2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAny 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.
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.
(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
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)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)As I've pointed out, those donations you see are from individuals, not corporations.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)<iframe width="560" height="315" src="
" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>DanTex
(20,709 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)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
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm beginning to feel sorrow genuinely
dchill
(38,517 posts)We called him Lee. He had a sister named Doctorjoyce.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Crabby Abbey
(66 posts)"According to data compiled by Greenpeaces research department, Secretary Clintons 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)She's actually received zero dollars from the fossil fuel industry, and that Greenpeace article is an outright lie.
LisaM
(27,826 posts)Unfortunately, the people you are trying to reach just don't care. They're all suffering from the Sarandon effect.
mythology
(9,527 posts)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)I don't see why you have such an irrational problem with our election process.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)I thought we left that for the RATpubliCONS
Oh well - Hillary never disappoints
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)I mean I know this is DanTex posting, so its always utter claptrap, but this is a stretch even for him.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)I still can't tell.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Your ability to push the bounds of comedy like this is commendable. Very Kaufmanesqe.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Really?
Really?
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That seems absolutely crazy to me that anybody could think that. You really think corporations have given her campaign money?
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Are you Zmuda to his Kaufman?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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)Keep at your craft, you're going places.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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)Absurdist comedy is my favorite kind.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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)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)I just find this entire line of attack idiotic and unworthy of the Democratic party.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)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)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)I'll cede that much.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)... constitutes legal bribery or not.
randome
(34,845 posts)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)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)I never quite understood that. And that was just January.
What happens in February and March?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)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)basselope
(2,565 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)However, the main SuperPACs supporting both Hillary and Bernie are funded primarily by individuals.
Okay... Forgot to look at the date.
You got me.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)If not then you don't understand how campaign contributions works and how reporting works.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I had hoped for better.
glowing
(12,233 posts)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)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.
glowing
(12,233 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)...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.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)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)It has nothing to do with the campaign.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)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)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)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 bundlerthe name for Clinton boosters raising more than $100,000who 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 XLor lack thereofmay 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)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)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
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
"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 countryCitigroup, 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)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.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)But if its 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 its no wonder. Thanks to U.S. Supreme Court decisions like McCutcheon v. FEC and Citizens United v. FEC, its in elected officials interests to keep the money coming in.
Politicians cant have it both ways. Either big money is off-limits, or its not. Right now, its not, so its hypocritical for people like Rove to say stop to Hillary Clintons 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)I disagree. I think Hillary is involved in her campaign.
--imm
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And she was not part of a campaign when she received them. They are irrelevant.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
DanTex
(20,709 posts)the simple fact that corporations are not allowed to donate to campaigns.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)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)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.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)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)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)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)I remember when only Mitt Romney tried to conflate corporations and individuals. It's strange watching the far left doing it now.
dogman
(6,073 posts)Plausible deniability.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)and Hillary have been funded by individual donations, not corporate money.
dogman
(6,073 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)is comical.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)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)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)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)That is, I'm sorry, a flatly stupid thing to say.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And I am right.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)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)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 Clintons 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 ExxonMobils 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 Exxons 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 Clintons 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 theyre giving money that Im 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 worlds biggest fracker.
Last November, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation into Exxons 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 Exxons crimes at the recommendation of the Department of Justice.
Clinton openly supports a Department of Justice investigation into Exxons climate crimes, meanwhile shes still accepting millions of bundled campaign donations from their lobbyists -- theres 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)Corporations are not people, no matter how much you and Mitt Romney repeat it.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)going into political campaigns..
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters
DanTex
(20,709 posts)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.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Politicians are never influenced by the financial power of corporations. Those lobbyists are just offering candy bars,.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)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)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)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 Clintons Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists
http://linkis.com/huffingtonpost.com/FicnN
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)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)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.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)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)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)He can physically hand the checks from others that he collected when fundraising, but that's other people's money.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)you're at it? Bet not.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)*smh*
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Oh! Of course! April fool! You had me going, there.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Almost as good as "because she said so".
katsy
(4,246 posts)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)Individuals are bundling money from other individuals. No corporate money has gone to her campaign.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)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)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.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)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)you think you can bribe a politician for national office by donating $2700?
riversedge
(70,280 posts)I am glad you are educating all.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)sammythecat
(3,568 posts)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)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)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)in the end it is still money given a candidate for favored positions on key congressional items.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)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)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)Now, the combustible hair club races from outrage to outrage.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)He's just engaging in cheap demagoguery and his followers are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.
Response to DanTex (Original post)
pat_k This message was self-deleted by its author.