There is no big secret that big business money often intersects with politics to get favorable candidates elected. Government has a direct influence on business with regards to industry regulation, laws, crime definitions, and of course the biggie, taxes. Within the rules that apply, business has injected itself into politics for decades, supporting campaigns of favored candidates and helping lobby for issues favored elected officials want to see come to fruition.
What gains attention, however, is when specific sectors of business start clumping together as noticeable groups in political support. One business in and of itself can offer considerable financial support, but multiple businesses together can provide far bigger financial influence in the aggregate. The case of Gabriel Gomez, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, is just such a situation.
Gomez spent a number of years in investment banking and private equity before he ever started on the track of politics. With both his Harvard education as well as his network of contacts from work experience, Gomez has a heavy stable of supporters to call upon now in his current election campaign. That said, a predominant number of the donors and financial supports are from, not surprisingly, the financial industry. “So what?” a reader might ask. The man worked in financial circles; it only stands to reason that the majority of his donors would come from that same business network.
Gomez’s list of contacts is not at issue. The power of combined funds influencing elections should always be paid attention to. This is why there are so many sites now on the Internet that dissect and summarize the various financial reports candidates have to file on who their donors are. There’s no crime per se that Gomez’s support comes predominantly from his private equity and financial network connections. He’s going to need the support since his opponent, Ed Markey, already declared a bankroll of $5.4 million of his own support to win the Senate race. Further, traditional Republican donors don’t yet know the man and are holding back on financial help, despite is strong record in private industry and service as a military special operative (i.e. Navy Seal), and the Tea Party has branded him with a scarlet letter for making a one-time donation to President Obama’s campaign in 2008.
Many have often wondered if the average person even has representation in modern politics given the size of financial support needed to win a race. Organized labor versus big corporations have traditionally been the bogeymen of elections. However, the Tea Party clearly proved that the average person’s influence, when coordinated, can have both an influence and a seat at picking election winners. So no one should be surprised that private equity and financial industry players also want to ensure their say at the table with a known commodity. In fact, given the hyper-partisan flavor of Congress these days, having a person who’s actually willing to deal to get things done is better for business than a person willing to die on the pulpit for every little social issue.
So is Gomez’s network of support the next big thing in politics? No. But it does present a very interesting counter-movement in Republican politics that the eventual kingmaker in Boston’s Senate seat run may be financial business versus the Tea Party. This will influence national policy and it potentially influences the legal rules by which private equity operates.
Comments on this entry are closed.