Short Term Rentals

Glenn Reynolds on what Wall Street’s campaign contributions to Democrats in 2008 bought them. Nothing.

As Joseph Nocera wrote in the New York Times, “Congress, with its howls of rage, its chaotic, episodic reaction to the crisis, and its shameless playing to the crowds, is out of control. This week, the body politic ran off the rails.” They probably acted nicer when they were asking for money just a few months ago.

If these donations had been given out of love and admiration, Wall Street donors would have reason to feel jilted. But if–as is generally the case with political donations–they were more in the order of protection money, then Wall Street donors may instead feel duped. They might want to ask themselves what protection, exactly, they got for their investment.

Political donations are supposed to buy “access,” and perhaps a degree of sympathy. And, in fact, politicians often rattle legislative sabers partly in order to encourage people to invest in their goodwill. (In California, bills introduced for this purpose are called “juice bills.”) But what, exactly, did 2008′s donors get?

 Other than the shaft, they got vindictive ex-post-facto laws, government subsidized protesters driven to their doors, threats from the New York attorney general to reveal the names of anyone who did not give money back (generally known as “extortion” or “blackmail” when not called for by Andrew Cuomo) and endless howling by a berserk mob of Democrats.

 Gee, that was money well spent.

And the same howling mad, pitch fork and torch wielding mob will doubtless be asking their victims for more money as they gear up for the next election.

I’m with Reynolds on this one. The Wall Street money would be much better spent on opposition candidates next cycle. Or this is just going to get worse for them. Maybe they will be a little better off and at least not secure short-term rentals of politicians for a change.