Goldman Sachs bans employee donations to Trump, not Clinton

MaggieD said:

The point is that they ARE prohibited by rule of law. GS was merely pointing that out. Nothing nefarious going on.

Click to expand...

According to the SEC rules, the partners CAN contribute to Hillary's campaign but not to Pence, therefore to the Trump campaign, since Pence is a sitting Governor. Maybe that's what you meant.

In any event, I agree there isn't anything nefarious going on. GS are just living by the rules set by Congress and the SEC.

JasperL said:

I agree, but you're the one who said GS should ban all contributions to the POTUS race, and I was just asking for a clarification about why them, and not others (if not others), etc. Right now in 2016 both candidates (or at least both parties who fund much of the candidate's campaign) are raising money from all kinds of interested parties, and I don't see why GS should ban contributions not prohibited by rule or law.

Click to expand...

To try to upgrade their reputation before we the people rub them out is a pretty good reason.

Absentglare said:

If you had a clue about how big businesses operate, you'd know that they often have to tread very carefully for legal reasons.

Click to expand...

i just wonder why they are allowing Clinton donations when the same type of impropriety could be seen from the donations

I dont have an issue with them locking down partners from contributing to Trump....they are following the base rules

Or dont you see it that way?

You dont think donations now could lead to future favors?

Hawkeye10 said:

Well, I have often argued that the collective informs us of the rules by way of law, and that so long as one follows the law they have followed the rules, so GS pointing out a poorly written Security and Exchange Commission rule is conforming to directions.

Click to expand...

GS wasn't pointing out "poorly written SEC rules." They were advising partners of their obligations under the law.

However, given there terrible reputation of Wall Street and given the massive revolt we are currently seeing in this nation against unfair practices by the establishment GS should have told the partners that no financial support of presidential candidates is allowed.

BTW the product of government financial regulators has long been crap on par with Wall Street Crap, dont think for a second that I dont hate them too.

Click to expand...

Please.

Their obligation is to follow the law, period. If the rules allow them to make donations to some types of candidates and not others, then GS has no obligation to demand anything above and beyond the law.

You're basically just crying foul because a fluke of the rules means that Clinton's campaign can solicit those partners for donations, and Trump cannot.

Visbek said:

GS wasn't pointing out "poorly written SEC rules." They were advising partners of their obligations under the law.



Please.

Their obligation is to follow the law, period. If the rules allow them to make donations to some types of candidates and not others, then GS has no obligation to demand anything above and beyond the law.

You're basically just crying foul because a fluke of the rules means that Clinton's campaign can solicit those partners for donations, and Trump cannot.

Click to expand...

BS, their obligation is to be good leaders of the financial industry, to be good stewards of it and to do what they can to take care of the goose that laid the golden egg, their tribe, America.


ARGUMENT REJECTED EMPHATICALLY!

I'm sorry, I started this thread then became busy at work. Thankfully, I am self employed. No company, large or small should ever in any memo dictate whom another employee should give monies to. I'm sorry, I thought that would be obvious. There just simply cannot be an except. If our system is fair it is fair for all. Maybe GS knows just how corrupt the system is and is trying now to control.

Verthaine said:

I'm sure Goldman Sachs has plenty of lawyers on their legal department that made sure they can get away with it legally.
I just called my corporate lawyer daughter and asked and yeah,it's legal.
They can't for local and state,but for Presidential elections,yeah.

Click to expand...

I love how people think lawyers are all knowing. It can be challenged in court and I wouldn't be surprised if it is. Remember, religious people thought they could refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple until a court said "no you can't.". I'm pretty sure their lawyer said sure, that makes sense. You can refuse based on religious reasons.

EvaPeron said:

I love how people think lawyers are all knowing. It can be challenged in court and I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

Click to expand...

No,but they have access to law books and data bases.

EvaPeron said:

I'm sorry, I started this thread then became busy at work. Thankfully, I am self employed. No company, large or small should ever in any memo dictate whom another employee should give monies to. I'm sorry, I thought that would be obvious. There just simply cannot be an except. If our system is fair it is fair for all. Maybe GS knows just how corrupt the system is and is trying now to control.

Click to expand...

So if it's illegal, that's not an allowable "except"?

You did read the thread, right, and now know that an SEC rule prohibits GS and other financial services firms from contributing to any state or local official who can in any way affect who gets any kind of business GS offers? And as Governor, Pence obviously has that power! And if GS already HAS business with Indiana, covered employees like partners cannot contribute by law, and if they don't already have business with Indiana, any contribution will require a two year wait until they can bid.

Hawkeye10 said:

BS, their obligation is to be good leaders of the financial industry, to be good stewards of it and to do what they can to take care of the goose that laid the golden egg, their tribe, America.

Click to expand...

lol

Actually, as a public company, their obligation is to maximize shareholder value. Preferably within the confines of the law.

More to the point is that you completely ignored the context of my comment. When it comes to campaign donations, their obligation is to provide accurate information to the partners, not to strangle all of their personal freedoms, in order to produce your preferred outcome.

For example: Do you believe that top Exxon executives should refrain from all campaign donations? How about health insurance executives? What about top union leaders? Maybe we should ban teachers from donating? And police officers? Where do you draw the line?

ARGUMENT REJECTED EMPHATICALLY!

Click to expand...

lol

Do you actually think that's going to work?

Visbek said:

lol

Actually, as a public company, their obligation is to maximize shareholder value. Preferably within the confines of the law.

More to the point is that you completely ignored the context of my comment. When it comes to campaign donations, their obligation is to provide accurate information to the partners, not to strangle all of their personal freedoms, in order to produce your preferred outcome.

For example: Do you believe that top Exxon executives should refrain from all campaign donations? How about health insurance executives? What about top union leaders? Maybe we should ban teachers from donating? And police officers? Where do you draw the line?



lol

Do you actually think that's going to work?

Click to expand...

That is what we got after capitalists turned into greedy morons.

EvaPeron said:

I'm sorry, I started this thread then became busy at work. Thankfully, I am self employed. No company, large or small should ever in any memo dictate whom another employee should give monies to. I'm sorry, I thought that would be obvious. There just simply cannot be an except. If our system is fair it is fair for all. Maybe GS knows just how corrupt the system is and is trying now to control.

Click to expand...

You haven't read your own thread, have you?

Goldman Sachs has no choice. The SEC has dictated that the partners of the firm (and just the partners) need to refrain from donating to state and local officials, in order to avoid violating pay-to-play rules. GS is only providing guidance to its partners.

EvaPeron said:

I love how people think lawyers are all knowing. It can be challenged in court and I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

Click to expand...

They've already gotten fined by the SEC for violating these rules. Try again.

Visbek said:

They've already gotten fined by the SEC for violating these rules. Try again.

Click to expand...

None of the bosses are in JAIL, that's the real problem with your point of view.

gdgyva said:

i just wonder why they are allowing Clinton donations when the same type of impropriety could be seen from the donations

I dont have an issue with them locking down partners from contributing to Trump....they are following the base rules

Or dont you see it that way?

You dont think donations now could lead to future favors?

Click to expand...

They aren't "just allowing" anything. They are allowing what the law allows. Donations to those who can directly impact any service that Goldmann Sachs offers, such as sitting governors, are legally prohibited by the SEC.

"The new rules come in response to updated pay-to-play regulations from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which limit contributions to politicians that have some control over pensions, such as state and local officials.

...

In 2012, the SEC fined Goldman Sachs over contributions to then-Massachusetts state treasurer Timothy Cahill while he was a candidate for governor."

Why Goldman Sachs staff can donate to Hillary Clinton but not Donald Trump - MarketWatch

Absentglare said:

They aren't "just allowing" anything. They are allowing what the law allows. Donations to those who can directly impact any service that Goldmann Sachs offers, such as sitting governors, are legally prohibited by the SEC.

"The new rules come in response to updated pay-to-play regulations from the Securities and Exchange Commission, which limit contributions to politicians that have some control over pensions, such as state and local officials.

...

In 2012, the SEC fined Goldman Sachs over contributions to then-Massachusetts state treasurer Timothy Cahill while he was a candidate for governor."

Why Goldman Sachs staff can donate to Hillary Clinton but not Donald Trump - MarketWatch

Click to expand...

exactly....buying favors with campaign contributions

so why not ban ALL contributions?

this way it leaves them open to bias....they can still donate to one side but not the other

i say, keep it fair and stop donations to BOTH sides

but then again, the CEO has been a huge pal of Clinton for many years....couldnt let that happen now, could we?

gdgyva said:

exactly....buying favors with campaign contributions

so why not ban ALL contributions?

this way it leaves them open to bias....they can still donate to one side but not the other

i say, keep it fair and stop donations to BOTH sides

but then again, the CEO has been a huge pal of Clinton for many years....couldnt let that happen now, could we?

Click to expand...

LOL, since when does any big donor getting involved in politics give a damn about "fair." Never, obviously.

These rules apply to EVERY financial services firm whether they like Hillary or Trump. Somebody leaked the GS memo but there are similar memos floating around CITI and JPM and thousands of other financial services firms, so it would be stupid to prohibit legal contributions if they believe it's in their interest to make them. The problem rests entirely with Pence who decided not to resign as Gov. while running for POTUS.

And if you think contributions buy favors, you should let the conservatives on the SC know, because the Supremes consider contributions in general protected speech, and even unlimited ($millions!!) in non-direct contributions don't even give the appearance of impropriety.

JasperL said:

LOL, since when does any big donor getting involved in politics give a damn about "fair." Never, obviously.

These rules apply to EVERY financial services firm whether they like Hillary or Trump. Somebody leaked the GS memo but there are similar memos floating around CITI and JPM and thousands of other financial services firms, so it would be stupid to prohibit legal contributions if they believe it's in their interest to make them. The problem rests entirely with Pence who decided not to resign as Gov. while running for POTUS.

And if you think contributions buy favors, you should let the conservatives on the SC know, because the Supremes consider contributions in general protected speech, and even unlimited non-direct contributions don't even give the appearance of impropriety.

Click to expand...

and i think money in politics has completely screwed up our country

i want it out....all of it

from EVERY source....

the only people that should be allowed to donate to politicians are people....not businesses, not organizations, not unions, no one else

and it should ALL BE ANONYMOUS

you want to give 3k to Hillary....fine....you send it to a cpa firm, who puts it with all the other small donations, and they send a check once a week to the candidate for everything collected

no lists of names....no lists of people that are owed favors....no big PAC money on either side buying elections

that is what i want to see....a pipe dream....

Visbek said:

You haven't read your own thread, have you?

Goldman Sachs has no choice. The SEC has dictated that the partners of the firm (and just the partners) need to refrain from donating to state and local officials, in order to avoid violating pay-to-play rules. GS is only providing guidance to its partners.

Click to expand...

So that means they can't give to Schumer or Hillary when she runs in 2020 if she wins this year. Wonder if it means they can no longer have any lobbyists.

It seems ironic that the citizens united ruling appears to have helped democrats much more than republicans. Wonder if Hillary still wants the ruling overturned. Perhaps in 2021?

gdgyva said:

and i think money in politics has completely screwed up our country

i want it out....all of it

from EVERY source....

the only people that should be allowed to donate to politicians are people....not businesses, not organizations, not unions, no one else

and it should ALL BE ANONYMOUS

you want to give 3k to Hillary....fine....you send it to a cpa firm, who puts it with all the other small donations, and they send a check once a week to the candidate for everything collected

no lists of names....no lists of people that are owed favors....no big PAC money on either side buying elections

that is what i want to see....a pipe dream....

Click to expand...

Why not just have publicly funded elections. Who is going to give if they get no benefit or even recognition?

And as you recognize, given how the SC view political contributions, it is a pipe dream. If they can rule with a straight face that donating $1 million or $100 million to a superpac doesn't even give rise to the appearance of impropriety, there is no hope for any meaningful campaign finance reform.

washunut said:

So that means they can't give to Schumer or Hillary when she runs in 2020 if she wins this year. Wonder if it means they can no longer have any lobbyists.

It seems ironic that the citizens united ruling appears to have helped democrats much more than republicans. Wonder if Hillary still wants the ruling overturned. Perhaps in 2021?

Click to expand...

You need to read the thread. GS and thousands of other financial services firms are prohibited from donating to state and local officials' campaigns if those officials can in any way influence or direct who gets financial services contracts. Pence is a sitting Governor, so clearly can influence state financial services contracts. As a result, GS cannot (it's prohibited by law) donate to Pence's campaign if it has or wants to have any business with the state of Indiana. This goes for the thousands of other financial firms that do or might want to do business with Indiana.

And if Pence resigned, GS and all the others could contribute to the Trump campaign. Unless Hillary names a state/local official as running mate who does not resign their position while campaigning, then GS and others can absolutely contribute to her campaign in 2020.

And this rule has nothing whatsoever to do with Citizens United - it's an SEC rule.

JasperL said:

You need to read the thread. GS and thousands of other financial services firms are prohibited from donating to state and local officials' campaigns if those officials can in any way influence or direct who gets financial services contracts. Pence is a sitting Governor, so clearly can influence state financial services contracts. As a result, GS cannot (it's prohibited by law) donate to Pence's campaign if it has or wants to have any business with the state of Indiana. This goes for the thousands of other financial firms that do or might want to do business with Indiana.

And if Pence resigned, GS and all the others could contribute to the Trump campaign. Unless Hillary names a state/local official as running mate who does not resign their position while campaigning, then GS and others can absolutely contribute to her campaign in 2020.

And this rule has nothing whatsoever to do with Citizens United - it's an SEC rule.

Click to expand...

I guess you missed a few points. First what in my post which talks about two federal politicians who would have impact is wrong??? Second, many decry the role of money in politics and point to citizens united as their rallying cry.

No need to shout, the thread is titled Goldman Sachs, not thousands of firms. They are the firm which has made this decision, not the thousands you allude to.

It is pretty common knowledge that the CEO of Goldman is a staunch democrat as are many of the New York money center managers. A little honesty in debates is never a bad thing.

washunut said:

So that means they can't give to Schumer or Hillary when she runs in 2020 if she wins this year.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

The partners can donate to Senate and House. They can't donate to governors or state legislators.

Wonder if it means they can no longer have any lobbyists.

Click to expand...

The restrictions in question only apply to partners of the firm, who do not hire lobbyists.

I'd assume that the pay-to-play rules impose restrictions on certain types of lobbying, and not on others. I doubt it stops GS from hiring lobbyists to talk to legislators about various financial laws.

It seems ironic that the citizens united ruling appears to have helped democrats much more than republicans. Wonder if Hillary still wants the ruling overturned. Perhaps in 2021?

Click to expand...

This has absolutely nothing to do with Citizens United. This is a result of separate SEC regulations on avoiding overt conflicts of interest.

By the way, Citizens United has not favored one party or another. In fact, in most years Republicans tend to raise more funds than Democrats.

That hasn't happened this year, mostly because so many big Republican and conservative donors, like the Koch brothers, do not back Trump.

washunut said:

I guess you missed a few points. First what in my post which talks about two federal politicians who would have impact is wrong???

Click to expand...

The SEC rule in question does not have ANY impact unless one of the two candidates are running for state/local office or are a sitting elected state/local official while running for federal office. Pence is a sitting Governor, so the SEC rule applies to contributions to the Trump/Pence campaign. If Pence resigns, the SEC rule no longer applies and partners allowed to contribute to the Trump campaign.

Second, many decry the role of money in politics and point to citizens united as their rallying cry.

Click to expand...

Right, and that's another thread. Citizens United has literally nothing to do with this topic or this thread.

No need to shout, the thread is titled Goldman Sachs, not thousands of firms. They are the firm which has made this decision, not the thousands you allude to.

Click to expand...

GS didn't make any decision except to remind partners about their legal obligations and in this case to remind them that under SEC rules they are PROHIBITED from donating to the campaigns of any aspiring or sitting state local official if 1) they have business with that jurisdiction, or 2) might seek business with them in the next two years. Given that GS is a global firm that operates in all 50 of the states or might potentially bid on business in all 50 of the states, this pretty much means covered individuals like partners should avoid ANY contributions to state/local officials who have influence over financial services contracts since a single donation of $1,000 might mean they are prohibited by law from bidding on a $billion worth of business.

And the rules cited by GS also apply to the THOUSANDS of other financial services firms. Someone just leaked the GS email, but similar emails are circulating in all those companies, or should be, to make sure their employees don't run afoul of SEC rules governing political contributions.

It is pretty common knowledge that the CEO of Goldman is a staunch democrat as are many of the New York money center managers. A little honesty in debates is never a bad thing.

Click to expand...

And many of them are 'staunch republicans' and even the 'staunch republicans' if they have business in Indiana or might want to bid on business in Indiana are also prohibited by the same SEC rule from donating to the Trump/Pence campaign, and to the campaign of any other state/local official in a jurisdiction where they have or want to do business.

washunut said:

It is pretty common knowledge that the CEO of Goldman is a staunch democrat as are many of the New York money center managers. A little honesty in debates is never a bad thing.

Click to expand...

Uh huh

2016 donations:

Repubican National Committe = $370,000
Right to Rise = $560,000
Rubio = $210,000
Jeb! = $206,000
Clinton = $201,000
National Republican Congressional Committee = $196,000
DNC Services = $191,000
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee = $101,000
Priorities USA Action =$100,000

Of the past 9 election cycles, they've donated more to Republicans than to Democrats every time, except 2008.

Yes, it's always good to have the facts on your side.