Shadow bankers have long chosen Clinton

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange made a prediction of the outcome of the US elections in an exclusive interview on RT: "Trump will not be allowed to win this election … Banks, intelligence, the military-industrial complex, large foreign companies, and so on, they all rallied around Hillary Clinton." It looks like Assange was not mistaken.

Banks … Why did they side with Hillary Clinton and are tough against Donald Trump?

Let me remind you that financial support for political parties and specific candidates during the election campaign in the United States is carried out in several forms:

1. Expenditures from the funds of political parties;

2. Personal funds of the candidate;

3. Private individual donations made by US citizens;

4. Donations from citizens to the funds of the National Party Committee (PAC). The number of such committees (and foundations) is in the hundreds. They can be corporate, trade union, public, etc. An important feature of PACs is that they donate their funds to the candidates' fund, rather than spending them themselves;

5. Contributions to independent funds to support election campaigns. These funds take the form of SuperPACs. These funds do not transfer the funds received to political parties or candidates, but spend them at their own discretion. SuperPAC status gives them complete freedom to fund actions not only in support of “their” candidate, but also actions against an unwanted candidate;

6. Funds 501-p. This code designates non-profit organizations that, like SuperPAC organizations, have the ability to create funds (through donations from citizens, companies and trade unions) and independently spend them for purposes related to election campaigns;

7. Other sources and methods of financing. Among them, the most important is state budget funding (first primaries, and then the main elections).

Each form of financial support has its own strict regulations. For example, PAC funds can donate no more than $ 5,000 to a candidate's fund at the primaries stage, and in the case of a candidate nominated at a party convention (summer) - another $ 5,000. Plus, 15 thousand dollars can be transferred to the party treasury. Typically, the number of all types of PAC in the United States ranges from 4 to 5 thousand. It turns out that, using the PAC mechanism, the maximum amount that can be spent is $ 100-125 million. This is not enough, given the scale of the American election campaigns.

This is where campaign finance innovations emerged in the form of SuperPAC Funds and 501-C Funds, first made during the 2012 presidential election. Then the total expenditures on the pre-election and election campaign were estimated at $ 2.6 billion. Expenditures from the federal budget of the Democratic Party amounted to $ 316 million, the Republican Party - $ 409 million. State funding for electoral events (all parties) amounted to 91 USD million

At the same time, all expenditures under the 501-c funds in the last elections were already equal to $ 300 million. For the SuperPAC funds, the estimates of total expenditures are less reliable, but they were also at least $ 300 million. the main contenders for the presidency of the United States in 2012 are Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney.

Scale and structure of financial support for the election campaign of Obama and Romney in 2012 ($ million)

Forms of financial support	Obama	Romney
Personal funds of the candidate	0, 005	0, 052
Individual donations to the candidate's fund	632	384
Party Treasury Expenditures	291	386
Expenditures from PAC funds	-	1
Expenditures from SuperPAC and 501-c funds	131	418
Government funding	-	-
Total	1.054	1.189

Now let's go back to the 2016 campaign. The total expenses of the presidential candidates, according to experts, could almost double and reach the level of $ 5 billion. Apparently, the experts took into account that such a financing channel as SuperPAC and 501-c funds will be used to the fullest in the current campaign.

We remember that at the start from the Republicans, the main contender was Jeb Bush, who received large sums of money from the traditional sponsors of the Republican Party. Bush's support from the SuperPAC funds alone amounted to $ 124 million. Presumably, there was also bankers' money there. How much was spent on Bush is unknown. However, Bush turned out to be an extremely unsuccessful candidate. Apparently, the bankers thought that it was not necessary to overspend too much, so when the Republican Cruz intercepted Bush's baton, the "moneybags" began to show restraint. According to Cruz, there are such data (at the end of February 2016): private donations to the fund of this candidate - about $ 50 million, funding from the SuperPAC funds - about $ 55 million. By the beginning of May, Cruise also retired, and this further discouraged the bankers.

And here begins the ascent of the unplanned Republican party elite of the star Donald Trump - a man unknown to the Republican political bosses. After a while, it becomes clear that Donald Trump either does not understand the rules of the game that Wall Street sets, or deliberately violates them.

Trump first demanded an audit of the Federal Reserve. The Wall Street bankers, who continue to receive near-free loans from the US Federal Reserve, were not happy with this. Further, Trump began to make claims against Fed Chairman Janet Yellen and US President Barack Obama for keeping the Federal Reserve interest rate almost at zero (in the range from 0.25 to 0.50%). This is done in order to create the appearance that everything is fine with the economy in America. The economy will go downhill under Democrat Obama - Hillary's song has been sung. Finally, Trump got the bankers in trouble with his demand to restore the Glass-Steagall Act, which was introduced in America in 1933 and was in force until 1999. This law was a reaction to the Great Depression of the 30s of the twentieth century, and its essence boiled down to the separation of credit and investment banking operations. After the abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act under President Bill Clinton, America rushed full steam ahead to the crisis of 2007-2009. Today America is heading for an even worse crisis, and everyone understands that it is necessary to return the Glass-Steagall Act, which would stop the financial orgy caused by the Wall Street banks. Bankers have a grudge against Trump just because the Democratic Party at its summer convention was also forced to agree to the need to restore the 1933 law. (True, Hillary, even after this decision of the congress, in every possible way dodges the discussion of the topic of the Glass-Steagall law).

But can bankers be pleased with Trump's statements that it is time to stop the growth of America's debt pyramid? After all, this means stopping the Fed's printing press, which allows American bankers to buy up the whole world. Even if Trump loses the election tomorrow, he will forever remain a personal enemy of Wall Street. After all, he “charged” the Democrats to start reforming the banking system. Moreover, the degree of sentiment against banks among the people today is at the level of the maximum that was recorded in 2009-2010.

According to Bloomberg, at the end of October, Clinton raised $ 766 million for her campaign, Trump $ 392 million. Taking into account the funds that support politicians, but are not formally associated with them (SuperPAC and 501-c funds), the collection of the former first lady reached $ 949 million versus $ 449 million that Trump managed to attract. Let's remember the 2012 elections: then the main candidates from the two parties had comparable levels of financial support (Romney was even 13% ahead of Obama). Today, the Republican candidate has financial support that is more than half that of the Democratic candidate. Note that if Clinton didn’t spend a dime out of her own pocket on the election campaign, Donald Trump - $ 56 million. This is an unprecedented amount, a record of the last decades. The gap in the levels of funding of the two main contenders for the presidency of the United States can also be called a record of the last decades. The previously existing principle of even distribution of "eggs" by sponsors in different "baskets" (they sponsored both Democrats and Republicans at the same time) resulted in the financial parity of the two leading candidates. True, the parity assumed that the applicants, in essence, should not differ much from each other. But in 2016, it seemed to the owners of Wall Street that the essence of the applicants was different.

At the beginning of November 2016, the volume of financial support received by Hillary Clinton from "independent" funds (SuperPAC and 501-c) is approaching $ 200 million. But the Democrats at the beginning of the election campaign demanded that this source of funding be banned! One of the largest such funds - Priorities USA - already at the beginning of 2016 raised $ 50 million in support of the democratic candidate. The largest donor to Priorities USA is financial speculator George Soros ($ 7 million). This financial genius has spread his eggs (money) into other baskets ("independent" funds SuperPAC and 501-c). In addition to Soros, Zusman, Pritzker, Saban and Abraham are at the forefront of Hillary Clinton's donors. Zusman runs hedge funds, Pritzker runs real estate and hotels, Saban runs television and Hollywood, and Abraham runs the largest US diet food company. Israeli expert Sever Plotsker notes with satisfaction that all five of these Clinton sponsors are Jews and "together they brought Hillary $ 300 million."

Clinton received support from Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs, City, Wells Fargo. The Clintons established a relationship with them back in the days when Bill was governor of Arkansas, and cemented them when Bill became the owner of the White House. At the same time, experts cannot name a single large American bank that directly or indirectly (through the SuperPAC and 501-c funds) would support Trump. In fact, the gap in the levels of support for Trump and Clinton is even wider, because some Republican "independent" foundations are shooting in the back of Donald Trump, playing against him. At the same time, the Democratic foundations SuperPAC and 501-c play 100% for Clinton.