Although that is not quite the tone the media takes on the matter.
On Facebook, anytime Elizabeth Warren is on the trending list, I take notice.
Little did I know the tone the current topic would take.
EXCLUSIVE-Upset by Warren, US banks debate halting some campaign donations
(Reuters) - Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest, sources familiar with the discussions said.
Ooh, they're "upset." They're going to "protest." Guess the shoe's on the other foot now, huh?
It has been awhile since I stumbled upon such self-serving tripe. So although I was mightily reluctant, I decided to see what all the ragin was about.
So Banks are upset that Elizabeth Warren is doing exactly what she said she would do while running for Senate. So much for that so-called mandate of the people who elected her.
One presumes this still stands an enough pressure for other Senate Democrats to actually do something to distance themselves from her. One wonders what form their loyalty is supposed to take. Are we going to be privy to all the nasty scribbles on the Senate bathroom walls of stink lines around her face?
Representatives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, have met to discuss ways to urge Democrats, including Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, to soften their party's tone toward Wall Street, sources familiar with the discussions said this week.
Apparently, the only means you have to "urge" these Democrats is withholding campaign funds.
Bank officials said the idea of withholding donations was not discussed at a meeting of the four banks in Washington but it has been raised in one-on-one conversations between representatives of some of them. However, there was no agreement on coordinating any action, and each bank is making its own decision, they said.
One is left to assume organizations as disorganized and competitive as JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs couldn't possibly be presumed to have the capability to coordinate, let alone collude, mass political manipulation, I imagine.
The amount of money at stake, a maximum of $15,000 per bank, means the gesture is symbolic rather than material
Yeah, immaterial! 15 thousand dollars, such a paltry sum. 15 grand can hardly buy you a small-town alderman, let alone an American senator. If $15,000 is considered immaterial, one wonders how much less material the average American is. Merely ethereal, perhaps?
Copyright limits me from continuing along this vein, but I would say that there is ample evidence of how the rest of such an analysis would go.
The gist is that Banks do not like the populism and regulations that have been creeping back into US politics. The Democratic Party has not been obeisant enough to big banks! The threat then is that their campaign funds will go to Republican, or "Centrist"-style Dems, instead. Well, certainly they will.
What doesn't obviously get mentioned is the absurdly high gains made by the stock market, and the profits seen by the banks themselves, while a Democratic president has been in office.
Oh wait, here's one more.
"Our decision to contribute will be driven more by the fact that many members of both parties understand the important role we play in driving the real economy and serving customers across the country," said a spokesman, Larry Di Rita.
One is left to assume that by "real," Di Rita is suggesting anyone who isn't a large conglomerate banking firm plays no role in the success of our economy.
The rest of us don't count as America. Of course, we all know corporations are people, too, my friend. I just though people still counted as people, too.
Taken as a whole, the overall framing over the article is not enough to hide the real identity of this overture. Big Banks are using their money as influence to hold the Democratic Party hostage. Thanks to our fucked up campaign financing system, mainstream observers are fooled into thinking this is somehow OK. That doesn't change the fact that this is plain and obvious extortion, using money to force subservience, and last time I checked, that is not at all in line with the tenets of the Democratic Party, let alone Democracy as an ideal. Not ostensibly, at least.
On the other hand, leave it to a fictional sitcom character to present the best response for this hostage-taking political kabuki that has become the raison d'etre of American politics of today.
I'm very angry. I'm angry that Bobby Newport would hold this town hostage and threaten to leave if you don't give him what he wants. It's despicable. Corporations are not allowed to dictate what a city needs. That power belongs to the people. Bobby Newport and his daddy would like you to think it belongs to them. I love this town. And when you love something, you don't threaten it. You don't punish it. You fight for it. You take care of it. You put it first.
As your city councilor, I will make sure that no one takes advantage of Pawnee. If I seem too passionate, it's because I care. If I come on strong, it's because I feel strongly. And if I push too hard, it's because things aren't moving fast enough. This is my home. You are my family. And I promise you...
I'm not going anywhere.
Throughout the run of the Parks and Recreation show, Leslie Knope was always able to stand up and speak out when some powerful machine was trying to bully over the average man. Leslie Knope is a fictional character, but the ambition and desire to live up to a better political ideal that she has inspired within me is very real.
We can't let Corporate America get away with bullying and threatening our Party to get their way. They need us more than we need them.