited many top players of the corporatism including AIG, BOA, Citigroup, and dozen more.

To say that he was serving exclusively Goldman Sachs is a misplaced judgment.

Since you like MSM, then wikipedia will do: Paulson "shot to fame and fortune" when his investment strategies paid off during the subprime housing market crash.His bet against the subprime mortgage bubble has been called the greatest trade ever. His flagship fund, Paulson Advantage Fund, was down over 40% as of September 2011. During that same time, Paulson had invested most of his personal fortune in gold and it had grown by $3.1 billion from September 2010 to September 2011."

Looks like not much inside trading, but Austrian school of economics at work.

In spite of yourself you utter yet another truth

--->"Paulson had made many decisions that benefited many top players of the corporatism including AIG, BOA, Citigroup, and dozen (about 97 more) more."

You just named 3 more private shareholders of the Federal Reserve -- Not to be confused with the ready for public consumption - "FED Member" banks you speak of. The two are not even remotely the same.

Private shareholders created and control the FED - including the authority to print money. The Member banks are just the clients of the FED. They pay a mark-up to the FED. And yes B of A, CITI, Goldman, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, are publicly refered to as Member banks. But they are on both sides of the fence.

Let me give you another similar example; VISA & MCard... These are also privately held "not-for-profit, "independent" organizations.
Like they just sprouted up spontaneously like moss on a rock.

They are held by the same names. JP Morgan, CITI, Goldman, Wells Fargo, through other entities. Where do you think the massive profits go?

WalMart & Ron Paul are the only two entities I know of who have threatened the Federal Reserve Banking Monoply.

When WalMart attempted to go into credit card processing and wholesale/retail banking about 6 years ago the markets were all excited. They had the muscle to cut alot of fat out of the banking and card processing business. They would have been a killer.

But they were stopped by the Federal Reserve owned politicians and temporarily dropped the whole magnificent idea.

Now if you Google around you'll see that they are taking smaller bites at banking services and offering things to the "unbanked" consumers. Products no other bank offers. They already do banking in Mexico and Canada.

House passes bill to ban industrial banks - Business - US business ...www.msnbc.msn.com/.../business...business/.../house-passes-bill-ban- ...Cached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
May 22, 2007 – Legislation barring commercial companies like Wal-Mart and Home Depot from owning a special ... House passes bill to ban industrial banks ...

Lawmakers Approve Ban on Wal-Mart Branch Banking | KSMUksmu.org/article/lawmakers-approve-ban-wal-mart-branch-bankingCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
May 11, 2006 – Lawmakers Approve Ban on Wal-Mart Branch Banking ... make it clear that Wal- Mart is not allowed to get into the business of branch banking.

Those are not

Tea Party candidates....those are establishment (Flea) Party candidates

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams