The GOP appears to be floating further and further from the American mainstream, and even from its nourishing river: Wall Street. Joshua Green publishes a piece in BloombergPolitics concerning how the anti-gay attitude of the chairman of the critical Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, is clashing with the banking industry:
Garrett’s committee is vital to Wall Street. “The rules of the road for handling money and anything with the SEC go through this committee,” says Marcus Stanley, policy director of the nonprofit Americans for Financial Reform. “There’s a ton of money at stake.” In Washington, the committee is known as the ATM, because banks and hedge funds shower the chairman with contributions. After the Dodd-Frank financial law forced hedge funds to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Garrett, already the recipient of more Wall Street money than almost any other member of the House, got millions more. The banks pay to have a voice, ensure they’re at the table when new rules are discussed, and insinuate themselves into the chairman’s good graces.
Where does the money go?
Much of the money Garrett collects from Wall Street is supposed to be passed along in the form of party dues to the GOP’s campaign arm, where it’s used to help other candidates get elected. So the committee is also important to Republicans because it binds the party with the business community in a mutually profitable arrangement. But back in July, Garrett threw a wrench into this smoothly humming machine.
At a private caucus meeting, he got into a heated dispute with his colleagues by declaring that he’d withhold hundreds of thousands of dollars in National Republican Congressional Committee dues to protest the party’s support for gay candidates. His outburst immediately caused a rift in the caucus. “I was shocked,” says Richard Tisei, a Massachusetts businessman who was one of the candidates Garrett objected to. “The first time I ran, I was nervous my sexuality would be a problem. But everyone was just great. John Boehner, Paul Ryan—they went out of their way to let me know it wasn’t. Eric Cantor pulled me aside and said, ‘You know, I’m the only Jew in the caucus, so I understand better than anyone how important it is to have you down here to broaden and diversify our ranks.’ ”
And this is a problem because the banking industry is progressive on the issue of LGBT rights:
The political fallout from Garrett’s remarks pales compared with the anguish it’s created in some corners of Wall Street. The financial industry ranks among the biggest donors to the Republican Party. But it has also been a pioneer in advancing gay rights.
To summarize the balance of Green’s very interesting article, banks – some of the largest in the nation, are beginning to taper off or stop donating money to Garrett. While others are still donating, they are under pressure.
While there are certainly gay members of the GOP (the Log Cabin group), the party’s decades long drift to the right and encouragement of the most regressive of attitudes amongst otherwise good people is well-known. It seems unlikely that it will swiftly change these attitudes, or dump those members who hold them, whether or not they are elected officials.
A political party is more than just about the votes, but money as well – and I’m not talking about corruption. It costs money to come up with credible foreign policies, military policies, domestic policies — all of these require discussion, meetings, and research. When a major source of funding to a party begins to dry up because the social policies of the party clash with those of the source, this is a source of danger to the party and, in the case of a major party, the country, because the country benefits from those discussions, these clashes of ideas.
Without that money, we’ll be stuck with more Rubios, Trumps, Bushes, and the rest of the current clown field – candidates and party who think the political clash of ideas is all about saying NO as loud as possible (how many times has the House tried to abolish the ACA while knowing Obama would simply veto the bill?). And while this may benefit the Democrats, it’s not beneficial to the country in the long term.
It’ll be interesting to see how this comes out in the end. Will the banks stand by their conscience, or will their wallet – their raison d’être – overcome their distaste and compel them to continue donations? Will Garrett lose his seat in the next election, to a primary challenger or to a Democrat? Long shot: will the Democrats take the House next cycle?
This may be one of the most pivotal races in the next cycle to watch.
(h/t Steve Benen @ MaddowBlog)
