Open Secrets has compiled some very useful Federal Elections Commission statistical data about the candidates running for President. Here is a comparison between the top contributors of the two frontrunners in the Republican race. About 48% of Ron Paul's and 10% of Mitt Romney's campaign funds came from "small" individual contributors pledging less than $200.
Paul has some companies giving him money, but no six figure supporters. The majority of Romney's six figure and up contributors are people who contribute to bank sponsored PACs. The companies listed did not make the contributions themselves. Generally speaking, the numbers represent contributions collectively obtained and donated by the PACs (Political Action Committees) the listed companies sponsor.
There is no question that money helps people get elected. Romney's war chest is almost 3x the size of Paul's, and he is leading in the polls. The real question is whether heavy investment, dominated by a particular industry, ends up paying off in terms of corporate profits? Or, are these contributions going to end up just a mere "public service"?
Do industries that contribute heavily to a winning Presidential candidate do well afterward? It is hard to say. But, governments do control some critical factors that can result in profit or loss in certain heavily regulated industries. Easy money makes the stock market go up, and that can result in trading profits. Low interest rates increases the probability that otherwise "bad" loans won't go bad. Low rates also tend to increase the spread between the cost of Federal Reserve derived loans, and the return on other investments.
Given this, it is important for investors to follow political developments, even if they have no real interest in politics. Romney has a commanding lead in the Republican primary. Assuming the grass roots supporters of Ron Paul don't manage to upset his apple cart, and Romney manages to evict Barack Obama from the Oval Office, investors may want to consider buying shares of the banks who contribute heavily to Romney's campaign.
MITT ROMNEY:
RON PAUL
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
Paul has some companies giving him money, but no six figure supporters. The majority of Romney's six figure and up contributors are people who contribute to bank sponsored PACs. The companies listed did not make the contributions themselves. Generally speaking, the numbers represent contributions collectively obtained and donated by the PACs (Political Action Committees) the listed companies sponsor.
There is no question that money helps people get elected. Romney's war chest is almost 3x the size of Paul's, and he is leading in the polls. The real question is whether heavy investment, dominated by a particular industry, ends up paying off in terms of corporate profits? Or, are these contributions going to end up just a mere "public service"?
Do industries that contribute heavily to a winning Presidential candidate do well afterward? It is hard to say. But, governments do control some critical factors that can result in profit or loss in certain heavily regulated industries. Easy money makes the stock market go up, and that can result in trading profits. Low interest rates increases the probability that otherwise "bad" loans won't go bad. Low rates also tend to increase the spread between the cost of Federal Reserve derived loans, and the return on other investments.
Given this, it is important for investors to follow political developments, even if they have no real interest in politics. Romney has a commanding lead in the Republican primary. Assuming the grass roots supporters of Ron Paul don't manage to upset his apple cart, and Romney manages to evict Barack Obama from the Oval Office, investors may want to consider buying shares of the banks who contribute heavily to Romney's campaign.
MITT ROMNEY:
Goldman Sachs(GS) | $367,200 |
Credit Suisse Group(CS) | $203,750 |
Morgan Stanley(MS) | $199,800 |
HIG Capital | $186,500 |
Barclays (BCS) | $157,750 |
Kirkland & Ellis | $132,100 |
Bank of America (BAC) | $126,500 |
PriceWaterhouseCoopers | $118,250 |
EMC Corp (EMC) | $117,300 |
JPMorgan Chase (JPM) | $112,250 |
The Villages | $97,500 |
Vivint Inc | $80,750 |
Marriott International (MAR) | $79,837 |
Sullivan & Cromwell | $79,250 |
Bain Capital | $74,500 |
UBS AG (UBS) | $73,750 |
Wells Fargo (WFC) | $61,500 |
Blackstone Group (BX) | $59,800 |
Citigroup Inc (C) | $57,050 |
Bain & Co | $52,500 |
RON PAUL
US Army | $24,503 |
US Air Force | $23,335 |
US Navy | $17,432 |
Mason Capital Management | $14,000 |
Microsoft Corp (MSFT) | $13,398 |
Boeing Co (BA) | $10,620 |
Google Inc (GOOG) | $10,390 |
Overland Sheepskin | $10,350 |
IBM Corp (IBM) | $8,294 |
US Government | $7,756 |
DUNN Capital Management | $7,500 |
Corriente Advisors | $7,500 |
Greenstreet Co | $7,500 |
Northrop Grumman (NOC) | $7,272 |
Lockheed Martin(LMT) | $7,208 |
Intel Corp (INTC) | $6,855 |
US Dept of Defense | $6,524 |
United Technologies (UTX) | $6,316 |
Federal Express (FDX) | $6,255 |
Entergy Corp (ETR) | $5,950 |
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.