Yesterday’s big campaign news, at least according to front-page emphasis, was the Las Vegas Culinary Union calling out the Sanders campaign for sending campaign staff into workplaces under the guise being union members. Hunter covered the story for the front page.
It wasn’t a usual Hunter story. It strayed from his regular beat of covering the insanity of the other side. It contained none of his trademark wit or even a hint of humor. It was Hunter as newsman, reporting the facts, a role he rarely plays.
That struck me as odd. Nary a wisecrack to be found? No clever turns-of-phrase? Just a blaring headline and a large image of striking Culinary workers. Hunter even included this bit of news at the end of his piece:
Be that as it may, the union is angry. So that's a thing. It also comes on the heels of objections from AARP Iowa and the League of Conservation Voters over the Sanders campaign using their logos on his campaign mailers.
As I noted in a comment in his piece, it was another misstep for the Sanders campaign, following on the heels of the stupid Planned Parenthood dissing.
But Hunter’s front page post on the Sanders campaign missteps also made me wonder why some bigger campaign news from the previous evening — news that represents a much larger issue for the Democratic Party — never made it to the front page.
And that news was that Hillary Clinton and her campaign held a deep-pocket fundraiser in Philadelphia with an investment firm that is facing serious regulatory scrutiny for what some consider to be deceptive practices.
I remain puzzled why the front page of Daily Kos, and why so many Democrats who post here, can excuse Hillary Clinton’s actions in regard to taking money from the very people she will be charged with regulating should she become president.
Never mind the Goldman Sachs speeches. As I detailed in a diary two nights ago, she and her campaign arranged a big ticket fundraiser (Jon BonJovi, live!) in conjunction with a firm called Franklin Square Capital Partners. (Read my diary on the subject for the details.)
The Clinton campaign purposely did not have this event on its public calendar.
What does Franklin Square Capital Partners do? Among other things, they are known for selling unregulated “alternative investments” to unsophisticated small investors. Specifically, they sell something called Business Development Company (BDC) funds to these unsophisticated investors, using sales pitches that are at best, questionable, and at worst, sleazy and underhanded.
These funds are extremely profitable for Franklin Square, their partner in the deal, Blackstone, and for the brokers who push these unregulated products. According to news reports cited in my diary, fees charged to investors are exorbitant, returns are “underperforming,” and, in most cases, investors cannot sell or get out of these funds at their own discretion.
According to a report on BloombergBusiness:
Investors in Franklin Square’s initial $2.5 billion fund have paid a total of $323.5 million in commissions and fees since 2008, Bock wrote in the report. That’s 25 percent more than the $258 million it has distributed to investors, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Non-traded business-development companies on average have generated $2.40 in fees for every $1 in profit delivered to investors, according to Bock.
And Clinton is holding an off-the-books fundraiser with these people?
Here’s the real catch, though. Franklin Square and companies like it selling these “alternative investments” are beginning to draw regulatory scrutiny. As it stands now, their highly profitable business is completely unregulated. Zero regulation.
Zip. Nada. Zilch.
A number of Clinton supporters here wrote in my diary, “Where’s the quid pro quo?”
Seriously?
Of course, should Clinton become the Democratic nominee and, ultimately, the president, it will be her inaction that makes a difference for this firm, just as Obama’s inaction on locking up even a single banker is what speaks louder than any action he has taken. Clinton’s quid pro quo is doing nothing.
Regardless of what she may or may not do, can there really be any legitimate question about what Franklin Square hopes to get out of hosting this event? Do we have to pretend that these kinds of events have no impact or influence on future policies (or lack thereof, in this case)?
“Show me the quid pro quo!”
How does that work when it means doing nothing?
I’m embarrassed for the people who feel compelled to defend Clinton and her campaign on this. And I’m embarrassed for Daily Kos that Hunter was trotted out to write a straight news, front-page piece on the Sanders Culinary Union story, while no front pager was called upon to cover Clinton’s off-the-books fundraiser at a firm facing regulatory scrutiny for their deceptive practices.
Yes, the Sanders campaign screwed up and they deserve to be chastised. But overlooking the the real elephant in the room — the corrupting influence of money in politics — is either an egregious oversight, or an example of choosing to look the other way.
Either way, it’s pathetic.