Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:27 AM Apr 2016

Any suggestion that Clinton's campaign has received corporate money is an outright lie.

There's no ambiguity here. Corporations do not and cannot contribute to campaigns. Every penny she raised came from individuals who decided to contribute their personal money, which they have 100% control over, to her campaign. The amount of corporate money she received is zero.

(a) National banks and corporations organized by authority of any law of Congress are prohibited from making a contribution, as defined in 11 CFR 114.1(a), in connection with any election to any political office, including local, State and Federal offices, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, including any local, State or Federal office. National banks and corporations organized by authority of any law of Congress are prohibited from making expenditures as defined in 11 CFR 114.1(a) for communications to those outside the restricted class expressly advocating the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or the candidates of a clearly identified political party, with respect to an election to any political office, including any local, State, or Federal office.


It is true that many individuals who have donated to either Hillary or Bernie are employed by corporations. Working for a corporation is a quite common way to make a living. And so (some of) their personal money previously belonged to a corporation. But once the corporation pays the money to an individual, the corporation no longer has any control of the money. It is entirely up to the individual to decide what to do with it.

Moreover, it is illegal for any corporation to coerce its employees to donate money to a political campaign. And there is no evidence that any of Hillary's or Bernie's donations have been coerced by employers. There have been news stories in the past about such coercion, but typically this occurs in small businesses where, for example, a car was owner is an ideologue of some sort and tells his employees to donate and vote a certain way. Large corporations don't do this because they would be taking a much bigger risk if they get caught. And this is particularly true of banks, which are under a lot of regulatory scrutiny.

(f) Facilitating the making of contributions. (1) Corporations and labor organizations (including officers, directors or other representatives acting as agents of corporations and labor organizations) are prohibited from facilitating the making of contributions to candidates or political committees, other than to the separate segregated funds of the corporations and labor organizations. Facilitation means using corporate or labor organization resources or facilities to engage in fundraising activities in connection with any federal election, such as activities which go beyond the limited exemptions set forth in 11 CFR part 100, subparts B and C, part 100, subparts D and E, 114.9(a) through (c) and 114.13. A corporation does not facilitate the making of a contribution to a candidate or political committee if it provides goods or services in the ordinary course of its business as a commercial vendor in accordance with 11 CFR part 116 at the usual and normal charge.

(2) Examples of facilitating the making of contributions include but are not limited to—

(i) Fundraising activities by corporations (except commercial vendors) or labor organizations that involve—
(A) Officials or employees of the corporation or labor organization ordering or directing subordinates or support staff (who therefore are not acting as volunteers) to plan, organize or carry out the fundraising project as a part of their work responsibilities using corporate or labor organization resources, unless the corporation or labor organization receives advance payment for the fair market value of such services;
(B) Failure to reimburse a corporation or labor organization within a commercially reasonable time for the use of corporate facilities described in 11 CFR 114.9(d) in connection with such fundraising activities;
(C) Using a corporate or labor organization list of customers, clients, vendors or others who are not in the restricted class to solicit contributions or distribute invitations to the fundraiser, unless the corporation or labor organization receives advance payment for the fair market value of the list;
(D) Using meeting rooms that are not customarily made available to clubs, civic or community organizations or other groups; or
(E) Providing catering or other food services operated or obtained by the corporation or labor organization, unless the corporation or labor organization receives advance payment for the fair market value of the services;
(ii) Providing materials for the purpose of transmitting or delivering contributions, such as stamps, envelopes addressed to a candidate or political committee other than the corporation's or labor organization's separate segregated fund, or other similar items which would assist in transmitting or delivering contributions, but not including providing the address of the candidate or political committee;
(iii) Soliciting contributions earmarked for a candidate that are to be collected and forwarded by the corporation's or labor organizations's separate segregated fund, except to the extent such contributions also are treated as contributions to and by the separate segregated fund; or
(iv) Using coercion, such as the threat of a detrimental job action, the threat of any other financial reprisal, or the threat of force, to urge any individual to make a contribution or engage in fundraising activities on behalf of a candidate or political committee.


https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2011-title11-vol1-sec114-2.xml
137 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Any suggestion that Clinton's campaign has received corporate money is an outright lie. (Original Post) DanTex Apr 2016 OP
Doubling Down on Denial FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #1
I linked to actual Federal Law. DanTex Apr 2016 #2
Too Bad it doesn't apply to Lobbiest FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #4
It applies to lobbying firms as well. There is no corporate money. DanTex Apr 2016 #7
KKKarl Rove invented the Strategy of Repeating Lies in the media FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #9
And Bernie is following that strategy. He's got you fooled. DanTex Apr 2016 #11
So sad FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #16
Sure, I went to school with Lehman Brothers... dchill Apr 2016 #42
Nice parsing. You conveniently avoid mentioning super-PACS.. revbones Apr 2016 #86
How dumb do you think people are? Crabby Abbey Apr 2016 #115
Apparently they are dumber than I thought, because they can't understand a simple law. DanTex Apr 2016 #116
Thanks for posting. LisaM Apr 2016 #126
Yes your post is doubling down on denial mythology Apr 2016 #127
Those were not campaign contributions! scscholar Apr 2016 #134
Sickening amount of Disinformation FreakinDJ Apr 2016 #135
April Fools? Right? Please tell me thats what this is?? bobbobbins01 Apr 2016 #3
I linked to Federal Law. DanTex Apr 2016 #6
So you're serious? bobbobbins01 Apr 2016 #13
It's a fact. Corporations don't donate to campaigns. DanTex Apr 2016 #14
Is this still part of the joke? bobbobbins01 Apr 2016 #18
Wait, do you actually think any corporation has donated to her campaign? Recursion Apr 2016 #31
You're repeating yourself. bobbobbins01 Apr 2016 #36
No, I'm curious if you actually think that Recursion Apr 2016 #39
Did DanTex get you in on his joke? bobbobbins01 Apr 2016 #46
No, I'm someone familiar with US campaign law and fundraising Recursion Apr 2016 #50
As someone familiar with comedy...you two are the next Smothers Brothers. bobbobbins01 Apr 2016 #54
I take your absolute lack of any substantive response as an admission I'm right Recursion Apr 2016 #66
I like how you engage the audience as well...makes it almost believable. bobbobbins01 Apr 2016 #83
You could easily prove me wrong by naming a corporation that has donated to her campaign Recursion Apr 2016 #87
A serious question - do you understand that ethics isn't law? kristopher Apr 2016 #96
Who's "my client"? I'm a Sanders voter Recursion Apr 2016 #98
No you aren't. You profess a phony allegiance to Bernie as you skewer him kristopher Apr 2016 #103
You don't get to decide my vote Recursion Apr 2016 #107
You are certainly one type of expert on "disgraceful". kristopher Apr 2016 #114
It's remarkable that so many people are confused about this very simple fact. DanTex Apr 2016 #72
Yeah, like we're all confused about whether the $21,468,000 in speaking fees ... kristopher Apr 2016 #91
What about the near million dollars Sanders received from Internet-related donations? randome Apr 2016 #94
Sander's has received about $140M in internet donations. kristopher Apr 2016 #99
How come he had to give so much back? Control-Z Apr 2016 #121
He doesn't. kristopher Apr 2016 #123
Hillary-haters believe a lot of conspiracy theories. I'm not confused about that. DanTex Apr 2016 #97
Shhh.. Don't look at the PACS!!! basselope Apr 2016 #5
SuperPACs can receive corporate money, but not campaigns. DanTex Apr 2016 #8
LMAO basselope Apr 2016 #15
It's odd how fact-resistant Bernie supporters are. This is not very complicated. DanTex Apr 2016 #19
Wait.. so are you NOT joking? basselope Apr 2016 #43
Yes, I know. He's serious. And they don't co-ordiante either. EndElectoral Apr 2016 #21
Bernie doesn't care because Bernie is a demagogue alcibiades_mystery Apr 2016 #10
Oh, please... Do you think we are all dumb? Like this hasn't been an issue since the Supreme glowing Apr 2016 #12
I'm just pointing out facts. Corporations do not donate to campaigns. Period. DanTex Apr 2016 #17
That's bull hockey and everyone in America, but you, know it. glowing Apr 2016 #22
It's a fact stated plainly in federal law. The entire "corporate money" meme is a lie. DanTex Apr 2016 #24
Well said - ever since Hillary charged into the GreenPeace volunteer for exposure I wondered... kristopher Apr 2016 #85
Team Bernie is certainly bringing the overt lies. Rove would be proud. DanTex Apr 2016 #88
You do realize that a 300K speaking fee is a way around this as are PACS and possibly the Foundation EndElectoral Apr 2016 #34
Speaking fees are not campaign contributions, that is payment for a service. DanTex Apr 2016 #45
That's baloney and you know it. They are vast overpays for political access and power EndElectoral Apr 2016 #55
You are alleging a form of bribery with zero evidence to back it up. DanTex Apr 2016 #59
Here's some examples. EndElectoral Apr 2016 #79
That's conspiratorial speculation with no evidence to back it. DanTex Apr 2016 #84
Yes, and co-ordination between a SuperPAC and a candidate is illegal. Were you born yesterday? EndElectoral Apr 2016 #101
Like I said, I live in the world of facts. There are zero documented instances of a corporation DanTex Apr 2016 #104
You've got blinders on. You've been presented with examples, you just choose not to want to see them EndElectoral Apr 2016 #108
Hillary is just part of the "problem" and is unlikely to be part of the solution... Human101948 Apr 2016 #90
Hillary is now not part of a campaign? immoderate Apr 2016 #58
Her speaking fees did not go to her campaign, they went to her as an individual. DanTex Apr 2016 #62
Born yesterday, huh? immoderate Apr 2016 #77
I live in reality, not in conspiracy theories. It is remarkable how many Bernie fans can't grasp DanTex Apr 2016 #78
Either you are the most naive poster here, or you think that money from SuperPACS and Speaking Fees EndElectoral Apr 2016 #89
Sorry, I'm into facts not conspiracies. There is no corporate money donated to her campaign. DanTex Apr 2016 #95
You believe that SuperPACS don't coordinate with campaigns? OK, it's naivete then, not stupidity EndElectoral Apr 2016 #105
The most explicit coordination I've seen is Bernie's campaign with the NNU SuperPAC. DanTex Apr 2016 #110
Does Hillary know who pays her off? immoderate Apr 2016 #109
Conspiracy theories and baseless allegations. DanTex Apr 2016 #112
I think she knows. immoderate Apr 2016 #117
K&R for facts. nt Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2016 #20
"Corporations are people, my friend" TheCowsCameHome Apr 2016 #23
That is precisely what Bernie and others accusing her of taking corporate money are saying. DanTex Apr 2016 #26
+ 1 JoePhilly Apr 2016 #63
That's what Super-pacs are for. dogman Apr 2016 #25
SuperPACs are not part of campaigns, and so far the SuperPACs backing both Bernie DanTex Apr 2016 #28
Sorry, I'm not an April fool. dogman Apr 2016 #113
Any suggestion that your thesis is not bullshit Warren Stupidity Apr 2016 #27
It's federal law -- corporations can't donate to campaigns. DanTex Apr 2016 #29
Clinton disagrees with you Armstead Apr 2016 #30
No she doesn't. She's talking about Citizens United, not campaign contributions. DanTex Apr 2016 #37
This is why no one takes you seriously. /nt Marr Apr 2016 #32
The Bernie bubble doesn't. And I take that as a compliment. DanTex Apr 2016 #41
You're claiming there is no corporate money in politics. Marr Apr 2016 #48
I'm claiming that no corporations have donated any money to Hillary's campaign. DanTex Apr 2016 #52
There's nowhere near as much as people seem to think Recursion Apr 2016 #65
So Ok, where do the PEOPLE get their money??!! oldandhappy Apr 2016 #33
By working jobs, mostly. DanTex Apr 2016 #40
Giving speeches to Wall Street. LMFAO. berni_mccoy Apr 2016 #61
lol Keep splitting hairs, most know how money is funneled and why she would not take the pledge. Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #35
Distinguishing between corporations and individuals is not splitting hairs. DanTex Apr 2016 #38
uh huh. Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #49
You are splitting hairs. The issue is Citizens United and the vast sums of corporate money EndElectoral Apr 2016 #51
The differences between corporations and people is not "splitting hairs". DanTex Apr 2016 #56
Hilary, the payoff is here. -- Oh? Is it corporate, or from an individual? immoderate Apr 2016 #74
Well it's sounding like most people disagreeing with DanTex have no idea how money is funneled Recursion Apr 2016 #44
He is splitting hairs that does not serve his point nor his candidates dirty hands. n/t Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #47
Naw not a problem.Big corproate money has no influence on politics of government Armstead Apr 2016 #60
The money? No, it doesn't. The problem is not that politicians are getting money Recursion Apr 2016 #75
Oh please...You're smarter than that Armstead Apr 2016 #76
Good article. She took millions up here for speeches from the two big banks pushing polly7 Apr 2016 #64
Hillary Clinton is a highly compromised candidate. No amount of spinning "distinctions" Jefferson23 Apr 2016 #70
Yes, I think she's frustrated at being challenged on it and hope she polly7 Apr 2016 #81
Rough day in the spin room? They should destress, and play more Pac-Man Kittycat Apr 2016 #53
She has received massive contributions from bundlers for the industry Arizona Roadrunner Apr 2016 #57
Bundlers are individuals, and the money they bundle comes from individuals. DanTex Apr 2016 #68
Even a bundler can only contribute $2700 to a campaign Recursion Apr 2016 #69
Many teachers, and nurses also contributed to her campaign too. Want to spread that too while Jitter65 Apr 2016 #67
This belongs in here whatchamacallit Apr 2016 #71
That's an outright lie. That money was from individuals, not corporations. DanTex Apr 2016 #73
Whatever gets you through the night, DanTex whatchamacallit Apr 2016 #80
What? Huh? I don't get the... HassleCat Apr 2016 #82
Now THAT is a convincing argument for Hillary - 'didn't happen 'cause it is illegal'. jmg257 Apr 2016 #92
The law is toothless because it allows for lobbyists katsy Apr 2016 #93
That article is referring to individual donations, not corporate donations. DanTex Apr 2016 #102
A serious question - do you understand that ethics isn't law? kristopher Apr 2016 #106
You know very well ignoring this loophole katsy Apr 2016 #120
April Fools!! libtodeath Apr 2016 #100
She takes the cash from the CEOs and other execs and board members of the Fossil Fuel Folks. Zen Democrat Apr 2016 #111
Same contribution limits apply to CEO's and Janitors alike. kennetha Apr 2016 #118
Us smart folks know that but thanks for post riversedge Apr 2016 #119
Detailed info about fossil fuel contributions to Hillary Merryland Apr 2016 #122
Those are individual, not corporate contributions. DanTex Apr 2016 #125
All this legal blather is just like sammythecat Apr 2016 #124
The whole system of campaign financing is smoke and mirrors randr Apr 2016 #128
It is odd that I'm getting so many reactions like this to a simple and obvious fact. DanTex Apr 2016 #129
You can call it whatever you want randr Apr 2016 #130
All individual donations come from people who align with their preferred candidate on DanTex Apr 2016 #132
So, say someone supports the pipe line from Canada? randr Apr 2016 #136
I miss the days when liberals could actually understand complex topics. JoePhilly Apr 2016 #133
Sanders knows the score, for sure. kennetha Apr 2016 #131
This message was self-deleted by its author pat_k Apr 2016 #137
 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
1. Doubling Down on Denial
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:27 AM
Apr 2016
Citigroup Inc $891,501 $883,501 $8,000

Goldman Sachs $831,523 $821,523 $10,000

JPMorgan Chase & Co $801,380 $798,380 $3,000

Morgan Stanley $765,242 $760,242 $5,000

Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
2. I linked to actual Federal Law.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:29 AM
Apr 2016

As I've pointed out, those donations you see are from individuals, not corporations.

 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
4. Too Bad it doesn't apply to Lobbiest
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:29 AM
Apr 2016

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
9. KKKarl Rove invented the Strategy of Repeating Lies in the media
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:31 AM
Apr 2016

and it worked for a while


But please keep it up - the Backlash from the American Voters ushered in Pres. Obama and an entirely New Democratic Congress. Should work out pretty well for Pres. Sanders too

dchill

(38,517 posts)
42. Sure, I went to school with Lehman Brothers...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:43 AM
Apr 2016

We called him Lee. He had a sister named Doctorjoyce.

 

Crabby Abbey

(66 posts)
115. How dumb do you think people are?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:33 PM
Apr 2016

"According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. Eleven registered oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled over 1 million dollars to her campaign."

You can pretend she has nothing to do with her Super PACs but anyone with a pulse knows that's ridiculous.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
116. Apparently they are dumber than I thought, because they can't understand a simple law.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:34 PM
Apr 2016

She's actually received zero dollars from the fossil fuel industry, and that Greenpeace article is an outright lie.

LisaM

(27,826 posts)
126. Thanks for posting.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:20 PM
Apr 2016

Unfortunately, the people you are trying to reach just don't care. They're all suffering from the Sarandon effect.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
127. Yes your post is doubling down on denial
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:20 PM
Apr 2016

It's embarrassing that people at DU are pretending that the corporations are donating to campaigns rather than people working there.

 

scscholar

(2,902 posts)
134. Those were not campaign contributions!
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:43 PM
Apr 2016

I don't see why you have such an irrational problem with our election process.

 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
135. Sickening amount of Disinformation
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:50 PM
Apr 2016

I thought we left that for the RATpubliCONS





Oh well - Hillary never disappoints

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
3. April Fools? Right? Please tell me thats what this is??
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:29 AM
Apr 2016

I mean I know this is DanTex posting, so its always utter claptrap, but this is a stretch even for him.

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
18. Is this still part of the joke?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:35 AM
Apr 2016

Your ability to push the bounds of comedy like this is commendable. Very Kaufmanesqe.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
39. No, I'm curious if you actually think that
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:42 AM
Apr 2016

That seems absolutely crazy to me that anybody could think that. You really think corporations have given her campaign money?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
50. No, I'm someone familiar with US campaign law and fundraising
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:47 AM
Apr 2016

And I'm kind of amused at how resistant you are to what is just a basic statement of fact that sane people all agree on: corporations (and unions) do not and cannot donate money to political campaigns.

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
54. As someone familiar with comedy...you two are the next Smothers Brothers.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:49 AM
Apr 2016

Keep at your craft, you're going places.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
66. I take your absolute lack of any substantive response as an admission I'm right
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:57 AM
Apr 2016

And I congratulate you on being mature about that; it's often hard to admit it when you're shown to be as completely wrong as you have been in this thread.

bobbobbins01

(1,681 posts)
83. I like how you engage the audience as well...makes it almost believable.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:06 PM
Apr 2016

Absurdist comedy is my favorite kind.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
87. You could easily prove me wrong by naming a corporation that has donated to her campaign
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:07 PM
Apr 2016

and what the amount was, and when.

(And if you do that, send it to the FEC, because people would go to jail if that happened.)

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
96. A serious question - do you understand that ethics isn't law?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:14 PM
Apr 2016

Just because a powerful group makes a set of laws that allows them to legally engage in overtly unethical behavior doesn't mean that the people in a democracy are without recourse.

We are holding the trial right now and I have to tell you, things aren't going so well for your client.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
98. Who's "my client"? I'm a Sanders voter
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:15 PM
Apr 2016

I just find this entire line of attack idiotic and unworthy of the Democratic party.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
103. No you aren't. You profess a phony allegiance to Bernie as you skewer him
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:18 PM
Apr 2016

It's classic 5th column behavior. I've used it myself successfully to shut down 2 right wing radio discussion forums in my state.

We all see you.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
107. You don't get to decide my vote
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:21 PM
Apr 2016

I'm sure that irks you, but I voted for Sanders. He's the slightly less-unpalatable alternative. But I'm absolutely not going to stop calling out the bullshit I see coming from my side of the tent, because it's disgraceful.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
91. Yeah, like we're all confused about whether the $21,468,000 in speaking fees ...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:08 PM
Apr 2016

... constitutes legal bribery or not.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
94. What about the near million dollars Sanders received from Internet-related donations?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:13 PM
Apr 2016

Isn't that worrisome? What's the cutoff number to express concern?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
99. Sander's has received about $140M in internet donations.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:16 PM
Apr 2016

All of it from small donors.

No, that doesn't worry me, that is the way it is supposed to work.

Control-Z

(15,682 posts)
121. How come he had to give so much back?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:06 PM
Apr 2016

I never quite understood that. And that was just January.

What happens in February and March?

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
123. He doesn't.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:15 PM
Apr 2016

He has millions of donors donating an average of $27 per donation. Some people lose track, exceed the $2700, it gets picked up in the routine audit, and any overage is returned.

Did you know that Hillary took $21,648,000 in corporate speaking fees between 4/2013-3/2015?

She and the entire world knew she was running for President when she took that money.

That's legalized bribery. Do you approve of that after pretending that the routine bookkeeping in the Sanders campaign is problematic?

Sure, hang your hat on that.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
8. SuperPACs can receive corporate money, but not campaigns.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:31 AM
Apr 2016

However, the main SuperPACs supporting both Hillary and Bernie are funded primarily by individuals.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
43. Wait.. so are you NOT joking?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:43 AM
Apr 2016

If not then you don't understand how campaign contributions works and how reporting works.

 

glowing

(12,233 posts)
12. Oh, please... Do you think we are all dumb? Like this hasn't been an issue since the Supreme
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:32 AM
Apr 2016

Court decided corporations were people? Super Pacs, bundling donor money, and let's not forget all the monies that are funneled into the Clinton Global Initiative.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
17. I'm just pointing out facts. Corporations do not donate to campaigns. Period.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:34 AM
Apr 2016

Bundled money is bundled from individuals, not corporations. SuperPACs can take corporate money, but those act independently from campaigns. The SuperPACs supporting both Hillary and Bernie are funded by individuals, not corporations.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
85. Well said - ever since Hillary charged into the GreenPeace volunteer for exposure I wondered...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:06 PM
Apr 2016

...where it was going. Suspected as much, but did't know the tack.
So, the Rove Manual of Attack (2nd Ed.) still recommends "viciously attack your opponents strength - with overt lies if necessary, but attack you must."

I have bad news for you Danny me hearty, this legalism isn't going to connect any better than the "prove I was bought" defense did for her $21,468,000 dollars in corporate speaking fees she took when she and every other person on the planet knew she was running for president.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
34. You do realize that a 300K speaking fee is a way around this as are PACS and possibly the Foundation
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:40 AM
Apr 2016
http://usuncut.com/politics/each-of-the-top-10-corporate-tax-dodgers-donate-to-hillary-clinton/

Perhaps they may help. Not to mention the bundling of contributions from some corporations such as almost a million from Citigroup and Sachs?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
45. Speaking fees are not campaign contributions, that is payment for a service.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:44 AM
Apr 2016

It has nothing to do with the campaign.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
55. That's baloney and you know it. They are vast overpays for political access and power
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:50 AM
Apr 2016

They are in essence political campaign contributions. No one is paying 300K to HRC to hear a few jokes from her, but to invest in her war chest to get something in return. Be honest.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
59. You are alleging a form of bribery with zero evidence to back it up.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:52 AM
Apr 2016

Her speaking fees are the market rate. She is one of the most admired and high-profile people in the entire world. If you want the kind of prestige and gravitas that Hillary brings to an event, then you are going to pay top dollar. If you want to go it on the cheap, then you can get Dennis Kucinich to speak instead.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
79. Here's some examples.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:04 PM
Apr 2016
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

Clinton, the former secretary of state, has called climate change the most "consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world" and says it would be a major focus of her administration if she wins the White House. But having so many supporters who have sold their services to fossil fuel companies may complicate her emphasis on pro-environment policies.

Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, have been registered to lobby for the Southern California-based oil giant Chevron since 2006, with contracts totaling more than $3 million. The two bundled Clinton contributions of $24,700 and $29,700, respectively. They have helped Chevron over the years resist efforts to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks and to impose regulations to reduce carbon emissions.

The two Clinton bundlers also were part of a much-criticized campaign by Chevron to manipulate Congress into inserting language into the Andean Trade Preferences Act that would require Ecuador to dismiss a longstanding lawsuit against the company for polluting the Amazon jungle. Democratic lawmakers pushed back against the campaign and the lawsuit is continuing.

One prominent lobbying topic embraced by Clinton bundlers is the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports and federal approval of new LNG terminals.

Ankit Desai, vice president for government relations at top LNG exporter Cheniere Energy, bundled $82,000 to the Clinton camp, with much of it coming from Cheniere Energy executives. Cheniere executives, including Desai, have donated $38,800 to Clinton's campaign.

The company has lobbied hard in Washington and maintains close ties to the Obama administration. The company won the first approval to export gas to countries outside of US free-trade agreements. The company is seeking approval to open additional terminals to export LNG, and will likely need a friend in the White House come 2017.

ML Strategies' David Leiter lobbied in 2014 on behalf of Sempra Energy when the company received approval for its LNG export facility in Hackberry, Louisiana. Leiter, who bundled $36,550 for Clinton's campaign, also is a lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Steve Coll noted in a New Yorker article derived from his book on the oil giant, Private Empire, that Leiter, an ex-staffer to former Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), was retained, along with a host of others, to increase the company's reach into the Democratic Party it had ignored for years.

ExxonMobil's top lobbyist in Washington, Theresa Fariello, may not be a bundler for Clinton's campaign, but she is a donor. Fariello, who was a Department of Energy official in President Bill Clinton's administration, gave $2,700 to Clinton's campaign. Another Washington-based Exxon lawyer, Judith Batty, donated $2,700.

Clinton also got contributions from others involved in the fossil fuel business. Her campaign received $2,700 from BP America's Mary Streett, formerly the top lobbyist for the nuclear power utility Exelon. Anadarko Petroleum lawyers Amanda McMillan and Richard Lapin each gave $2,700. Sarah Venuto and Martin Durbin, both lobbyists for America's Natural Gas Alliance, the top gas industry lobbying group, gave $2,910 and $1,000, respectively. Celia Fischer, an America's Natural Gas Alliance representative who is not a lobbyist, gave $2,700.

Aside from lobbyists currently working to advance fossil fuel interests, there is one Hillblazer bundler—the name for Clinton boosters raising more than $100,000—who stands out.

Bundler Gordon Giffin is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company working to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin sits on the board of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, an investor in the pipeline. The Canadian bank paid Clinton $990,000 for speeches in the months leading up to her presidential announcement. Another Canadian financial institution with an interest in Keystone XL, TD Bank, paid her $651,000 for speaking engagements.

Clinton's position on Keystone XL—or lack thereof—may prove the biggest challenge for her in gaining support from progressive activists. Whether to grant a permit for the leg of the pipeline that crosses the Canadian border into the U.S. is up to the State Department, which has been considering it since Clinton's time as secretary of state. In October 2010 remarks, Clinton said the department was "inclined" to sign off on the pipeline, a statement that enraged environmental groups working to stop it. On the campaign trail, Clinton has largely evaded questions about the pipeline.

But the issue has dogged Clinton. The speaking fees from Canadian banks came to light in May. In June, Clinton's campaign announced the hiring of former TransCanada lobbyist Jeff Berman as a consultant.

The issue of campaign donations from fossil fuel interests has become a topic in the Democratic Party primary, as both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley have pledged they will not accept contributions from oil, gas or coal companies. Clinton has not signed that pledge.

Fossil fuel campaign contributions came up at a town hall event Clinton hosted in New Hampshire on Thursday.

"I'm disappointed about the answer you gave to climate change," Giselle Hart, an activist with 350 Action, told Clinton. I'm wondering if your answer…is due to contributions from the fossil fuel industry to your campaign."

Activists unfurled banners and demanded that Clinton support a ban on fossil fuel extraction on public lands. Clinton responded that she would phase out extraction over time, though not immediately. "We still have to run our economy, we still have to turn on the lights," she said.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
84. That's conspiratorial speculation with no evidence to back it.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:06 PM
Apr 2016

The fact of the matter is, the people who donated and bundled the money were individuals, acting on their own without being paid by any corporation. If they were paid to bundle, that would be illegal. If they bundled corporate money, that would be illegal.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
101. Yes, and co-ordination between a SuperPAC and a candidate is illegal. Were you born yesterday?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:17 PM
Apr 2016

Are you really this naive, or so unaware that money isn't just given by these donors to her because they like her bubbling personality, but because they not only want access, but via contributions these donors gain power and have in fact affected legislation.

Your ignorance of the impact of Citizens United and rosy speaking fees for corporate donors (or as you might like to call them bundled individual donors of corporations) is mind boggling to me. I have to believe you're quite aware of the impact this money has on the HRC campaign, as she is aware of, and either you're a obsessive HRC supporter or you're trying to pull a fun April fools joke here.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/spending-bill-992-derivatives-citigroup-lobbyists

Citigroup Wrote the Wall Street Giveaway The House Just Approved
The bill, drafted almost entirely by Citigroup, would allow banks to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money.
—By Erika Eichelberger | Wed Dec. 10, 2014

A year ago, Mother Jones reported that a House bill that would allow banks like Citigroup to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money was written almost entirely by Citigroup lobbyists. The bill passed the House in October 2013, but the Senate never voted on it. For months, it was all but dead. Yet on Tuesday night, the Citi-written bill resurfaced. Lawmakers snuck the measure into a massive 11th-hour government funding bill that congressional leaders negotiated in the hopes of averting a government shutdown. President Barack Obama is expected to sign the legislation.

"This is outrageous," says Marcus Stanley, the financial policy director at the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform. "This is to benefit big banks, bottom line."

As I reported last year, the bill eviscerates a section of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act called the "push-out rule":

Banks hate the push-out rule…because this provision will forbid them from trading certain derivatives (which are complicated financial instruments with values derived from underlying variables, such as crop prices or interest rates). Under this rule, banks will have to move these risky trades into separate non-bank affiliates that aren't insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and are less likely to receive government bailouts. The bill would smother the push-out rule in its crib by permitting banks to use government-insured deposits to bet on a wider range of these risky derivatives.

The Citi-drafted legislation will benefit five of the largest banks in the country—Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. These financial institutions control more than 90 percent of the $700 trillion derivatives market. If this measure becomes law, these banks will be able to use FDIC-insured money to bet on nearly anything they want. And if there's another economic downturn, they can count on a taxpayer bailout of their derivatives trading business.

In May 2013, the New York Times reported that Citigroup's proposed language was reflected in more than 70 lines of the House financial services committee's 85-line bill. Mother Jones was the first to publish the document showing that Citigroup lobbyists had drafted most of the legislation. Here is a side-by-side of a key section of the House bill:

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
104. Like I said, I live in the world of facts. There are zero documented instances of a corporation
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:19 PM
Apr 2016

donating any money to Hillary. There is zero evidence that the speeches Hillary gave were a form of bribery. It's conspiratorial nonsense from people who hate Hillary.

The fact that so many Bernie fans in this very thread refuse to believe that corporations can't donate to campaigns even after I've linked to federal law on the topic is bewildering.

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
90. Hillary is just part of the "problem" and is unlikely to be part of the solution...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:07 PM
Apr 2016

But if it’s wrong for a Democratic presidential candidate to take money from deep-pocketed American businesses, why is it okay for a Republican Super PAC to be funded by such organizations? The only way to completely eliminate the influence of corporations in politics is through the kind of campaign finance reform that many Republicans and Democrats alike are loath to bring about. And it’s no wonder. Thanks to U.S. Supreme Court decisions like McCutcheon v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC, it’s in elected officials’ interests to keep the money coming in.

Politicians can’t have it both ways. Either big money is off-limits, or it’s not. Right now, it’s not, so it’s hypocritical for people like Rove to say “stop” to Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees and “go” to money from the same source for his political action committee.

Beyond “All or None”

Senator Bernie Sanders is better situated to criticize Clinton, since his campaign has been funded largely by small donations from individuals. At the other end of the spectrum is multi-billionaire Donald Trump who, like Sanders, has not taken Super PAC money. About the only thing the two men have in common, in fact, is their rejection of such funding. If Sanders is elected, he may very well change the role that big money plays in politics. Perhaps Trump would, too.

http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
58. Hillary is now not part of a campaign?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:52 AM
Apr 2016

I disagree. I think Hillary is involved in her campaign.

--imm

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
62. Her speaking fees did not go to her campaign, they went to her as an individual.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:54 AM
Apr 2016

And she was not part of a campaign when she received them. They are irrelevant.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
78. I live in reality, not in conspiracy theories. It is remarkable how many Bernie fans can't grasp
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:04 PM
Apr 2016

the simple fact that corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
89. Either you are the most naive poster here, or you think that money from SuperPACS and Speaking Fees
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:07 PM
Apr 2016

don't contribute to her campaign...and you're foolish enough to believe she is unaware or disapproving of those influences.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
95. Sorry, I'm into facts not conspiracies. There is no corporate money donated to her campaign.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:14 PM
Apr 2016

That's illegal. She did personally take money from corporations in exchange for a service, the same as everyone else with a job does. And SuperPACs do not coordinate with campaigns. Besides the SuperPACs supporting her and Bernie have been funded by individuals and unions thus far, not corporations.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
110. The most explicit coordination I've seen is Bernie's campaign with the NNU SuperPAC.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:22 PM
Apr 2016

So, sure, it goes on a little. Still, this far both Bernie's and Clinton's SuperPACs have been funded by individuals and unions, not corporations.

 

immoderate

(20,885 posts)
109. Does Hillary know who pays her off?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:22 PM
Apr 2016

Do you think she can't benefit from their activities? A few hundred grand every so often is necessary to cement friendships.

--imm

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
26. That is precisely what Bernie and others accusing her of taking corporate money are saying.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:38 AM
Apr 2016

I remember when only Mitt Romney tried to conflate corporations and individuals. It's strange watching the far left doing it now.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
28. SuperPACs are not part of campaigns, and so far the SuperPACs backing both Bernie
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:38 AM
Apr 2016

and Hillary have been funded by individual donations, not corporate money.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
30. Clinton disagrees with you
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:39 AM
Apr 2016

“We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.”
HILLARY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
37. No she doesn't. She's talking about Citizens United, not campaign contributions.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:41 AM
Apr 2016

Federal law is very explicit about campaign contributions. No corporate money.

As far as SuperPACs go, the SuperPACs supporting Bernie and Hillary thus far have been funded by individual, not corporate donations. But I agree with her that CU needs to be overturned.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
48. You're claiming there is no corporate money in politics.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:46 AM
Apr 2016

That is, I'm sorry, a flatly stupid thing to say.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
52. I'm claiming that no corporations have donated any money to Hillary's campaign.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:48 AM
Apr 2016

And I am right.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
65. There's nowhere near as much as people seem to think
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:56 AM
Apr 2016

The firewalls are very strong on this.

Where you will see arguably "corporate" money being thrown around is from trade associations; most of those have a "Connected" PAC, which can donate $2700 to a Leadership PAC, which can do limited coordination with electoral campaigns. The Connected PAC cannot directly receive corporate (or union) donations, but can fundraise from individual members of that industry or union.

A "Non-connected" or "Issue" PAC can fundraise from the general public, and can donate $2700 to a Leadership PAC (think Human Rights Campaign or National Right to Life Campaign, or the NRA). However they also face greater scrutiny from the FEC than Connected PACs.

Finally, the AFL-CIO invented in 2010 an "Independent Expenses Only" , or "SuperPAC" structure, that cannot coordinate with any campaign or donate to any PAC that coordinates with a campaign (or a campaign itself, obviously). They can raise money from any source, though they must disclose their donors. Jeb! is probably a pretty good example of how effective these are, incidentally.

A Clinton ally this cycle has formed a SuperPAC that does not even do "expenses" and so argues they can "coordinate" through public statements; AFAIK the FEC hasn't specifically weighed in on that, but it's also not a heavily-funded PAC as of yet.

But, seriously, the idea that corporations are actually just shoveling money to politicians is really a naive and simplistic way of looking at it.

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
61. Giving speeches to Wall Street. LMFAO.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:53 AM
Apr 2016

According to Hillary, everybody does it. If only they'd all release their transcripts!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
35. lol Keep splitting hairs, most know how money is funneled and why she would not take the pledge.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:40 AM
Apr 2016
Clinton Must Reject Money from Fossil Fuel Interests, Starting with Exxon Lobbyists

NEW YORK, NY - In response to an activist asking Hillary Clinton if she would keep her word to act on climate by pledging to reject fossil fuel money, the Democratic presidential candidate asserted that she is “so sick of the Sanders campaign lying” about her.

350 Action is calling on all candidates to pledge to reject all money from fossil fuel interests to their campaigns, starting with Exxon.

Reports confirm that Clinton’s biggest campaign bundlers have come from fossil fuel lobbyists. According to a recent report from VICE News, fossil fuel interests have pumped $3.25 million into the largest super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election cycle. The Clinton campaign has received donations from industry lobbyists including ExxonMobil’s Theresa Fariello.

“Clinton must immediately pledge to reject all money fossil fuel from interests to prove that she would keep fossil fuels in the ground, and she needs to start with Exxon’s own Theresa Fariello,” said Yong Jung Cho, a spokesperson for 350 Action. “Voters who care about the health of our climate, our communities and our democracy have repeatedly asked Clinton to refuse fossil fuel money -- after the way she responded yesterday, she needs to finally take the pledge and refuse donations from those who profit from destruction.”

Young people across the country have been asking about Clinton’s ties to the fossil fuel industry since July. Days after the conclusion of the Paris climate talks, Clinton vowed to look into fossil fuel donations to her campaign. Clinton has previously justified contributions made from fossil lobbyists by stating that “they’re giving money that I’m going to use against them.”

At the same event yesterday, the former Senator of New York claimed to support the statewide fracking ban, though Exxon is the world’s biggest fracker.

Last November, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation into Exxon’s climate lies. Since then, the Attorneys General of California, Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands have begun similar investigations, and 20 Attorneys General have launched an unprecedented coalition to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for their decades of deep deception. The criminal branch of the FBI is also probing into Exxon’s crimes at the recommendation of the Department of Justice.

“Clinton openly supports a Department of Justice investigation into Exxon’s climate crimes, meanwhile she’s still accepting millions of bundled campaign donations from their lobbyists -- there’s a disturbing disconnect there,” said Cho.

The climate movement has pushed Clinton to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline, oppose toxic trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and suggest a moratorium for all fossil fuel extraction on public lands.
###

350 Action is the independent political action arm of the non-profit, non-partisan climate justice group 350.org.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/04/01/clinton-must-reject-money-fossil-fuel-interests-starting-exxon-lobbyists

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
38. Distinguishing between corporations and individuals is not splitting hairs.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:41 AM
Apr 2016

Corporations are not people, no matter how much you and Mitt Romney repeat it.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
56. The differences between corporations and people is not "splitting hairs".
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:50 AM
Apr 2016

There is a huge difference. I remember when progressives understood this.

There is zero corporate money going into Hillary's campaign, or Bernie's. That's illegal. Citizens United does not change that, it only affects SuperPACs. Those are independent expenditure groups. And the SuperPACs supporting Bernie and Hillary have thus far been funded by individuals, not corporations.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
44. Well it's sounding like most people disagreeing with DanTex have no idea how money is funneled
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:44 AM
Apr 2016

Because it simply doesn't go from corporations to campaigns, period, but this simple basic fact seems absolutely amazing to a lot of this board.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
60. Naw not a problem.Big corproate money has no influence on politics of government
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:52 AM
Apr 2016

Politicians are never influenced by the financial power of corporations. Those lobbyists are just offering candy bars,.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
75. The money? No, it doesn't. The problem is not that politicians are getting money
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:01 PM
Apr 2016

The problem is that politicians have to spend all of their time raising money from thousands of people (so in a sense it's the opposite of the problems that would come if corporations could just write a check).

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
76. Oh please...You're smarter than that
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:02 PM
Apr 2016

“We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.”

HILLARY Clinton, SEPTEMBER 8, 2015

polly7

(20,582 posts)
64. Good article. She took millions up here for speeches from the two big banks pushing
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:54 AM
Apr 2016

the Keystone XL.

She's pushed fracking around the world to countries whose citizens have protested it by the tens of thousands, showing up personally to persuade Romanian leaders to give it another shot.


Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists

http://linkis.com/huffingtonpost.com/FicnN



Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
70. Hillary Clinton is a highly compromised candidate. No amount of spinning "distinctions"
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:59 AM
Apr 2016

of how the money is funneled to her changes the significance of those contributions.

Thanks for the link.

The reason she lost it with the protestor may be due to her feeling not so inevitable.

polly7

(20,582 posts)
81. Yes, I think she's frustrated at being challenged on it and hope she
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:04 PM
Apr 2016

does feel not so inevitable. When I read the story at Mother Jones re the fracking despite all the protests it made me so angry. She's said she'd put 'conditions' on fracking in the U.S., when asked, that would ensure safety (no such thing, it can never be made safe for the environment), but had no problem with it for Romania and other European nations. Bullying weaker govt's into what her own people won't stand for.

 

Arizona Roadrunner

(168 posts)
57. She has received massive contributions from bundlers for the industry
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:51 AM
Apr 2016

Sorry, but your red herring is a farce. The charge is that she has received massive contributions from the industry not the corporations. The "bundlers" represent and are employed either as employees and/or lobbyist for the energy industry. When employees are "at will employees" and it is hinted they should contribute guess what, they have to contribute. And they can't say they didn't "volunteer". What part of the Sanders contribution from employees comes through "bundlers". Probably not very much. Also, this totally neglects the so called "speaking fees" she receives which do come from the corporations and on top of that, they can probably tax deduct these fees and therefore we taxpayers wind up paying for the lost income in taxes due to these tax deducted "costs". No wonder Clinton is losing ground in support and favorability. The old saying that "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck" might be appropriate to look at Clinton's relationship to and with corporate American and various industries too.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
68. Bundlers are individuals, and the money they bundle comes from individuals.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:58 AM
Apr 2016

None of it is corporate money, nor does it come "from industry". That is illegal. And the bundlers are not doing so on behalf of corporations. That is also illegal.

It is also illegal for corporations to in any way coerce or "hint at" employees that they should contribute to a certain campaign, and there is no evidence that either Bernie or Hillary have received any funds that were coerced by employers.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
69. Even a bundler can only contribute $2700 to a campaign
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:59 AM
Apr 2016

He can physically hand the checks from others that he collected when fundraising, but that's other people's money.

 

Jitter65

(3,089 posts)
67. Many teachers, and nurses also contributed to her campaign too. Want to spread that too while
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:57 AM
Apr 2016

you're at it? Bet not.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
92. Now THAT is a convincing argument for Hillary - 'didn't happen 'cause it is illegal'.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:10 PM
Apr 2016


Almost as good as "because she said so".

katsy

(4,246 posts)
93. The law is toothless because it allows for lobbyists
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:10 PM
Apr 2016

For the industry to bundle (funnel) Corp $ to superpacs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511623617


Is Hillary the person you want to compromise your integrity for? Really? Because I won't defend Bernie Sanders if the price is my integrity.

$4.5m to Hilary's pax by oil & gas lobbyists. That's the bottom line. Letter of the law be damned, loopholes neuter that law.

Has she returned that cash to the industry?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
102. That article is referring to individual donations, not corporate donations.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:17 PM
Apr 2016

Individuals are bundling money from other individuals. No corporate money has gone to her campaign.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
106. A serious question - do you understand that ethics isn't law?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:20 PM
Apr 2016

Just because a powerful group makes a set of laws that allows them to legally engage in overtly unethical behavior doesn't mean that the people in a democracy are without recourse.

We are holding the trial right now and I have to tell you, things aren't going so well for your client.

katsy

(4,246 posts)
120. You know very well ignoring this loophole
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:03 PM
Apr 2016

Is very republican of you.

You know the kochs and other 1%ers utilize this loophole to advance their business interests by buying representation in our gov't.

You know democrats are fighting to get dirty $ out of politics.

But here you are hiding behind a law that intentionally leaves a loophole for corporations to buy our candidates.

The hypocrisy smells. Shame on anyone who thinks we've been dealt a fair hand by passing citizens United.

Zen Democrat

(5,901 posts)
111. She takes the cash from the CEOs and other execs and board members of the Fossil Fuel Folks.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:23 PM
Apr 2016

And these are individuals who are giving money for a REASON. As I've said before, there is no Mr. Exxon.

kennetha

(3,666 posts)
118. Same contribution limits apply to CEO's and Janitors alike.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:46 PM
Apr 2016

you think you can bribe a politician for national office by donating $2700?

sammythecat

(3,568 posts)
124. All this legal blather is just like
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:17 PM
Apr 2016

a crooked lawyer arguing the complete innocence of his mob boss client.

Wealthy people and corporations have been finding ways to bribe politicians since forever. To quote a popular book and tv series: "This is known".

randr

(12,414 posts)
128. The whole system of campaign financing is smoke and mirrors
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:31 PM
Apr 2016

To the degree that this post is one of the most disingenuous I have ever seen.
As progressive Democrats are we not opposed to at least the appearance of corruption?
Trying to white wash the donations of obscene amount of cash into our political system is almost as bad as the act itself.
Are we to stand for any principles?
Any defense of a candidate who takes money disguised as personal donations is a slight on the candidate and needs to stop.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
129. It is odd that I'm getting so many reactions like this to a simple and obvious fact.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:38 PM
Apr 2016

Corporations. Do. Not. Donate. To. Campaigns.

Even after I've linked to the actual statute, still people don't believe it.

Yes, there's too much money in the political system. Yes, Citizens United needs to be overturned. But these silly stories that add up all the money that came from employees of a certain industry (financial, energy, whatever), and then act like those are corporate donations, are plainly dishonest.

randr

(12,414 posts)
130. You can call it whatever you want
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:40 PM
Apr 2016

in the end it is still money given a candidate for favored positions on key congressional items.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
132. All individual donations come from people who align with their preferred candidate on
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:43 PM
Apr 2016

key issues. That's the whole reason why people donate: to support someone who shares their political views.

But acting like an employee of a bank is contributing to a campaign as a form of bribery for less financial regulation is truly nuts. I know plenty of people who work on Wall St, and some are liberal (and some donate to Dems) and others conservative (and some donate to GOP). It's not "bribery," they donate for the same reason that people donate to Bernie.

randr

(12,414 posts)
136. So, say someone supports the pipe line from Canada?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 04:24 PM
Apr 2016

Is that because they just think it is a good idea or that they are swayed by the political alignment of a particular supporter?
Fair enough question?
And if they think, on their own, that the pipe line is a good idea, it would be fair to judge them based wholly on that decision?

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
133. I miss the days when liberals could actually understand complex topics.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:43 PM
Apr 2016

Now, the combustible hair club races from outrage to outrage.

kennetha

(3,666 posts)
131. Sanders knows the score, for sure.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:40 PM
Apr 2016

He's just engaging in cheap demagoguery and his followers are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

Response to DanTex (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Any suggestion that Clint...