Why Clinton's Fundraising Beats Trump's - Even in Republican-Dominated Industries

Hillary Clinton donors

Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton's fundraising currently beats Donald Trump's by a factor of almost 3 to 1. But what's even more astonishing is that Clinton's massive fundraising haul is being supported by industries that have typically backed Republicans since at least 2009, like finance and energy...

For example, the financial sector has contributed $47.5 million to Clinton's campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That represents over 10% of her total fundraising amount of $435 million.

Compare that to Trump, who has received a mere $502,455 from the same sector. That only represents nearly 0.3% of his total fundraising amount of $160 million.

Individuals who work within the oil and gas industry have also donated $525,000 to Clinton through July 30, the end of the most recent fundraising period. That's $376,000 more than Trump has received from these individuals over the same time period, according to Yahoo Finance.

Hillary Clinton donors

Trump has been outspokenly pro-energy on the campaign trail. He has shown strong support for the struggling coal industry and has also expressed support for big oil. And for someone who has received few donations from Wall Street, Trump has said he wants to repeal the very bane of the financial sector: the Dodd-Frank Act. Remember, this was the bipartisan act that was supposedly meant to rein in Wall Street after the 2008 Financial Crisis.

So what gives? Big energy and finance typically have way more to gain from Republicans than Democrats. At least, that's how it's been recently...

Why Big Energy and Finance Have Favored Republicans Since 2009

Financial Industry

It's no secret why Republicans get a lot of support from corporations. Republican presidents are typically pro-business and pro-corporate America - and Trump is no different. A lower corporate tax rate, industry subsidies, less regulation: these are all things that Trump and his fellow Republicans support. Conversely, Clinton has said she wants to be tougher on Wall Street, provide less subsidies for the oil and gas industry, and leave the corporate tax rate mostly unchanged.

Just take a look at the last presidential election...

During the 2012 cycle, Mitt Romney received $23 million from the financial industry - more than three times President Barrack Obama's $6.8 million haul.

The 2008 election cycle is a notable exception. President Obama raised about $10 million more from the financial industry than John McCain. But McCain had a relatively paltry campaign finance operation, raising only $360 million compared to President Obama's nearly $750 million. During the 2010 midterm elections, however, Republicans enjoyed 67% of total donations from Wall Street-related industries, according the CRP.

Oil and Gas Industry

As for oil and gas, it has been one of the GOP's biggest backers for decades, according to Yahoo Finance. In 1989, the industry funneled $500 million into U.S. elections. Sixty percent of those donations went to the Republican Party, according to the CRP.

So why are the energy and finance industries backing Clinton even though Trump has shown so much support for them?

There are two big reasons why...

Why Clinton's Fundraising Gets a Rare Boost from GOP-Dominated Industries

Wall Street Ties

Clinton is known to be cozy with Wall Street. Over her entire political career, she or her husband have received a total of nearly $7.7 million from at least 39 speeches to big banks, including UBS and Goldman Sachs, according to CNN.

[mmpazkzone name="in-story" network="9794" site="307044" id="137008" type="4"]

Clinton's anti-Wall Street talk on the campaign trail simply doesn't match up with her actions.

That leads us to the first reason Clinton is receiving more donations than Trump from Wall Street: It may be calling her bluff. Big banks may believe that Clinton's tough talk won't lead to actual policy reform. In short, they see her as the status quo - largely keeping the existing reforms that President Obama has put in place.

Bernie Sanders points out Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs ties on Jan. 17.

Predictability

A second reason for the disparity: Clinton is much more predictable than Trump. With Clinton, the big banks - or any industry for that matter - know what to expect, while Trump's policies are much harder to pin down. On the campaign trail, Trump has even said he values "unpredictability" as a political asset.

When it comes to running a company, guessing games are bad for business. Sector lobbyists and business owners want to know exactly what they'll get when they donate.

Don't Miss: Turbocharge your investing returns with our top 5 money-making investment reports. Get them now - they're absolutely free. Click here...

Here's an example of that in action: On Sept. 7, Goldman Sachs banned employees from making donations to some political officials, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Examiner. The policy change, according to the company, was meant to "minimize potential reputational damage" caused by perceptions of so-called "pay-to-play" donations. The memo even went so far as to specifically name the Trump/Pence ticket as a no-go. But it curiously left out mention of barring donations from one candidate: Hillary Clinton...

Yahoo Finance found after interviewing nearly a dozen energy sector officials that many said they worry about Trump's positions and that he might not understand their industry - in other words, they are worried Trump is unpredictable.

One of Trump's top energy advisers, Harold Hamm, has also said that Trump - at times - has been confused about big energy mainstays like fracking, according to The Wall Street Journal. And several weeks ago, Trump told a Colorado TV station that he can "understand" if a state wants to ban fracking, according to Yahoo Finance.

Lastly, while Trump has mostly shown support for big energy, he has also said he doesn't support giving states control over federal lands within their borders. That policy isn't favored by the energy sector, which would prefer more state control as a way to promote fossil-fuel development, according to Yahoo Finance.

It's clear that corporate America is throwing its support behind Hillary Clinton. But what does it have to gain, exactly, from donating millions to a political campaign? A whole lot, it turns out. Next week, we'll be answering this question in full. So stay tuned!

Up Next: Get the Best Investing Research Today to Grow Your Money

Follow us on Twitter @moneymorning or like us on Facebook.

Recommended