What constitutes getting campaign money from a particular industry?

[bluestateguy]

Let's say a rank and file coal worker (I mean one of the guys who goes in the mines and does the real work) gives $50 to Hillary Clinton. Does this mean she is getting money from the fossil fuel industry?

Let's say a junior financial analyst at Goldman Sachs, fresh out of college and doing an entry level job, gives $100 to Hillary Clinton. Does that mean she is getting money from Wall Street?

Now let's say that the foreman for that same coal mine gives Hillary $200? Or a securities analyst (a little higher up the pole, that is) at GS gives her $500. Does that now mean she is getting money from fossil fuels and Wall Street?

Apply the same question framework as above, but now it's say, a district manager at that coal company. Or an associate at GS (but still not a partner) who is giving money?

I think it is easier to say that if a coal company or GS funded Superpac spend thousands or millions on pro-Hillary ads, then you could say she was the beneficiary of those particular industries.

But I'm just confused here. Help me out here. Help walk me through this. Where is the line drawn at the point at which it's ordinary citizens who happen to work for Wall Street or the fossil fuels giving money to HRC, and when are we supposed to call it the industries themselves funding the candidate?

[revbones]

1. Having companies in that industry donate millions to your super-PAC...

Maybe having lobbyists from that industry bundle tons of cash. Those lobbyists sure aren't knocking door to door in my neighborhood soliciting donations...

[bluestateguy]

3. Ok, I might agree with you

Is it the lobbyists' personal money, or is it money coming from a Pac or Superpac?

[liberal_at_heart]

5. A lobbyist is getting paid to get a certain result for their lobbying. I don't get paid

to advocate for Bernie and I certainly don't have to worry about losing my job if I don't get what I want from Bernie.

[revbones]

6. Oh I'm sure a bundler kicked in some personal cash

as well as went around to the industry members he lobbies for to solicit...

[DanTex]

8. Of course, that didn't actually happen, but when has the truth ever stood in your way before.

[revbones]

9. Cuz you said so it means it's false. Thanks, I forgot.

[DanTex]

14. It's false because it didn't happen. You just made it up, there's no evidence of any corporate

contributions.

[revbones]

16. The evidence has been provided already, in many of the recent comments

you've deigned false because you don't believe it or think you can quibble about campaign vs super-PAC donations, etc...

Instead of constantly dodging and yelling "False! Because I say so!" all the time, perhaps a better use of time here might be to actually provide some evidence for your claims. Not that I'm objecting really, since the constant "False! Because I say so" retort isn't really helping you get anyone to disbelieve what you're arguing against.

[DanTex]

19. The evidence is all about individual, not corporate donations.

[revbones]

21. Sigh.

I've even re-quoted in OPs and comments about this that you've been disputing because you simply don't believe it, where the OP or comment specifically included "super-PACs".

Your choice to disbelieve is just that, a choice. It doesn't suddenly create new facts out of thin air, no matter how many times you yell something is false...

[DanTex]

22. Sigh all you want, but it's the truth. There is no record of corporate donations.

It's all from individuals. You haven't provided any evidence, because there is none.

[revbones]

25. Do you get paid by the post regardless of content? Is that how this works?

"False! Because I don't believe it!" I would have thought that one wouldn't be worth much, but now I have to reconsider...

[DanTex]

26. You cannot name a single corporation that has donated to Hillary's campaign. Because there are none

[revbones]

31. No, I can't given the language you used.

But they have through lobbyist bundlers and they have to her super-PAC.

So if that's what you need for a victory today, you're welcome - by some parsing of words, I agree with one statement you made playing word games to try to prove a false point.

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


Contributor
Total Indivs PACs
EMILY's List $907,510 $898,590 $8,920
Citigroup Inc $891,501 $883,501 $8,000
DLA Piper $852,873 $825,873 $27,000
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
University of California $686,509 $686,509 $0
Time Warner $603,170 $578,170 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $562,182 $557,682 $4,500
Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
Kirkland & Ellis $491,066 $474,066 $17,000
Paul, Weiss et al $430,919 $430,919 $0
Greenberg Traurig LLP $422,195 $414,095 $8,100
Akin, Gump et al $398,898 $395,398 $3,500
Sullivan & Cromwell $395,807 $395,807 $0
National Amusements Inc $386,698 $383,698 $3,000
Harvard University $384,769 $384,769 $0
Ernst & Young $377,082 $357,082 $20,000
21st Century Fox $373,482 $373,482 $0
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000


This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

[DanTex]

35. It's all individual money. None of it is corporate. It's not "parsing of words", it's the truth.

People and corporations are not the same thing, you know...

[revbones]

37. Sure. If that's what you need to make your day ok.

We both know the real truth.

[DanTex]

39. I'm glad you finally understand. Wasn't so hard, was it?

[revbones]

44. Nope, some like to create their own facts. I understand completely. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

4. I wouldn't call lobbyists ordinary average citizens.

[DanTex]

7. What the propagandists do is they take every contribution from any individual employed

by a certain industry, they add it all up, and they call it "industry money." It's flagrantly dishonest.

[revbones]

11. Sure, that's how the numbers were arrived at... Sure.

[DanTex]

15. That's exactly how they are computed. When people make campaign donations, they fill out who their

employer is, and then sites like opensecrets tabulate the donations by employer and industry. I'm surprised you know so little about how this works.

[revbones]

18. Yep, because super-PACs most definitely do that... rofl

[DanTex]

20. There is no evidence of corporate donations to either the campaign or the SuperPAC.

Every donation that Greenpeace detailed came from individuals, not corporations.

[revbones]

23. Via bundlers and lobbyists and to the campaing and super-PACs

Evidence has been provided. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't change the facts.

[DanTex]

24. Bundles bundle individual donations, not corporate money. You keep referring to some

"evidence" that doesn't exist.

[revbones]

27. The OPs and other comments have provided it numerous times

You really are venturing into some silliness here.

What do you see as your endgame in all these "False, because I say so" posts? Is there some magic number that will spell victory for you? It's not swaying me, I believe in reality not something just because you say so. So what's the endgame here for you? Just keep posting those same tired one-liners? Will that make today meaningful for you?

[DanTex]

28. You can't name a single corporation that has donated to her. Because there are none.

[revbones]

32. Hmmmm....

Contributor Total Indivs PACs
EMILY's List $907,510 $898,590 $8,920
Citigroup Inc $891,501 $883,501 $8,000
DLA Piper $852,873 $825,873 $27,000
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
University of California $686,509 $686,509 $0
Time Warner $603,170 $578,170 $25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $562,182 $557,682 $4,500
Corning Inc $492,750 $474,750 $18,000
Kirkland & Ellis $491,066 $474,066 $17,000
Paul, Weiss et al $430,919 $430,919 $0
Greenberg Traurig LLP $422,195 $414,095 $8,100
Akin, Gump et al $398,898 $395,398 $3,500
Sullivan & Cromwell $395,807 $395,807 $0
National Amusements Inc $386,698 $383,698 $3,000
Harvard University $384,769 $384,769 $0
Ernst & Young $377,082 $357,082 $20,000
21st Century Fox $373,482 $373,482 $0
Lehman Brothers $362,853 $359,853 $3,000

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

[DanTex]

36. Those are contributions from individuals. It's not corporate money.

[revbones]

38. Sure. Because you said so, it makes it fact. Enjoy your day.

[DanTex]

42. It's a fact. It's money from individuals, not corporations.

[revbones]

45. Sure. Enjoy your day.

[jmg257]

10. Lobbyist Bundlers...

For instance:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-calls-for-lobbyist-shaming-new-hampshire

"Asked at a town hall meeting at New Hampshire's Henniker College how to handle the increasing role of moneyed interests in Washington, Hillary Clinton told supporters that lobbyists should be exposed and publicly called out.

"Maybe use social media? Maybe make a concerted effort to really call these people out all the time, get some social pressure on them, get people to know their names," Clinton suggested, pointing, with obvious relish, to how the New York Daily News has taken to calling the National Rifle Association president Wayne LaPierre "Jihadi Wayne" for his refusal to support blocking individuals on the "no fly list" from getting gun permits.
"We've got to try new tactics, we've got to go after them and we have got to have tougher laws," Clinton said.


But Clinton is not entirely clear of ties with lobbyists. Presidential campaigns are required to report how much money they have raised with the assistance of bundlers—supporters who fundraise on behalf of a candidate—who are also registered lobbyists. Out of all the presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, Clinton has raised the most money—$717,000—from lobbyist bundlers. The next closest is Marco Rubio, who has raised $676,000 with the help of lobbyists."


From Greenpeace:
“Secretary Clinton cannot ignore the voices of activists asking her to reject fossil fuel money, or explain away the more than one million dollars she takes from fossil fuel lobbyists...”

[liberal_at_heart]

12. Why is it that Democrats are okay with bank or fossil fuel lobbyists donating to Hillary, but

not okay with the NRA or some religious organization donating to the Republicans? I think we all know that lobbyists have an influence on our politicians. The question is why are we okay with Democrats taking lobbyists money and not Republicans? Either it is bad or it is not bad. It can't be bad for Republicans to do it and not bad for Democrats to do it. Either it is okay or not okay.

[jmg257]

17. Guns are bad, mKay?

"Bought and paid for" is bought and paid for.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-calls-for-lobbyist-shaming-new-hampshire
...
"It's not just the influence they peddle, it's the way they peddle the influence," Clinton said. "No matter who you are lobbying for, you've got to keep the people you are representing upset and angry and worried that something is going to be done to them, to try and keep them paying you."

Clinton pointed to LaPierre and the NRA as classic examples.

"'Oh my gosh, background checks! Oh my gosh, they'll come for your guns!'" she said mockingly, citing what she said were the NRA's exaggerated warnings about closing loopholes in existing gun laws. "According to them, next thing you know, black helicopters will be in your yard. They are masters at this kind of fearmongering."

[Contrary1]

34. "Hillary Clinton Says the Best Way to Rein in Lobbyists Is to Shame Them"

[liberal_at_heart]

40. She will tell them to "Cut it out."

My husband told me his mother always told him stop when he would do something wrong but would never actually discipline him. One day when she said stop it, he said, "Or you'll say stop it again?"

[jmg257]

41. LOL. Indeed! #SoSillary nt

[Gwhittey]

13. The spin is strong in this one

[bluestateguy]

57. You never did answer any of my questions

But you did enclose a witty meme, so I guess that puts me in my place.

[nichomachus]

29. It's when the company requires employees to contribute -- and it's a widespread practice

Many corporations require people above a certain level to contribute to candidates or causes -- and they keep track. I have a friend who was a VP at BofA. He got a letter every year telling him who to contribute to and how much. Their main goal was to keep corporatists in power and to repeal Glass-Steagal. The same for a cousin of mine who worked for a Fortune 100 company. He was not only told what his political affiliation would be, he was told what towns it was acceptable for him to live in.

[liberal_at_heart]

33. Democracy bought and paid for.

[Contrary1]

30. This may help explain it...or not.

Meet the Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Raising Money for Hillary Clinton

Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.

A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.

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.

More: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. one word = lobbyist

[Contrary1]

46. There's at least four more words:

"Former lobbyists" and "Speaking engagements"

"...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."

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

[bluestateguy]

47. Ok, but live by the rules, die by the rules

If lobbyists are unacceptable, that would seem to also mean that candidate or president should not accept campaign money from all lobbyists.

That then must include lobbyists for labor unions, environmental organizations, civil rights groups, underprivileged children and Planned Parenthood.

Have to be consistent here.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

48. candidates can say no can't they?

[Contrary1]

49. Works for me. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

50. I have a friend whose child who has cancer just lost her SSI. Are you seriously

comparing dying children to billionaires who make over 400 times that of their average employee? Good luck with that comparison. It is precisely because we spend so much freakin money giving corporate lobbyists what they want that the lobbyists who represent the poor people can't get the politicians to fund SS, WIC, food stamps, education, or healthcare. The poor people don't have millions of dollars to give to the politicians? Who gets more of what they want? Those who can contribute millions or those that can't? Hmmm. I wonder.

[bluestateguy]

51. In a way, yes I am. I'm comparing lobbyists.

And for every lobbyist for an oil company or an insurance company or Goldman Sachs, there are lobbyists for nurses, teachers unions, welfare recipients, migrant farm workers and LGBT equality.

They all dole out campaign money (yes, I know, some more than others), and badger legislators with their respective shopping lists of pet issues.

It's not reasonable (and is arguably unconstitutional) to restrict the rights of lobbyists for causes that we dislike, leaving alone the lobbyists who fight for causes that we agree with.

[liberal_at_heart]

52. Then yes maybe we should do away with all lobbyists. At least then the poor would be on a more

fair playing field. As is they don't stand a chance. I would rather do away with all lobbyists than continue with what we have now.

[HassleCat]

53. There is no line.

It's set up that way to provide plausible deniability. "My candidate does not receive money from corporations. Those are all individual contributions." Each voter has to decide individually if a particular candidate is too closely associated with a particular special interest. Most candidates are, so it's not a difficult question for me. I just seek out candidates who are less associated with interests I don't like.

[liberal_at_heart]

54. People act like this is some big surprise to the American people. Congressional ratings are

horrible. Over half the country doesn't vote at all. Everyone knows that politicians are corrupt and that the system is corrupt. I don't know why Hillary supporters act like there is no problem.

[Gwhittey]

55. Oh come on you know why they do it

[liberal_at_heart]

56. Yeah, I know why they do it.