Did Wall Street Just Become Irrelevant in the Election?

A look at the unpalatable choice now facing the nation's financiers.
Photographer: John Taggart/Bloomberg
Lock
This article is for subscribers only.

Back in December, CNBC interrupted its regularly scheduled programming for an important announcement. Ken Griffin, the billionaire founder of hedge fund firm Citadel Investment Group, had decided whom he was going to back in the presidential race: "I'm really excited to be supporting Marco Rubio," Griffin said at the time. "He will be the next president of the United States."

Now that the Donald Trump steamroller finally laid waste to Rubio's campaign following Tuesday's five primaries, including a decisive defeat in Rubio's home state of Florida, Wall Street donors such as Griffin are left in an uncomfortable position. After first supporting Scott Walker's campaign (until he dropped out last September) and then Jeb Bush (who dropped out last month), many politically engaged financiers settled on Rubio as the remaining candidate who had the best chance at winning and whose views most aligned with their own. With Rubio now out of the picture, the prospect of political irrelevance looms for many Wall Street donors—and that's not a feeling they're used to.