Big Oil Is a Major Booster for Clinton’s Campaign

[Ferd Berfel]

http://www.alternet.org/environment/big-oil-major-booster-clintons-campaign

Clinton is raking in millions from super PACs and fossil fuel lobbyists.


FAIR.org readers took action in response to “Did Sanders Lie About Clinton’s Oil Money? NPR Factchecker Can’t Be Bothered to Check” (4/1/16). They got a response from NPR ombud Elizabeth Jensen (4/5/16) and a do-over from NPR factchecker Peter Overby (4/6/16)—but NPR’s coverage still leaves a lot to be desired in terms of forthrightly addressing the issue of fossil-fuel funding in the Democratic presidential race.

In a column that addressed complaints about NPR’s Trump coverage, Jensen wrote:

My office has also received complaints from dozens of NPR.org readers, many spurred on by a report from FAIR.org, about a “Fact Check” by NPR’s Peter Overby. That piece stemmed from a spat between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton over donations from the fossil fuel industry.

The readers were unhappy that Overby checked out direct donations to each campaign from oil and gas company employees, but did not include those from “lobbyists with fossil-fuel clients,” or money donated to Clinton’s super PAC. (Sanders does not have a super PAC.) Candidates are prohibited by law from coordinating with super PACs that support them, so one could make an argument for that decision.

(snip)

He adds that “there’s a catch or two”: This represents “less than 6 percent” of the money Priorities USA has raised, and the super PAC has spent “not a penny on ads attacking Sanders.” What bearing this has on the question of whether Clinton is influenced by fossil-fuel money is not obviously clear.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Now I am sure you know by now the candidate does not control the super PACs, on the

fossil fuel money, it is the same source of money Sanders had gotten. If Hillary got more money from fossil fuel employees than Sanders, then question reasons why Sanders would not have gotten from fossil fuels. There are super PACs which are operating for Sanders, again if Hillary has more super PACs than Sanders, ask him why he can not attract as much as Hillary has. The complaining about Sanders not getting as much as Hillary puts in prospective the differences of opinion of the two, more people have voted for Hillary than Sanders, there must be a reason.

[Armstead]

2. You have a bad case of being unable to distinguish apples from oranges.

Comparison between a PAC run by nurses who want universal healthcare and Hillary's Fat Cat Pacs?

Can you list all of the bundlers who organized big ticket contributions to Sanders campaign from oil lobbyists and bigwigs?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. so wrong. 3 blatant fallacies

1. Same source as Sanders money? Sander's money is from individuals. Clinton's money is from bundle rs and backroom deals.

2. Sanders does not have Superpacs working with his campaign, Clinton has Brock and his group blatantly working across superpacs and media to boost her's

3. We are not complaining about not getting dirty money, we are complaining that she IS.

Oops! #4. you mix caucus and primary vote totals to try and scream Math! Perhaps you should crack open an algebra text book. Where X (caucus =vote ratio) is an unknown, you would be more accurate to use pledged delegate totals.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Wrong,

1. Hillary is getting donations from employees, perhaps Sanders is getting his money in backrooms.

2. Hillary does not have super PACe working with her campaign though Sanders continues to say she does, Sanders knows it illegal for there to be a relationship between campaign and super PACs.

3 Complain all you want, does not make it true. With all of the scandals the GOP have tried to create over the years ir this was true they would be all over it.

[amborin]

4. more here:

snip

when asked last month whether her campaign would stop taking money from the fossil fuel industry, Clinton wavered, saying that she wasn’t aware if her campaign had taken money, but would look into it.





Well, we looked into it.

While it’s true that Clinton’s campaign committee has not taken any money from Exxon or Exxon’s political action committee, it has taken money from fossil fuel lobbyists. Analyzing just Exxon, seven of the company’s lobbyists gave the maximum allowable amount to Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Clinton’s campaign bundlers also have strong ties to the fossil fuel industry. Bundlers act as lobbyists for campaigns, recruiting other people they know to make individual donations. Outside analysis showed that nearly all of the Clinton campaign’s registered bundlers have worked for the fossil fuel industry.

Does money from fossil fuel lobbyists count as donations from the industry? According to Secretary Clinton they do. As part of her stance on criminal justice reform, Clinton announced that her campaign “does not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists or PACs for private prison companies and will donate any such direct contributions to charity.”

Secretary Clinton clearly understands what it means to truly separate oneself from industry. It only makes sense that she go all the way on dirty energy. That means no money from fossil fuel companies, fossil fuel PACs, fossil fuel executives or board members or lobbyists.

Why It Matters

Secretary Clinton joked that she’s “not one of [the fossil fuel industry’s] favorites” and that “they certainly haven’t made much of an impression on [her].” But whether or not the Clinton campaign wants to admit it, money buys access. And when lobbyists from companies like Exxon buy access, they inevitably buy influence too.

As a presidential candidate, Secretary Clinton was notoriously slow in announcing her stance against the Keystone pipeline. And a pro-Clinton super PAC is already promoting Clinton’s support for natural gas. Which company is the nation’s largest natural gas producer? You guessed it: Exxon.

It’s a broken system, but we can start fixing it right now.

snip

http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/20/clinton-ties-to-big-oil/

[Thinkingabout]

7. So it is okay Sanders gets funds from fossil fuel employees then it is alright

For Hillary to get money from the same.

[amborin]

5. big oil money flowed to Clinton:

from Pinebox:

Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons & State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations





Well.......this won't be good.


As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations

http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464


At the same time that Clinton's State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.

The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.

The Clinton Foundation, Giustra and the State Department did not respond to International Business Times' requests for comment. Pacific Rubiales has denied that it has engaged in any violence toward union organizers.

As Hillary Clinton readies a national apparatus for her likely presidential campaign -- one that will surely depend upon the support of American labor unions -- her family’s relationship with Giustra and Pacific Rubiales, her reversal on the Colombia trade pact and her subsequent move to bless Colombia’s human rights record complicate her efforts to present herself as a champion of worker rights.
These issues were amplified this week when the AFL-CIO cited persistent violence against Colombian union organizers in its push to block a new 12-nation trade deal that Clinton has championed.