Does Taking Wall Street money damage Trump's brand?

Trumps Brand was "Self-Financed" independence of Wall Street's corrupting influence.  Now he takes their money.  Is he hurting his brand?   

Maybe not.

In October of last year, standing in line for 3 1/2 hours with Trump supporters in Nevada I had lots of time to hear what they said about Trump.   The centerpiece of the Trump brand was independence of the special interests due to his self-funding.   Trump didn't take money from the special interests on Wall Street or the oil companies or drug companies or the individual billionaires each with his own pet project.

Remember back to 2015?  Trump was criticizing "Little Marco" and Ted Cruz (not yet "Lyin 'Ted") and totally-sold-out low-energy Bush for being puppets on the string of the special interests whose money they chased.   As the campaign developed and they dropped out Trump focused on Hillary and it was a defining difference between their brands:  Hillary was buddies with Wall Street and therefore corrupted; Trump was not.

I wrote yesterday that this was an enduring brand and message problem for Hillary and it still is.  But Trump, too, has a problem.  He needs to raise money, and special interests including Wall Street is where the money is, so that is what he is doing.   I get daily emails asking me for money from Trump and meanwhile he has enlisted a controversial Wall Street wizard to gather up money million dollar hunks from the same places Hillary is getting money.

He might actually get away with it! It complicates his brand but it may not destroy it.

Consider his situation:  He condemned the corrupting effect of special interest money.  His brand is "I am self funded and therefore uncorrupted, but I know money corrupts because I used to give it."   

And now he is raising that very money.   It is an impossible position of hypocrisy and reversal, no??  Wouldn't it totally destroy the integrity of his brand?  

It is a risk and may play out that way, but Trump is in a unique position that would be impossible for another candidate,  but might work for him.

Trump's brand is not rectitude.   It is bluff and bravado and willingness to make wildly improbable assertions as he takes a negotiating position.  His brand is not freedom from bald faced hypocrisy.  Quite the opposite.  Bluffing it out in the face of the facts is consistent with his brand and it demonstrates his willingness openly to lie and cheat to win his point.  All is fair in negotiating to win.  Trump asserts things that are demonstrably untrue or hypocritical and if he is caught red handed and it does not matter: ties made in China, suits maid in Mexico, he's a close student of the Bible, Muslims cheered 9-11 in New Jersey, he opposed entry to the Iraq war, etc.   

In fact, oddly enough, it maybe net-net helps him.  It shows he is not deterred by mere facts and evidence.

Trump is demonstrating how he fights: he fights hard and dirty.  To win, win, win.  Even when faced with contradictory facts he sticks to his story.   He is showing to Americans how he would confront China and Mexico on trade, ISIS on terror, Russia and the rest of the world on foreign policy: he would not let facts or rules or fairness or reasonableness get in the way of asserting his--America's--interests.   If China or Mexico try to distract him by showing him evidence of some kind that shows he is incorrect, Trump will be resolute and firm.  When Trump asserts a position he would be perfectly content to ignore mere experts or globalists or lawyers. 

Hillary has an opportunity here, but it is not a sure thing.  She can argue: cheaters keep on cheating, people who lie keep on lying.   It will not be enough for Hillary to show that Trump is a hypocrite.  She needs to show that he is self serving and as soon as he gets a chance he will lie and cheat you.   Of course he will fight dirty, but Trump needs to be shown to be untrustworthy because his loyalty to your side is in doubt.

The lessons learned by Republicans during the primary--and now the testimony of some of them--may be more useful than anything Hillary can say.   Democrats complaining would only tend to document that Trump is on the other side.  But Republican complaints get to the issue of loyalty to a side.  Trump abandons positions and contradicts himself.  The moment he promises the NRA he is loyal he starts negotiating a new position.  Many Republicans say he is damaging the brand, and he doesn't care since he is only concerned about the Trump brand not the GOP brand.

Trump's complaints and purges of Republicans disloyal to him (Ryan, McConnell, Romney) are a red flag.  Trump University victims are a red flag.  Trump stiffing charities--if it can be documented and there is an appealing victim--is a red flag.  Trump paying little or no taxes is a red flag.   Trump's campaign's self-dealing is a red flag.  A Trump tax plan that cuts taxes on the wealthy is a red flag. 

Trump is losing some of the argument he might use to grab Sanders supporters.  Trump has lost credibility as the totally-clean-money candidate--the standard set by Sanders with his small-donor campaign.  But Trump will still unapologetically condemn Hillary for being corrupt and he will present himself as the no-special-interests candidate even as he gathers special interest donations.  He will be called on it but Trump will stick to his story.   It will be a muddled and confused set of back and forth.  

Trump has credibility saying he fights for American belligerence and American interests first.   It may inoculate him from Hillary's effort to turn the tables.   It depends on the skill and political craftsmanship of the Democrats and on him.

At stake is the definition of the Trump brand:   Of course Trump is a con man.  That is a given.  The issue is whose interests he can be trusted to con on behalf of.   

The Democrats' job will be to show Trump is in it for himself and the rich people he identifies with, and that he is as corrupted by the net of influence as the people he condemns, that he got rich by taking care of himself at the expense of others, and a leopard doesn't change it spots.    Trump will say he is full of unshakable confidence and loyalty to Americans since, after all, he is already really, really rich and therefore incorruptible.