We’ve argued before that things are going to get awkward inside the GOP. You have Wall Street shifting its allegiance to the party, and yet the real energy in the party is supplied by the fiercely anti-bailout Tea Party.
Are we wrong?
Andrew Leonard at Salon and Zach Carter at Alternet thinks this the argument is BS and they argue that there’s plenty of Wall Street cash flowing towards Tea Party candidates. And they basically adopt the line that, well, Wall Street wants to run wild, and the Tea Party hates regulation, ergo the two sides are actually simpatico, bailout rhetoric aside.
Leaving aside the question of whether the two sides are ideologically similar, let’s just look at the supposed money-trail.
Carter posts this chart of Tea Party candidates and the money they get from Wall Street.
Here’s how Carter at Salon describes what he sees: “The top 12 Senatorial candidates most favoured by Tea Partiers have already hauled in $4.6 million in campaign contributions from Wall Street.”
That’s not what we see at all though. We see the “Tea Party’s” four most mainstream candidates taking a nearly $4 million haul, and then virtually nothing for the actual hardcore tea partiers. Rand Paul, who is (or was, up until his opponent imploded) in a seriously competitive race. Ron Johnson has virtually nothing. Wall Street hasn’t given jack squat to Sharron Angle, despite a real opportunity to knock off Harry Reid. And Joe Miller — who is facing a Democrat AND the very pro-business moderate Lisa Murkowsk — is at the bottom of the list.
So yes, Toomey (a lifelong Club-For-Growth favourite) and Marco Rubio and sitting Senator DeMint do well. But the real rough-and-tumble tea partiers. The ones who aren’t mainstream, and aren’t part of the establishment, are all but ignored by Wall Street donors.