CNN's Todd claimed Dem contributions from securities and investment industry "dwarf" McCain's -- but a greater proportion of McCain's donations came from Wall Street

On the March 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, guest host John King said of campaign donations from the securities and investment industry, "It appears [Sen.] Barack Obama and [Sen.] Hillary Clinton are getting the lion's share, but some wonder if that might make them too cozy with the financial services sector should either of them become president," and correspondent Brian Todd asserted that Obama and Clinton "may have some questions to answer about credibility and just how beholden they might be to those responsible for the home mortgage crisis." Todd then cited the Center for Responsive Politics' data on contributions from the "securities & investment" industry, based on the campaigns' Federal Election Commission reports of campaign contributions through January 31 and asserted: "Senator Clinton got nearly $6.3 million from donors in the securities and investment industry. ... Senator Obama got just over $6 million. Both dwarf Senator John McCain's take of over $2.5 million." However, in claiming that contributions Clinton and Obama received from the securities and investment contributions "dwarf ... McCain's take," Todd ignored the fact that McCain's "take" from the securities and investment industry represents a larger portion of the total contributions he received than Clinton's or Obama's over the same time period. So the Democrats' greater contributions may be less indicative of a "coz[ier]" relationship with Wall Street and more indicative of more successful fundraising in general. Indeed, at the conclusion of the segment when asked by King about the "significance of the Wall Street money," Todd acknowledged that given how much money Clinton and Obama have raised, the contributions from the securities and investment industry "do[]n't represent very much."

As shown in the chart below, McCain's "take" from the securities and investments industry represents 5.26 percent of his total contributions through January 31, Clinton's "take" represents 5.20 percent of her total contributions, and Obama's "take" represents 4.36 percent of his total contributions.

Todd also contrasted Obama's and Clinton's positions on "the home foreclosure crisis" with their campaign donations, asserting: "But while they were talking tough, new information shows Wall Street was underwriting them." CNN has previously baselessly suggested that Democrats are somehow being hypocritical or inconsistent if they take positions that are at odds with those advocated by their donors. As Media Matters for America noted, on the November 26, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer suggested Democratic presidential candidates were "trying to have it both ways" by expressing support for the strike by the Writers Guild of America despite having accepted contributions from entertainment executives. During the report itself, general assignment correspondent Kareen Wynter stated: "They're speaking out for writers, but the Democratic front-runners have previously accepted donations from senior executives at some of the very companies the writers are striking against."

After Todd's taped report, King asked Todd: "Brian, put this into context for us. Out of the overall contributions to both of these candidates, who have raised tens of millions of dollars, what is the significance of the Wall Street money?" Todd replied by stating "[i]t can be very misleading" before noting that the money "is a drop in the bucket," adding "It doesn't represent very much." Nevertheless, King asserted: "It's still worth watching."

From the March 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

KING: Amid the presidential race, another race we're following concerns the bulls and bears of Wall Street. Which presidential candidates are they donating the most money to? It appears Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are getting the lion's share, but some wonder if that might make them too cozy with the financial services sector should either of them become president.

CNN's Brian Todd joins me now. Brian, you've been looking into this. What are you finding?

TODD: Well, John, it's interesting that among the Democrats, the consistent message is look to them for relief. But the two remaining Democratic candidates both may have some questions to answer about credibility and just how beholden they might be to those responsible for the home mortgage crisis.

[begin video clip]

TODD: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both say they'll take the lead in solving the home foreclosure crisis, and they have tough words for the financial giants who underwrote it.

OBAMA: Some will say it's anathema to come to Wall Street and call for shared sacrifice.

CLINTON: Wall Street helped create the foreclosure crisis, and Wall Street needs to help us solve it.

TODD: But while they were talking tough, new information shows Wall Street was underwriting them. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that tracks campaign donations, says during the year ending in late January, Senator Clinton got nearly $6.3 million from donors in the securities and investment industry, most of it from individuals who worked for the big firms. Senator Obama got just over $6 million. Both dwarf Senator John McCain's take of over $2.5 million.

SHEILA KRUMHOLZ (Center for Responsive Politics executive director): The concern is that these candidates will be less willing to call for the necessary regulation of financial markets because of their reliance -- their heavy reliance on Wall Street for campaign cash.

TODD: Both campaigns counter that vigorously. An Obama aide says his record of calling for Wall Street accountability in the foreclosure crisis is clear, and it won't change in the White House.

A Clinton spokesman says it would look much worse if she had taken the money from Wall Street and not been as tough as she has with a far-reaching, aggressive plan for reform. The spokesman points out many of these contributions are natural byproducts of her representation of New York in the Senate.

But analysts say this does signal that the days of the Republicans being the party of Wall Street are long since over.

JIM VANDEHEI (Politico executive editor): Most of the establishment of the Democratic Party is now very cozy with Wall Street and very aware of their concerns here in Washington.

[end video clip]

TODD: Now, the Clinton campaign reflects this double-edged sword more than any other, possibly.

A top economic adviser to Mrs. Clinton is Robert Rubin, a Wall Street titan who's still a top official at Citigroup. But a Clinton spokesman points out, it's Rubin, who as Treasury secretary oversaw one of the greatest economic expansions in U.S. history. If anybody can figure out how to deal with the Wall Street bailouts, it is Robert Rubin, John.

KING: Robert Rubin back with us.

Brian, put this into context for us. Out of the overall contributions to both of these candidates, who have raised tens of millions of dollars, what is the significance of the Wall Street money?

TODD: It can be very misleading. By category, it's the third -- the financial sector represents kind of the -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the third-leading contributor to all the candidates.

Fifty-five percent of that, they say, goes to the Democrats. But if you look at it among each individual candidate, and the money they have raised over the past year overall, this is a drop in the bucket by most accounts. It doesn't represent very much.

KING: It's still worth watching. Brian Todd -- thank you very much, Brian.