Wall street in general funds political conservatism; they are bound to several industries and follow macro economic trend line.

They're not too interested in microeconomics or specific policies as, the investment banking community is more interested in creating markets for moving cash of all types, good, bad, green, red.

and pink.. >:)

I'm sorry, but am I missing something?  Is going from 52% Republican, 48% Democrat in the two years leading up to 2004... to 52% Democrat, 48% Republican in 2005 really that much of a development?

It may very well be.... but to my eyes it's still pretty much close enough to 50-50.
 

Go to the underlying data: it's all distorted by the fact that two Democratic incumbent Senators whose constituents work on Wall Street -- Clinton and Lieberman -- are both up for reelection this year.  Take them out of the equation, and the Republicans are slightly ahead.

Indeed, note that among Dems, the money's going primarily to Clinton, Lieberman, Ford, Bayh, Cantwell and Nelson (FL) -- not quite the Class Warrior wing of the party.

She is from NY, he is from CT, it makes complete sense that they would be up on top.  I bet ya Menendez will be close to the top soon too.  

"I'm finding people who are registered Republicans who are saying to me, 'what can I do to help?' "

Vote Democrat - duh

In 1992 the trend was even sharper in favor of the Democrats.  I remember it being explained as the result of the economy:  GOP policies had so impoverished GOP contributors that they had less to contribute to continuing failure.  

In this case, however, I think the money may be seeking a continuation of the pro-business status quo, regardless of any change in the party in power.  I would say that this reminds me of what happened the following year, in 1993, except the change there was in the executive, not the legislative, and the Democrats in Congress misjudged the moment, and lost their ass in 1994.  

Wall Street, so to speak, is hoping to keep Congress as a barrier between their purchased privileges and an increasingly angry American people.  The sooner the elites can negotiate a new consensus, the less will change.  
.

I've heard of studies that showed the economy and corporations have generally fared better under Dems--especially Clinton.

I wonder if the Dems can make hay out of this by stressing the need for a balanced budget and stabilzing foreign policy to really tap US economic potential?

Taken further, there are a lot of issues, like Homeland Security, the Environment, alternative power and health care that are going to require a government-industry partnerships that the GOP has no stomach for.

Can the Dems generate excitement in the business communities by stressing the need for government to work with industry to solve the nation's biggest problems...instead of Bush's laissez-faire that doesn't really produce any results beyond tax dodges?

I know it sounds DLC, but I really think there's potential here.

They need to get some famous  Dem business people to put together a report on challenges, etc., and develop a policy from that.

In the VA-05 something similar is happening, and it's crucial to funding a Democratic victory. You see, southside Virginia runs on agriculture and pre-globalization jobs. The farmers occupy most of the land, but most of the capital is held by a few families who pretty much own everything. In some mill-towns, one company (family) employs most of the workers, and in most of southside, just a few old-money types own all the malls, movie theatres, and hotels.

These folks don't necessarily want to buy politicians, they just want good government that protects the economy where they do business, and they don't particularly like that their donations to Virgil "MZM-Scandal" Goode now reflect poorly on them as well. Moreover, these are the folks who give a bit to both sides, and recently they've been hedging their bets on the incumbent and they're making nice for whoever his replacement will be, even if he's not replaced until 2008. Another factor pursuading them to nudge Al Weed along a bit more: They know that even if Virgil gets elected, if Democrats retake the house, they'll remember how he flipped to the Elephant party for a spot on appropriations, they'll bury him on committee appointments, and he won't be able to do a damn thing for southside Virginia anymore.

We don't get a lot of national attention down here -- although I don't really know why; this race is a perfect test-case for everything the blogosphere's vast knowledge base can do to put progressive Democrats in office even in rural districts -- so even the large-dollar donations are mostly in-district. This measurement comes by way of Wall Street, but you can bet business-owners and diversified investors everywhere are doing the same all throughout the country.

P.S. Now that I think of it: maybe money doesn't corrupt so much as long as it's diversified -- what's good for the country is then good for the investor, right? Still corrupts, just not so much, eh?

1. Wall Street has been slowly drifting our way for some time.

2. This is a legacy (deserved) of Bill Clinton.

3. Democrats are good for the economy.

4. Wall Street performs about 40-50% better under Democrats.

5. The GOP supports old money, old economy.

6. The oil shock is the wake up call that the old economy is down for the count and is not coming back.

7. It's a consumer service economy these days.  Dems want to give consumers more money.  More money buys more services.

8. The internet + progressives = good.  The internet + conservatives = police state.

9. Police states aren't good for big business.

The business of America is business.  And if business thinks the Democrats are a better choice, so be it.  

Just make sure to kick Wall Street in the ass everyday with a useful tip, like: "If workers make more money, you will make more money, too."

Wall Street supported Clinton twice.

Best it ever did was with a D president and R Congress

I'm skeptical about the significance of this, but:

Is there any value to noting that Democrats have only 45% of the Senate seats, and about 35% of the House -- so 52% of dollars going to Democrats is actually a disproportionately large amount?

This is just putting there eggs in more than one basket, since Bush is week.