Goldman Sachs Bans Employees from Donating to Trump

[Cleaner44]

Well I am sure that CPUd will still pretend that the political establishment wants Trump, but this is one of those clear moments where you can see where the Wall St banksters are allied. I don't care how many photos Trump posed for with Bill and Hillary, this is infinitely more meaningful.

http://fortune.com/2016/09/06/goldman-elite-trump-pence/

Goldman Sachs Bans Partners From Giving to Certain Campaigns
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-campaign-gift-restrictions-to-every-partner

Goldman Sachs' top 1% employees can't donate to Trump
http://www.wmur.com/money/goldman-sachs-top-1-employees-cant-donate-to-trump/41535584

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Donald Trump's new national finance chairman, Steve Mnuchin, brings with him extensive connections to Wall Street and Hollywood, assets that could prove fruitful in the real estate mogul's battle against Hillary Clinton.

But his biography holds an interesting footnote — ties to Clinton.

Mnuchin donated repeatedly to the Democratic front-runner's past campaigns and has business connections to George Soros, the Democratic megadonor who has given millions to a pro-Hillary super PAC. It's no secret, however, that Trump has also donated to Clinton's past political efforts.

Mnuchin, whose new post was formally announced on Thursday, currently heads Dune Capital Management LP, a private investment firm. In its release, the campaign notes that Mnuchin "has previously worked with Mr. Trump in a business capacity and brings his expertise in finance to what will be an extremely successful fundraising operation for the Republican Party."

After spending 17 years at Goldman Sachs, Mnuchin became founder, president and CEO of OneWest Bank Group LLC from 2009 to 2015, a bank backed by Soros and several other hedge fund managers and billionaires. The group sold the bank to CIT Group for $3.4 billion in a merger that was completed last August.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-names-national-finance-chair-222846

 

[AZJoe]

 

[euphemia]

I think that should be illegal.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

well if this is true its a good reason to vote for trump.

 

[Origanalist]

Here is the full text of the memo:
From: Global Compliance
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 11:57 AM
To: ‘All Partners’
Subject: New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”
Global Compliance
August 29, 2016
New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”

You are receiving this e-mail because effective Thursday, September 1, all partners across the firm are considered “Restricted Persons” as defined by the firm’s Policy on Personal Political Activities in the US. As outlined below, Restricted Persons are prohibited from engaging in political activities and/or making campaign contributions to candidates running for state and local offices, as well as sitting state and local officials running for federal office.

The policy change is meant to prevent inadvertently violating pay-to-play rules, particularly the look-back provision, when partners transition into roles covered by these rules. The penalties for failing to comply with these rules can be severe and include fines and a ban on the firm from doing business with government clients in a particular jurisdiction for a period of at least two years.

The policy change is also meant to minimize potential reputational damage caused by any false perception that the firm is attempting to circumvent pay-to-play rules, particularly given partners’ seniority and visibility. All failures to pre-clear political activities as outlined below are taken seriously and violations may result in disciplinary action.
Highlights of the policy as it applies to you as a Restricted Person are as follows:

All Political Activities Require Pre-Clearance

Like all firm personnel, you must pre-clear all politicalactivities through the US Political Contributions Pre-Clearance System. A pre-clearance requirement applies to all contributions and solicitations, as well as to attending or hosting events; lending your name to lists, letters or invitations; serving on committees; and volunteering with campaigns and elections. Each contribution or political activity must be separately approved, even if you have received prior approvals for the same political campaign.

Prohibition on State, Local and Certain Federal Political Activities

As a Restricted Person, you may not make any contributions or solicit in connection with:

Any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official (e.g., governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket, or mayor running for Congress), including their Political Action Committees (PACs).

Any state or local candidate or official in any state or locality (e.g., candidate for governor, mayor, state treasurer, state comptroller, state legislator, local city council).

State and local party committees (e.g., the Democratic Party of Virginia, the Suffolk County Republican Party).

PACs and Super PACs supporting or opposing one or more state or local candidates.

Inaugural/Transition Committees or expenses for newly elected state and local officials.

Bond ballot initiative committees (e.g., a committee seeking authorization to issue municipal securities to fund a public infrastructure project).

Contact Government Interactions Compliance or Government Affairs Legal if you have any questions about these restrictions.

 

[Cleaner44]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-names-national-finance-chair-222846

https://www.amazon.com/ForeverSpin-Titanium-Spinning-Top-Performance/dp/B00O397DI6

 

[CPUd]

Related:
Trump unveils economic policy team, includes John Paulson
Donald Trump Embraces Donors, Super PACs He Once Decried

 

[enhanced_deficit]

That is natural choice as they heavily funded DDG puppet earlier.

Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor

www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/

 

[John F Kennedy III]

well if this is true its a good reason to vote for trump.

There isn't a good reason to vote for Trump.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Here is the full text of the memo:
From: Global Compliance
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 11:57 AM
To: ‘All Partners’
Subject: New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”
Global Compliance
August 29, 2016
New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”

You are receiving this e-mail because effective Thursday, September 1, all partners across the firm are considered “Restricted Persons” as defined by the firm’s Policy on Personal Political Activities in the US. As outlined below, Restricted Persons are prohibited from engaging in political activities and/or making campaign contributions to candidates running for state and local offices, as well as sitting state and local officials running for federal office.

The policy change is meant to prevent inadvertently violating pay-to-play rules, particularly the look-back provision, when partners transition into roles covered by these rules. The penalties for failing to comply with these rules can be severe and include fines and a ban on the firm from doing business with government clients in a particular jurisdiction for a period of at least two years.

The policy change is also meant to minimize potential reputational damage caused by any false perception that the firm is attempting to circumvent pay-to-play rules, particularly given partners’ seniority and visibility. All failures to pre-clear political activities as outlined below are taken seriously and violations may result in disciplinary action.
Highlights of the policy as it applies to you as a Restricted Person are as follows:

All Political Activities Require Pre-Clearance

Like all firm personnel, you must pre-clear all politicalactivities through the US Political Contributions Pre-Clearance System. A pre-clearance requirement applies to all contributions and solicitations, as well as to attending or hosting events; lending your name to lists, letters or invitations; serving on committees; and volunteering with campaigns and elections. Each contribution or political activity must be separately approved, even if you have received prior approvals for the same political campaign.

Prohibition on State, Local and Certain Federal Political Activities

As a Restricted Person, you may not make any contributions or solicit in connection with:

Any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official (e.g., governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket, or mayor running for Congress), including their Political Action Committees (PACs).

Any state or local candidate or official in any state or locality (e.g., candidate for governor, mayor, state treasurer, state comptroller, state legislator, local city council).

State and local party committees (e.g., the Democratic Party of Virginia, the Suffolk County Republican Party).

PACs and Super PACs supporting or opposing one or more state or local candidates.

Inaugural/Transition Committees or expenses for newly elected state and local officials.

Bond ballot initiative committees (e.g., a committee seeking authorization to issue municipal securities to fund a public infrastructure project).

Contact Government Interactions Compliance or Government Affairs Legal if you have any questions about these restrictions.

Thanks for the info. Says they should not support ANYBODY. Not just Trump.

(must spread more rep around)

 

[dannno]

There isn't a good reason to vote for Trump.

There are good reasons to vote for Trump, there are also a lot of good reasons not to. He has implied his foreign policy will be a lot more peaceful - but will it be? I don't know. But I do know what we would get from Hillary. He is also a lot less socialist, and would probably nominate a more Constitutional Supreme Court Judge, despite the fact that he isn't very beholden to the Constitution (to say the least). Would you rather gamble $100 on black or red at the roulette table before the number comes up, or purposely gamble on the wrong one after the number comes up?

On the other hand, is it possible Trump's authoritarian policies could turn out worse than Hillary some how? I suppose so.. doesn't seem terribly likely but ti's a possibility. Dunno if I would want that weighing on my conscience.

 

[dannno]

Here is the full text of the memo:
From: Global Compliance
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 11:57 AM
To: ‘All Partners’
Subject: New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”
Global Compliance
August 29, 2016
New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”

You are receiving this e-mail because effective Thursday, September 1, all partners across the firm are considered “Restricted Persons” as defined by the firm’s Policy on Personal Political Activities in the US. As outlined below, Restricted Persons are prohibited from engaging in political activities and/or making campaign contributions to candidates running for state and local offices, as well as sitting state and local officials running for federal office.

The policy change is meant to prevent inadvertently violating pay-to-play rules, particularly the look-back provision, when partners transition into roles covered by these rules. The penalties for failing to comply with these rules can be severe and include fines and a ban on the firm from doing business with government clients in a particular jurisdiction for a period of at least two years.

The policy change is also meant to minimize potential reputational damage caused by any false perception that the firm is attempting to circumvent pay-to-play rules, particularly given partners’ seniority and visibility. All failures to pre-clear political activities as outlined below are taken seriously and violations may result in disciplinary action.
Highlights of the policy as it applies to you as a Restricted Person are as follows:

All Political Activities Require Pre-Clearance

Like all firm personnel, you must pre-clear all politicalactivities through the US Political Contributions Pre-Clearance System. A pre-clearance requirement applies to all contributions and solicitations, as well as to attending or hosting events; lending your name to lists, letters or invitations; serving on committees; and volunteering with campaigns and elections. Each contribution or political activity must be separately approved, even if you have received prior approvals for the same political campaign.

Prohibition on State, Local and Certain Federal Political Activities

As a Restricted Person, you may not make any contributions or solicit in connection with:

Any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official (e.g., governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket, or mayor running for Congress), including their Political Action Committees (PACs).

Any state or local candidate or official in any state or locality (e.g., candidate for governor, mayor, state treasurer, state comptroller, state legislator, local city council).

State and local party committees (e.g., the Democratic Party of Virginia, the Suffolk County Republican Party).

PACs and Super PACs supporting or opposing one or more state or local candidates.

Inaugural/Transition Committees or expenses for newly elected state and local officials.

Bond ballot initiative committees (e.g., a committee seeking authorization to issue municipal securities to fund a public infrastructure project).

Contact Government Interactions Compliance or Government Affairs Legal if you have any questions about these restrictions.

Thanks for the info. Says they should not support ANYBODY. Not just Trump.

(must spread more rep around)

I almost spit out my water all over my keyboard reading that letter... coming from Goldman Sachs, LOL

 

[anaconda]

How would Goldman know if an employee made a donation?

 

[timosman]

How would Goldman know if an employee made a donation?

http://fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

 

[misconstrued]

Thanks for the info. Says they should not support ANYBODY. Not just Trump.

(must spread more rep around)

Voting for Clinton seems fine. Pence excludes Trump:

Any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official (e.g., governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket, or mayor running for Congress), including their Political Action Committees (PACs).

If you hold federal office, like Kaine, no problem.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump Supports Bank Bailouts

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/15/sitroom.03.html

BLITZER: All right. Henry Paulson.

TRUMP: I would give him an A.

BLITZER: Really?

TRUMP: I'd give him an A. And I know a lot of people are saying, oh, this and that. But the fact is, he came into a mess. He didn't create the mess, and he's helping us get out of the mess.

BLITZER: So if Obama were elected, you would advise him to keep Paulson on the job?

TRUMP: I wouldn't necessarily. He's got his own people, and he's got some very, very smart people with him. But I think Paulson I would give an A, because he really took something very strong -- now, you could say the UK came up with the first plan -- but Paulson's the one that got us there in the first place in terms of the concept

Trump Supports The Fed:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/15/sitroom.03.html

BLITZER: The Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, Ben B., as you call him.

TRUMP: I think that he has -- was a little bit late on the draw, but he has come around strongly. And I would give him a B-plus, a good strong B-plus.

Look, I mean, these people inherited a mess. And they weren't necessarily to blame for it. And they are trying to fix it. I would say that Ben was a little bit late. And, based on the lateness, but I am not sure there's -- if he was earlier, I am not sure that we would be in any different -- so, I would give him a B-plus.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Here is the full text of the memo:
From: Global Compliance
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 11:57 AM
To: ‘All Partners’
Subject: New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”
Global Compliance
August 29, 2016
New Policy on US Political Activities by “Restricted Persons”

You are receiving this e-mail because effective Thursday, September 1, all partners across the firm are considered “Restricted Persons” as defined by the firm’s Policy on Personal Political Activities in the US. As outlined below, Restricted Persons are prohibited from engaging in political activities and/or making campaign contributions to candidates running for state and local offices, as well as sitting state and local officials running for federal office.

The policy change is meant to prevent inadvertently violating pay-to-play rules, particularly the look-back provision, when partners transition into roles covered by these rules. The penalties for failing to comply with these rules can be severe and include fines and a ban on the firm from doing business with government clients in a particular jurisdiction for a period of at least two years.

The policy change is also meant to minimize potential reputational damage caused by any false perception that the firm is attempting to circumvent pay-to-play rules, particularly given partners’ seniority and visibility. All failures to pre-clear political activities as outlined below are taken seriously and violations may result in disciplinary action.
Highlights of the policy as it applies to you as a Restricted Person are as follows:

All Political Activities Require Pre-Clearance

Like all firm personnel, you must pre-clear all politicalactivities through the US Political Contributions Pre-Clearance System. A pre-clearance requirement applies to all contributions and solicitations, as well as to attending or hosting events; lending your name to lists, letters or invitations; serving on committees; and volunteering with campaigns and elections. Each contribution or political activity must be separately approved, even if you have received prior approvals for the same political campaign.

Prohibition on State, Local and Certain Federal Political Activities

As a Restricted Person, you may not make any contributions or solicit in connection with:

Any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official (e.g., governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket, or mayor running for Congress), including their Political Action Committees (PACs).

Any state or local candidate or official in any state or locality (e.g., candidate for governor, mayor, state treasurer, state comptroller, state legislator, local city council).

State and local party committees (e.g., the Democratic Party of Virginia, the Suffolk County Republican Party).

PACs and Super PACs supporting or opposing one or more state or local candidates.

Inaugural/Transition Committees or expenses for newly elected state and local officials.

Bond ballot initiative committees (e.g., a committee seeking authorization to issue municipal securities to fund a public infrastructure project).

Contact Government Interactions Compliance or Government Affairs Legal if you have any questions about these restrictions.

This looks like they are blanket banning all political contributions, in order to maintain compliance with federal law. The actual policy memo does not appear to distinguish between one candidate or the other in any way shape or form. Could it be that "Goldman Sachs bans employees from donating to Trump" is simply sophistic spin? That they ban employees from donating to anyone during the period of federal prohibition, and someone is simply trying to make it look "Trump-only" in a desperate attempt to make hay where no hay exists?

 

[AZJoe]

Thanks for the info. Says they should not support ANYBODY. Not just Trump.

This looks like they are blanket banning all political contributions, in order to maintain compliance with federal law.

These conclusions are incorrect. Read the rules carefully. They are NOT banning all political contributions. The memo makes specific distinctions. It only bans state or local candidates and only those federal candidates who are a sitting state or local official. While Goldman Sachs could have banned all donations which would be a lot simpler, it specifically chose not to. Instead Goldman Sachs made rules that specifically eliminate contributions to one major presidential candidate while leaving an unrestricted open door for the other.

The Goldman Sachs rule for federal candidates specifically states:

"Any federal candidate who is a sitting state or local official (e.g., governor running for president or vice president, such as the Trump/Pence ticket, or mayor running for Congress), including their Political Action Committees (PACs)."

​

Thus Goldman Sachs has banned donations to the Trump-Pence ticket because Pence is a governor. Their rules however DO NOT restrict contributions on behalf of the Clinton-Kaine ticket.

Funny Goldman Sachs claims to be concerned about "potential reputation damage" now, but had no such concerns when they were doling out quarter million dollar speaking fees to the Clintons. I guess that is all part of the business for the company proclaiming to be "Just doing God's work."

 

[parocks]

There isn't a good reason to vote for Trump.

Here's one. You remember the 90s. You don't want any more Clintons at all, ever, under any circumstances. If you can't see that you shouldn't want Hillary Clinton, there is something wrong with you.

Hillary is a disgusting pig. No more of that. Good reason to vote for Trump.

I'm not saying Trump won't suck. They usually do. And Hillary has been proven to suck, completely awful. And provided Trump wins, we will all likely agree that we don't want any more of that after he's done.