President Donald Trump's pick for education secretary, Betsy DeVos, a billionaire businesswoman and champion of charter schools and vouchers, faced stiff opposition from Democrats, public school advocates, and even some Republicans. Among their criticism, detractors cited DeVos’s lack of experience in public education—having neither taught, administered, attended, nor enrolled her own children in public school. Supporters framed her lack of experience as one of her strengths, arguing the nation’s education system needed an outsider to fix it.
When the presidential candidates vowed on Sunday to eliminate the “carried-interest” loophole, they left out some important context. The only thing Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump seemed to agree upon in last Sunday's debate—indeed, one of the few substantive policy exchanges they had—was the need to eliminate a tax benefit that collectively saves private equity, real estate, and venture capital partners billions of dollars each year. But their exchange might have left viewers confused about the issue, not least because it included several misleading insinuations, particularly on the part of Trump.
Hillary Clinton has gone even further than Donald Trump in promising to kill a tax break that benefits some of the wealthiest people in finance. One might reasonably expect Clinton's campaign contributions from private equity to suffer as a result of this stance, and for the money to flow overwhelmingly to the Republicans, as it did in the last presidential election. So why are private equity titans giving all their campaign money to Clinton?