Eric Cantor To Join Investment Bank Moelis & Co. As Vice Chairman And Managing Director

Yes the former U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor will join investment bank Moelis & Co as vice chairman and managing director. Defeated in June by a Tea Party challenger in a Republican primary election, will now provide strategic counsel to the company's corporate and institutional clients on key issues.

"Eric has proven himself to be a pro-business advocate and one who will enhance our boardroom discussions with CEOs and senior management as we help them navigate their most important strategic decisions," Moelis CEO Ken Moelis said in a statement.
Cantor, a lawyer, does not have a Wall Street background, though he was considered a friend of Wall Street in Congress. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, individuals and committees associated with the securities and investment business were the leading donors among industries to Cantor’s reelection bid, giving a combined total of about $1.4 million during the primary election cycle in 2013 and 2014.
Instead, unemployment remains high and economic growth sluggish. Crony capitalism, therefore, expresses the big business belief that financial survival rests upon government cash infusions and partnerships. Big government, plus big business, equals too big to fail.

Tea Party populism is in no way similar to the aims expressed by the Occupy movement, but a call for the restoration of economic equilibrium imposed by a free market – in which failure is always a possibility.

Should Eric Cantor end up working for a private equity firm, it will prove “too big to fail” now applies to American politics. And Eric Cantor’s electoral loss may be crony capitalist Wall Street’s gain.

Cantor's reported new compensation will be $3.4 million. A jump from his former salary of $194,000 as U.S. House Majority Leader.

No votes yet

Being a Member of Congress is a big job. I will admit, that when I was young, I thought that being a member of the U.S. House of Representatives was something like an entry level position. I WAS DEAD WRONG!! Only 435 people at one time in a nation that now tops 300,000,000 are House members. Add another 100 U.S. Senators and we still have quite an exclusive group. They are responsible for a multi-trillion dollar budget, war and peace, taxation, and too many other areas to list,

Cantors' cash-in is nothing new, nor unexpected. Most Members of Congress are skilled enough to make a LOT more than their Congressional salaries in the private sector. One of the best things that ever happened to Thomas Ludlow "Lud" Ashley, was when he lost a bid for re-election back in1980. He went to work in the private sector and made many times his Congressional salary.

Now, to common folks, the salary made by Members of Congress seems like a small fortune. But, Cantor's private sector salary is not atypical. So, who runs for Congress? Mostly people who make a financial sacrifice.

So...why would they do this? Some have a sincere desire to serve. Some have a strong ideology which propels them into the public forum. Almost all of them have a gigantic ego. This ego not only drives them in the sense of believing they are right on issues, and/or better equipped to make tough decisions than anyone else in their district. It also allows them to be pilloried in public, in the media, in the blogosphere, etc., and not totally break down. But, in the long run, being a Member of Congress pays off big time financially, whenever one leaves the job and enters or re-enters the private sector.

Too many of the best and brightest minds in America go to work every day in a Mercedes or a Porsche to jobs which pay many times what they could make in the public sector, and are unknown to you and me. But elected officials have every part of their public and private lives dissected daily by the media and their constituents. And we wonder why we don't get a wider choice of people who want to run this gauntlet? And we complain about their level of compensation. Really?? As has been oft stated, "In a Democracy, the people get the kind of government they deserve."

Am I, therefore, stating that we should never question our elected officials? Heavens, no! But we can disagree without being disagreeable. We can treat our elected officials with respect, even when we disagree with them. We can reintroduce the "civil" back into civil discourse.

It is too high... when you come at the problem from the point of view that anyone who makes more than you didn't earn it. Thus consider the source.


employment. It's quite simple. I know. I have been in private sector business. If one wants a better field of candidates for a position that needs to be filled, one offers better compensation and better working conditions. If one offers uncompetitive compensation, and/or makes the position an onerous one to hold, one gets poorer quality candidates for the position.
When people like Eric Cantor can make about 20 times as much money in a position where no one in the media or public criticizes him for every decision he makes, where he must interview with only one person, or one small group of people to get the job, why should he run for public office where he is scrutinized constantly from the moment he declares his candidacy and gets paid less?

We either enhance the position of elected officials, or we accept the consequences of relatively low balling the pay and over-the-top criticism of candidates, whether or not they win election.

I hear you Dale. But this system has become a revolving door that is all too familiar with our political class. Cantor has been in the pockets of Wall Street for twenty years. Arguably not representing his constituents resulting in his recent loss. Both parties are playing this game to enrich themselves at the expense of the voters. With Citizen's United opening the floodgates of cash its become even more obvious these so-called representatives are not working for the greater good. In the name of bipartisan fairness I offer the following by Maureen Dowd:
Isn’t It Rich?

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

According to the article you cite, Bill Clinton made $17,000,000 last year. And how much did the government pay him when he was the POTUS? $200,000 per year for 8 years. In other words, Bill made more than TEN TIMES as much money in ONE year as a retired POTUS, than he made IN EIGHT YEARS AS POTUS!

Do we overpay our elected officials? Not compared to what they can earn in the private sector!

Look at the big picture this is for you!

After 13 Years Of Fighting For Wall Street, Eric Cantor Will Make Millions At An Investment Bank
From above article:

"David Stockman, himself a former Republican Congressman who served as director of Ronald Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget, described Cantor as “Bagman For Wall Street.”

And this

"In his primary, his Tea Party opponent also criticized Cantor for his close ties to Wall Street, arguing “All of the investment banks, up in New York and D.C., they should have gone to jail,” but instead went on “Eric [Cantor's] Rolodex” and sent him big checks."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.