Hey guys,
I wanted to ask if any of you were interested in going into politics in the future.
I have been interested in politics for a really long time and I definitely see myself going into it after a career in finance. Have any of you thought about it or pursued something along these lines?
I know there is another post but it was really old and I wanted to get some fresh perspectives on this.
| +21 | SpaceX IPO - what are your thoughts | 3 | 5h |
| +21 | Funny Things to Say to Interns | 6 | 3d |
| +19 | Should I use Claude or chatgpt? | 9 | 33m |
| +17 | London's future as a financial centre | 18 | 10h |
| +16 | How did you meet your significant other/partner? | 12 | 20h |
| +9 | Top 5 Artificial Intelligence Software Development Companies | 0 | 4h |
| +9 | Study in Europe and How to Pay Tuition Fees in Europe | 0 | 4h |
| +7 | E ink/electronic notepads | 3 | 2d |
| +7 | Ferrari Luce | 7 | 1d |
| +6 | Test post will be deleted automatically. | 9 | 5h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Steve Bannon, Jr., I see?
I'd like to think of myself more like Macron, thank you very much.
OP here are some helpful tips that I hope you will find useful:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/jove-jupiterian-work-likeem…</a">Click here for TOP 5 WAYS to be more JUPITERIAN at work -- LePens HATE HIM
Well in that case you better marry your elementary teacher and work on stretching your ass out.
I would personally never do that, but I took a class in college about Congress that was taught by a former congressional staffer and it seemed interesting to learn about but probably stressful and occasionally really dull. The Senate's Banking, House, and Urban Affairs and House Financial Services committees would be pretty cool, not to mention something sexy like the Appropriations, Judiciary, Intelligence, Armed Services or Ways and Means committees.
Any reason for not wanting to go for it?
I always read way more on politics and government than I do finance and it seems so interesting. Exactly, I want to be able to make the tough decisions and serve my country. I think there is so much to politics (especially on a federal level) and actually having some power to bring change is incredible in my opinion.
Don't get me wrong, it's definitely interesting, but I'm not overly convinced that politicians are always in it to serve their country. It's just a job like every other. In America especially that seems to be the case. What makes it more difficult is that it's a constant conflict and balancing act between your personal ambition, that of your constituents, your party, your personal network, and ultimately your country. It's a massive weight that isn't the easiest to manage. On top of that, a winner-take-all electoral system that exists in America has proven to make politics much more partisan and less consensus-driven, as opposed to the outcomes in most proportional representation electoral systems. Look up "DW-NOMINATE Scores with Bootstrapped Standard Errors" which is an statistical representation made by several political science professors to measure political polarization by roll call voting primarily.
That being said, I'd personally be really interested in a research support position like with the Library of Congress or something more econ focused like the Fed/FDIC/Treasury/etc.
I am on the same page as the OP. Would probably be a super badass job if you could be a lobbyist for some of these huge banks or hedge funds or PE funds or whatever. Good luck getting that gig though.
I've always been interested in lobbying as well (hopefully for a just cause) but actually being the one who votes and makes decisions has been a lot more important than money.
I think a congressman's salary and perks would be more than sufficient in life.
You have to maintain two residences, and with one being in DC cost of living is very high. Many legislators actually serve as roommates together.
Definitely. I'd want to be keep it to the municipal or the state levels though.
I see the appeal, you get a much larger sense of satisfaction because the work you do is materialized very quickly. The pay at the municipal level isn't bad either ($100K+ for wealthier areas).
However I'm definitely more interested in a federal role.
Yep. Plus there's less public scrutiny than at the federal level. Think Clay Davis in The Wire for an idea of what I'm looking for...
Also, it's not just the salary that you live off of ;)
Chicago alderman is a good gig if you can get it. Just do whatever Rahm wants while pretending not to and have someone to screen all the calls about potholes.
I have thought about it, but I do not think it would be for me in the long run. I think it would very interesting to work with people from all around the country with differing views. However, I would not want to be in the spotlight. If you are comfy with people knowing who you are, have a clean background, care about the people you serve and agree with me ;) then you should go for it!
Yeah ever since I was a kid, I've tried to keep myself as "clean" as possible from online info and stuff. I wouldn't mind the spotlight but I could see how it might get annoying.
Where would you put yourself on the political spectrum? Maybe we're the same.
Right, border on libertarian.
I was a presidential campaign staffer, political non-profit employee, and staffed other state wide campaigns, if you want some info pm me and I'd be happy to offer you some direction.
If it really interests you and you are confident about it, you can go ahead with it.
Yeah I definitely see a future for myself in it. I just wanted to know if others here had wanted it as well
Always been partially interested, sort of a fantasy deal. Not the most charismatic person however so I can't see myself playing a very public role in politics. I think working in the finance division of the government would be cool though.
Yeah definitely, I see what you mean. Government work also has pretty good work life-balance if you're not a higher elected official.
Pathos based arguments. Ew
Even though I'm not from the US I'd like to enter politics as well after (hopefully) being successful in the consulting sector for 10 to 20ish years. I've been very interested in politics for the last years and I also had a minor political position a couple of years ago. However I'm going to be politically active as of October again. It's very helpful for a good network as well.
Hmm in your home country or the US? It seems like consulting is definitely one way into government work.
I've personally seen the benefits of the network, working in politics can create for you.
In my home country. It's way easier to get into politics in Europe since you don't need money to do so. As a matter of fact, many of the top politicians from Germany (my home country) used to be in consulting.
A little perspective from the campaign side of politics ... Worked on a pretty big congressional last cycle and loved it. They say you get bit by the bug and it's true, there's something exciting about politics (esp. campaigning) that's hard to find elsewhere. Not sure I'll ever get that in finance. Election day with journalists and broadcast media everywhere with all the tension and the culmination of months of work is just special. Same to be said at rallies when hundreds or thousands turn out to support your candidate. GOTV is hell but also exhilarating, knowing it's so crucial really pushes you (esp if it's a candidate you believe in).
Undecided if I want to run for anything myself later on, but definitely plan to be involved in campaigns as my career permits. Although, responding to work/life balances, once you're elected there might be a nice balance, but getting there is rough. My hours on the campaign were far worse than my SA hours right now, and everyone survives off of coffee, cigs, and gas station food. Some of the hardcore political operative types would move from race to race staying with host families in whatever city they ended up in. Extreme job uncertainty and terrible pay.
I definitely get a similar experience from local elections. I can't imagine higher levels of federal government, where the stakes only get higher. It's definitely a thrill and work experience close to IB (not the thrill).
Exactly why I got off the trail. I staffed a few Congressional, one Presidential campaign and numerous local campaigns, and the thing that stuck out to me was the hotel living and host family living was horrible. Also, you are always looking for a job, literally 24/7 looking for the next opportunity, if the campaign ends and you don't have a gig it can be brutal.
The real money is in political consulting, own a firm and run campaigns. But being a political operative type is the worst kind of life.
If the next president wants me at the White House I'm in, though I don't have any interest in politics.
What position would you want? Or would it even matter?
The position would be anything in the president's cabinet, nothing in particular.
Politics is like a leech. Without your blood it would not survive.
Do you have prior experience as a panhandler? I hope so, because that is what most politicians spent the majority of their life doing: begging for donations. Literally, a politician spends maybe 90-95% of the year trying to raise campaign funds from special interest groups and voters and the other 5-10% actually engaged in any sort of policy formation. It is one of the reasons our political system is so dysfunctional, and why we desperately need campaign finance reform.
I think starting out small would be okay. Municipal --> State --> Federal.... At the municipal there isn't as much money involved and I think that would be a good way to start.
Agreed. Ranked voting and public financing of elections would vastly clean up the sewer that is American politics. Problem is, you can't force candidates to take public money and forego private financing, so the only way it could happen is if the Democrats and Republicans came to a gentlemen's agreement to not raise any private money in a campaign. But you can see the flaw here--a huge advantage of incumbency is being able to easily out-raise your competition. The moment an incumbent is threatened by an equally financed opponent and he or she panics and goes with private money is the moment the voluntary system falls apart.
My girlfriend's dad in the army, started his own brokerage, and then ran for senate.
What state? Did he get elected?
He ran in Illinois and he lost, but started a super PAC afterwards. He still gets a lot of calls to run for other positions and is in contact with a lot of house hold name politicians. He ran with no political experience too.
He ran in Illinois and he lost, but started a super PAC afterwards. He still gets a lot of calls to run for other potions and is in contact with a lot of house hold name politicians. He ran with no political experience too.
An upgrade: my thought is why not. I like politic as well, but for my time is early
If your idea of a career in politics is actually running for office, consider coaching a little league baseball team first.
Worked for our president and his predecessor
Coincidentally, that is also on my list of things to do!
Now you're speakin my language
Fed/Treasury/FDIC would be sick
Definitely, I think holding some position in the government would lead to a pretty good life style.
Fed in particular is great because they're not paid on the GS scale so most positions generally make more, albeit less than private sector. Doesn't mean you can't take from the magical money machine that keeps on giving. They also are fairly generous with money for academics, at least at the junior research analyst level when compared to private sector firms as far as I'm aware.
The FDIC gets paid on a different scale than GS with a slight premium as well. Working for the government can definitely be a good career option depending on what your goals are.
I honestly think most people who work for the Fed, Treasury, FDIC, and federal government in general would make less in the private sector. The vast, vast majority of these workers are paper pushers with no particular transferable skill set. For the longest time (through maybe the 1970's or 1980's) it was true that federal employees were under paid compared to the private sector. However, go to USAJobs today and look at the obscene pay scale for public sector employees and compare it to what the private sector would be willing to pay bureaucrats and paper pushers. It's not really even close. My friend at the CIA/NSA/DIA (not sure) got his brother hired at his office. He told me that his brother is totally incompetent, is off sick most of the time, and is 30 years old and just broke $100,000 in pay. He has a BA in economics from George Mason and no special skill set...
As far as the Ph.D. economists at the Fed, how many private sector companies really need them? I think most would be f*cked if the Federal Reserve suddenly couldn't employ them. There is just limited demand for that credential in the private sector.
Are Bankers Good Politicians? (Originally Posted: 08/01/2017)
When Anthony "The Mooch" Scaramucci was set to begin his tenure at the White House, cable news had a field day. Pundits began explaining that The Mooch had the smooth operating skills that Sean Spicer lacked. He was a pro with an Italian edge that would work well within the quick moving Trump administration. The Mooch was from Wall Street after all, and knew how to spin any story regardless of its severity.
However, as we've all seen, The Mooch was incredibly blunt and wildly ineffective in his role, which ended only 10 days after it began. The most egregious of his faults came when The Mooch publicly accused Reince Priebus on Twitter of leaking proprietary financial documents outlining The Mooch's assets. Problem is, anyone (literally anyone) had the ability to request the documents that Lorraine Woellert of Politico grabbed and subsequently wrote about. So not only was it not Priebus that leaked the documents, but the information wasn't even confidential.
This entire debacle got me thinking. What is the value of having former Wall Street leaders in Washington? The Mooch clearly dropped the ball, but guys with inner knowledge of how Wall Street works must be of some value right?
However, Donald Trump, a businessman through and through, has been unable to get any worthwhile policy created and some may argue it is because of his inability to treat politics as different from his experiences in business.
Also, The Donald is not the only one in his inner circle with connections in Wall Street. Trump said this during his campaign:
By his own words Trump is controlled by a multitude of former bankers including Jim Donovan, Gary Cohn, Dina Powell, Jay Clayton, Steve Mnuchin, and even Steve Bannon (who worked at GS in the 1980s).
Yes, the Trump administration is not the first to put former bankers into politics, but it is hard to imagine a more saturated group than we currently have in the White House. Business certainly has a role to play in politics, but I wonder if this many bankers may be too many.
Let me know what you guys think. What are the pros of having bankers in Washington? Are there too many bankers in the Trump Administration?
I may consider it at some point.
Any role in specific?
Senator.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure at some point in that same speech, Trump made the point that he is not owned by banks like Goldman Sachs, in the same way people like Cruz or Hillary were, because he did not need and would not accept campaign donations.
Yes I understand the context, but Donald's point was he wasn't controlled by GS. I think the vessel he is controlled by (money or influence) is less important.
Trump was elected by the electoral college. Even though bankers donate big on campaigns Trump has the last word. The best politicians are non bankers that's my 2 cents.
Would You Make The Move to Politics After Finance? (Originally Posted: 08/13/2012)
I don't know if a lot of you considered it, but would you like to move to politics after a career in finance?
I mean we're all great at office politics by now but would you be interested in playing the big game? Finance is fast-paced, challenging and interesting but it can only keeps you interested for so long because closing a deal is closing a deal if you're in IB and planning sessions tend to look the same after 3 or 4 of them if you're in Corporate Finance. I feel like starting in politics from scratch is very painful and paying your dues involves a lot of all-nighters. But if you had a (very) good career in Finance and some decent connections you made along the way, maybe you can start in an "experienced" position in a local role and then move up to the big league.
My question to you guys is: would you like to do it and do you feel it would be interesting?
The only profession that is more saturated than finance with psychos and sociopaths is politics. The political incentive structure is to literally ruin the country through debt, inflation, taxing productivity and subsidizing poor behavior.
Someone is quite pessimistic ):
I'm not going to write you a book on public choice theory but look into it. I also recommend chapter 10 in Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom." The first part of my statement is just empirically true.
No he is right, you can't exist in that world if you have even a shred of empathy for anyone but yourself. You can talk all you want about how you are "in in for the people" history will prove otherwise in every case.
0% chance for me. I think the move is more common the other way around...people monetizing their networks.
God no.
I'd sooner dip my nut sack in a french fryer.
No. Running for office seems like it would be hell on earth. The media and your opponents will go out of their way to destroy your life.
Well, my first reaction would be to say absolutely not after, as you stated, a very good career in finance I would probably want to trade my working lifestyle for lots of golf, networking functions etc... oh wait, that sounds like a politicians life. I can think of far worse things to have a successful career and then go do a stint in Washington, making half informed decisions on policies that effect hundreds of millions of lives, and if you screw up too much just make sure whoever tries to run against you has more skeletons than you do. Frankly, the lack of accountability is so astounding in politics that it sounds like an awesome place to be for like a term or two. The problem is that like everything else I think it ends up consuming you and you fall in love with the idea of how much power you have and simply lose whoever you were in the process.
This probably describes banking after a few years. I also would never run, I don't care about my skeletons but wouldn't want people harassing my family.
This.
Being in finance and making the move to politics will probably give your opponent a good argument to tear you down...
In France with all the bad press finance people get it'd be impossible to fight back.
You know, i think that it does for people who are trying to toe a line that they don't necessarily believe or aren't comfortable with themselves and what they have accomplished. I think people would respect, not like, someone who comes out and says here is my record. This is what I did and I'm damn well proud of it, I've accomplished many great things and aided tons of companies, blah blah whatever you want to say. If you own your record and at least appear to believe in it that goes a very long way. Sure, people may still not vote for you but I doubt you'll have attack ads where a Super Pac tries to convince voters that your responsible for the death of someone who had cancer and lost their healthcare because of a Bain buyout. That is just incredible.
The problem is that Finance doesn't do itself any favors because many times they become indignant and defensive instead of accepting that hey, maybe we fucked up a few times but here is what we are going to do to fix it. Instead, they go right back to the well doing the same tricks over and over again. I can think of a hundred ways to defend what finance did and will do in the future, but appearances will override most things. At least LOOK like you give a shit and are trying to restrain yourself. Finance will get way too much credit and too much blame because it is far easier to scapegoat those who benefited the most from dimwit policies that allowed excess financialization of the economy and wanton greed by everyone and their cousin. People don't want to accept that they screwed up and took on more than they could afford in multiple lifetimes, and now when it comes time to pay for it all who do they turn against? The enablers. It makes sense, but then again a 75% tax on high earners doensn't make much sense either.
Yeah, except that in France, once you're in politics you're off limits. Lapdog press doesn't even begin to describe French political reportage, where "Monsieur President, do you prefer a light vinaigrette on your salad?" is considered a hardball question.
THANK YOU , THANK YOU GOD BLESS YOU .. AND GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES! TOGETHER YOU HAVE SHOWN THE WORLD ... YES WE CAN!
Only if I didn't have to do all that boring fundraising. Bloomberg's life seems pretty boss.
"All my life I kept trying to go up in society. Where everything higher up was legal. But the higher I go, the crookeder it becomes. Where the hell does it end?" (Michael Corleone, Godfather III)
In Asian countries, especially countries like China, you can't separate business interests with political interests. The only way you can secure your business (if you run a major enterprise in sensitive sectors like TMT or Natural Resources), you need as much help you can get from the government.
I was offered a Congressional Aide position to the speaker of the House in my country. I declined that offer. Maybe in a few years down the road, I will be running for a seat in the parliament.
I'd like to go to politics after. I think we need quality people to run, and I wont need money anymore...
If I was to have a successful career in finance, definitely. But to a certain extent I think it may be better to serve in a state position (governor perhaps), as opposed to federal. Just dont feel like I personally would have the credentials (not having served in the military) that Id feel would be qualified to potentially command troops to go to war. And then, governors like Christie can have very aggressive styles of governing while being conservative in more liberal leaning areas, so there are some very interesting opportunities.
I'd like to think that the average WSO user has too much self-respect to go into politics... but I'm sure I'm wrong
This may come as a shock, but running for office isn't about making money, or getting the ego stroked - it's about serving your country. Lots of comments out there complaining about politicians not knowing anything about finance, but plenty of comments like this discouraging them from running. There's a few members of congress, on both sides, with finance backgrounds (some investment bankers). Might be good to have more people like that writing the law.
Not a chance. There is no autonomy left in politics. In finance, your goals are quantifiable, and you can be hugely successful based solely off your own abilities. Of course networking makes things easier, but at least the possibility of hitting that huge highly levered trade with your own capital exists in finance; in politics, being successful essentially entails juggling the highest number of high-powered scrotums possible, massaging each the perfect amount so as to not become too associated with any one scrotum. I could never dupe myself into joining politics under the auspice of promoting cultural change, policy change, etc either--especially as a second career--because it's my personal belief that meaningful change requires far more than 2 or 4 or 6 year terms of this or that policy to enact, and the cost/benefit of all the scrotum juggling wouldn't be worth it. I'm not sure how you could look at our inept Congress and possibly want to participate in all that frivolity and sycophantic behavior.
You want to really make a difference? Get a job with the CBOE or Fed
As long as the economy is bad and the general public continues to blame bankers/banks for the recession, it will not be a good move.
The thought of having to listen to hordes or proletariat's makes me shudder. Having to beg for the votes of people who can barely read at a 7th grade level is not my idea of a self actualized life.
Look at what they're doing to Romney. Who would subject himself to that? I would like to serve my country, but having to go through a campaign is a strong deterrent.
Oh, I bought stock in Phillip Morris? Clearly, I support cancer. That's the sort of mudslinging you can expect.
And once I got to DC, then what? Only the most ideological people take it upon themselves to run for national office - you're not going to change anybody's mind once your there.
And all this comes at the cost of making your family's life hell. They get the media scrutiny, but none of the benefits of being an elected official.
The person with the money has more power than the person who has to beg for it. Why become a politician when you can influence policy with your money?
In India, becoming a politician is the best thing actually. Accountability and responsibilities are zero because nearly all the ground work is handled by civil servants, if some disaster happens, it's the civil servants who answer.
I guess, India is probably the only country where as a politician you can rake up hundreds of millions of dollors and still Income Tax Department won't knock on your door unless you make enemies in the central government. Other benifits include complete evasion from law in minor crimes like hit and run, homicide, rape etc etc. The maximum downside is house arrest, if you happen to become a media darling who stole away billions of dollors or public money in a single stint, otherwise you'll be okey.
I don't know about politics, but I think it would be fucking awesome to have the responsibilities of Robert Mueller right now.
Do any of you want to go into politics? (Originally Posted: 12/25/2012)
I get it, I get it. Wall Street isn't all that popular. Mitt Romney was wrecked pretty badly. Jon Corzine was a total screw up. Hank Paulson, Robert Rubin, the list goes on and on. But look at Jim Himes in CT. He unseated a 10 term Republican in 2006 and seems to be doing okay with his constituents.
I'm asking this obviously because I've considered looking at politics mid-career. And even as a prospective financier my political views stretch way beyond taxes and regulations.
So my two questions are: Have you considered politics as a future, and if you did, what kind of legislator/executive would you be?
Agreed, but there is a huge microscope for everything he is doing.
no way, I would make a fool of myself.
Yeah if you don't have any skeletons. lol
I've always thought it would be cool to be like the characters from Enders Game. They had political ends to their schemes. So maybe.
politicians are probably the only ppl more hated than financiers lol
Money is real power. And the thought of the unwashed masses casting judgement on anything I might have done is sickening. People who otherwise couldn't comprehend putting different shaped wood blocks into different holes having an opinion on how someone lives their life is one of the most distasteful elements of modern politics.
This would be the worst part for me also. You try your best to do the right thing and you have a bunch of people who instantly judge/hate you because of one misinterpreted talking point or snap judgement on something they have no understanding of. Not worth the shitty pay (at the lower levels) and stress of having people hate you for no reason other than trying to help them.
The "unwashed masses"? And you wonder why Americans hate Wall Street? Have a little compassion and empathy for the average American. Better yet, try visiting a place like Traverse City, MI or Fort Wayne, IN and talking to the people before labeling them an unwashed mass.
Might go into politics on a local level when I get more free time. I want to shape and have a say in the area I live in, but that is about it. No Congress or Senate for me.
the smart crooks go to wall street the dumb crooks go to washington
For years and years I was actively involved in the Republican Party. In high school I won a senior superlative--"Most likely to end up on Capitol Hill". Part of me still has the itch for politics, but a year or so ago is when I realized that politics probably isn't for me. I'm friends with a young state legislator (about 31 years old I think) and he posted on Facebook something to the effect of, "Just got my new committee assignments. Interstate Cooperation, Agriculture & Natural Resources, and Aging and Long-term Care. So excited!"
It was then, after all those years of dreaming, that it finally sunk in that the "glamorous" part of the job--TV interviews, debate and votes on major issues, rousing political speeches, etc.--is about 1% of the job. The other 99% of the job is sitting on committees and debating/discussing the most mind numbingly boring topics ever concocted by mankind. I realized that my job owning and managing bank branches is about 1 million times more interesting than politics and that I would never be able to enjoy the meat of the job that is elective service.
That said, local politics--member of the county Board of Supervisors, for example--is something that still interests me as I could actually impact the quality of life of my community.
Suppose the same could be said about most positions. The glory and major decision making is at the top in any industry. That said, I'm young and naive and would like to go into politics some day so I could make the world a better place.
At some point, yes.
NO. After spending time with the whackos already planning their Senate/House 203X campaign, never again.
many of the big ego assholes here will go, after they become old, bald, fat and have made enough money. then they start to think about power.
NEVER
I figure if I'm between 35-40, still have my hair, and haven't done anything shady, I'll start looking at local and state positions. The highest I could see myself is Governor, or maybe the Cabinet. If I turn into a complete a-hole I might try Congress. As long as no one knows my idea to raise the SS age to 75 I think I can make it pretty far. Otherwise I'll get raped by some welfare white knight in the primaries.
My past will hurt my campaign if i were to run for a political position.
Let's hope since most of our generation's business is out in the open on social media that future elections will pardon our skeletons on account of everyone having them lol.
Nothing
From Banker to Politician? (Originally Posted: 05/23/2014)
Just curious, if someone wants to someday enter politics, will a former stint as an IB analyst hurt them from a public opinion perspective? Any current senators or congressmen with a history in IBD? Any former presidents? I definitely want to do banking but am a little worried it may lead to future political suicide. On a related note, I know 2 years BB IBD + 2 years MF PE is basically a golden ticket into HBS or any MBA program in the country. Is the same true with law schools?
Yes but it might have been difficult for them to have gotten to the position they are at now
The obvious example would be Romney who was in PE before going into politics, and google also suggested that Jack Ryan (ex-partner in GS) ran for a seat in the senate but withdrew after some stuff about his divorce was dug up. So people have made the jump, but not that often and with not that much success as far as I can tell.
Romney got his ass handed to him in the 2012 election.
Rahm Emanuel and Jim Himes come to mind. Himes got his start at Goldman before switching to non-profit. Apparently you have to be a Democrat.
This.
Also Jon Corzine.
With the way Wall St has been vilified recently it may hurt your chances but if you're only doing it for a few years it may have less of an impact and who knows, in 10-20 years when you're more likely to run finance may not be the whipping boy and people may hate google. The law degree would be the correct route though. For better or worse everyone in the Beltway seems to be a lawyer.
Rahm Emanuel (current Mayor of Chicago) was an MD at Wasserstein Perella from '99 to '02 before he won a seat in the House of Representatives. You probably have to be a Democrat - it's my opinion that Republican investment bankers would likely not get elected in a general election.
Very stressful, Senators are allowed to use inside information to trade though.
Government Ambitions (Originally Posted: 10/21/2009)
I wonder if anyone shares the view that the ultimate goal is to be in Government ?
I have some political ambitions of my own - way down the line though.
Obama
j/k...govt is certainly a respectable calling if that's what you want - not trying to start crap here.
Quia voluptatem facere ab et. Voluptas sequi ex sit voluptatum magnam sapiente. Eos in est impedit optio culpa. Est eum quo sequi consequatur. Praesentium non vitae culpa et minus. At qui distinctio reprehenderit voluptatem animi.
Laboriosam porro id iure. Ab est non natus id fuga. Ea quia adipisci enim laborum aspernatur voluptatibus vero sit. Quia iste quidem temporibus nobis ut provident voluptatem consequatur.
Nulla tempora voluptas corrupti itaque. Eum perferendis consequatur incidunt ut numquam.
Sed ab sit enim deleniti est nam architecto. Sunt eveniet sequi qui ex illo. Ad itaque cum molestias ut ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Similique sed autem ut sit perspiciatis rerum. Cupiditate tempore temporibus occaecati sunt repellendus excepturi. Asperiores culpa aut ipsam voluptates officiis molestias ea. Vel quas magni porro. Repellat dolor rerum quo neque consectetur qui voluptatum. Nesciunt sunt aut sit. Est soluta nesciunt velit nisi perferendis tenetur.
Soluta labore dolores maxime delectus non. Quos itaque aut aut perferendis. Nemo quo quia laudantium voluptas itaque. Distinctio ullam non sed sit. Laudantium iste in saepe non ut quia earum.
Odio vero autem et. Molestias necessitatibus quo rerum eos quasi libero. Ut est aperiam aperiam asperiores error repellat officiis totam. Voluptatibus ut cum fugit suscipit.
Non dolores laborum voluptate nostrum facere beatae libero. Numquam et nisi nihil ad voluptatibus iure dolor. Omnis consequuntur provident ad quam. Aperiam dolorem quasi dolor dolores. Doloremque et et aperiam fugit repudiandae id. Ea rerum sint necessitatibus ut molestias sit debitis. Est maxime voluptatibus in.
Eum laboriosam blanditiis quia velit. Rem ut quia facilis occaecati explicabo repellat assumenda. Laboriosam et dolores perferendis est incidunt vel dignissimos sed. Et autem aut nisi sunt laboriosam placeat. Eos quisquam ea aliquam dicta ut tempore. Harum impedit magni optio mollitia culpa laboriosam.
Neque quasi provident molestiae ut voluptatem temporibus. Est hic sed non unde et. Et doloremque iste enim modi veritatis dicta. Laboriosam ut autem sequi quisquam voluptatem commodi omnis.
Illo quibusdam dolore ab ratione praesentium. Atque suscipit quia culpa qui non vel. Recusandae voluptatum eos consectetur soluta vero ipsum ducimus est. Ipsum neque id atque repellat alias. Et est aut et laboriosam minus dolores tempora ut.
Ut quos debitis et eveniet sint ut rerum. Dolores eius quod sit voluptas consectetur est impedit. Molestiae nostrum et quos dolore similique est.
Et quo aut aperiam et et hic et. Esse distinctio tenetur aut accusamus. At optio aliquam tempore provident modi exercitationem. Quisquam quia cum maiores enim. Dolores voluptates enim ut et aut.
Distinctio sint perferendis voluptatem optio. Quia omnis neque consequuntur vitae perspiciatis beatae. Non necessitatibus cumque atque deserunt culpa. Temporibus quia aut iusto vitae.
Quis sunt quia alias nobis voluptatibus repellat omnis ab. Nemo dolor et voluptatibus atque dolorem. Eligendi fugit rerum recusandae officia ullam. Laudantium nobis nulla dicta ut voluptatum voluptatum occaecati.
Quidem earum occaecati cumque suscipit impedit impedit animi. Nihil corrupti eos nisi dolores minus quia enim. Labore esse voluptas rerum omnis. Nostrum voluptatem aspernatur cum rerum provident exercitationem cumque. Ad quo deserunt asperiores earum qui et. Repellendus neque inventore consequatur nemo vel laborum aliquid. Facilis laborum deserunt omnis ipsa perspiciatis sed voluptatem et.
Molestiae sunt cumque commodi occaecati quos. Magni vero nisi sit ut sed aut animi esse.
Magni eius omnis totam voluptas minima architecto beatae. Provident debitis nam qui temporibus tempora. Est adipisci velit eos consequatur.
Qui rerum nulla autem qui ipsum. Provident debitis necessitatibus nemo pariatur maxime repellat aut. Sequi sequi quis voluptatum aut et.
Sed vero totam aut autem et ut iste. Nulla velit error quia minima similique sunt. Dolor perferendis quia aperiam a a minus. Molestiae exercitationem rerum neque ab voluptatem perspiciatis.
Ratione sint ut et. Quia est quaerat autem. Et qui quidem dolor praesentium placeat voluptatem error.
Eius et ipsam consectetur voluptas exercitationem. Nemo inventore fuga voluptate assumenda. Magnam veniam eum et deleniti et recusandae molestiae laborum.