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
marmar
marmar's Journal
marmar's Journal
October 3, 2015
from Dissent magazine:
Reorganizing Labor
Andrew Elrod ▪ Summer 2015
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 was intended to end a fifty-year-long era of court-enforced union repression and the disruptive and often violent responses it provoked from both workers and management. Regulating industrial relations, the argument went—licensing unions and settling employment disputes with binding arbitration—would restrain the force of class conflict with the reason of corporatist responsibility. “The door of a court of equity,” wrote federal judge Robert Wagner in a 1921 case enjoining a business to abide by a union contract, “is open to employer and employee alike.”
It is difficult to imagine a judge making such a statement today. Even though the NLRA, which Wagner went on to draft and sponsor as New York senator, is still in force, seventy years of judicial tinkering and two legislative amendments (Taft-Hartley in 1947 and Landrum-Griffin in 1959) have put organizers and negotiators, like their pre-NLRA predecessors, haplessly at the mercy of employer-side labor lawyers. The results will be familiar to those who follow labor politics: one in five workers are fired during NLRB election campaigns, according to Cornell’s Kate Bronfenbrenner, and a third of all elections involve such firings; unlawful threats and inducements against organizing workers are ubiquitous; organizers and employers have unequal access to workers; striker replacement is legal; Board remedies to unlawful activity take several years and do not act as a deterrent. Little of this was intended when Congress passed the Wagner Act in 1935. They are the results of the decisions of judges.
Once softened by a full-employment economy, the courts’ imprimatur on American employers’ anti-union regime has plagued anyone wondering how to increase workers’ bargaining power since the stagnation in real wages began forty years ago. So constrained are unions by contemporary labor law that some feel the need to act surreptitiously. The UFCW, in organizing Walmart workers, has denied that its goal is recognition by the corporation or bargaining on behalf of its employees. If it admitted these goals, it would, by force of law, be required to file a petition for a perilous NLRB election within thirty days. Unlike in the de facto restrictions listed above, here the statutory language is clear.
For four decades, organized labor’s insider strategy to amend the NLRA and escape these restrictions has been nothing short of quixotic. Four times union-backed amendments have passed the House, four times they have had some degree of presidential support, yet not one has become law. One might be inclined to give up the insider game, and this is what Thomas Geoghegan’s advice in Only One Thing Can Save Us amounts to. “[W]e need something radically different than old-fashioned U.S.-style collective bargaining,” he explains. In its place, Geoghegan proposes a grand bargain: organized labor sacrifices fair-share dues from nonmembers covered by collective bargaining agreements in exchange for legislation strengthening organizing rights. His amendment would throw the established postwar bargaining paradigm, and the union bureaucracies it engendered, out the window. To win it he proposes a series of mass mobilizations of the sort that won the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. .........................(more)
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/elrod-review-reorganizing-labor
Reorganizing Labor
from Dissent magazine:
Reorganizing Labor
Andrew Elrod ▪ Summer 2015
Only One Thing Can Save Us: Why America Needs a New Kind of Labor Movement
by Thomas Geoghegan
The New Press, 2014, 272 pp.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 was intended to end a fifty-year-long era of court-enforced union repression and the disruptive and often violent responses it provoked from both workers and management. Regulating industrial relations, the argument went—licensing unions and settling employment disputes with binding arbitration—would restrain the force of class conflict with the reason of corporatist responsibility. “The door of a court of equity,” wrote federal judge Robert Wagner in a 1921 case enjoining a business to abide by a union contract, “is open to employer and employee alike.”
It is difficult to imagine a judge making such a statement today. Even though the NLRA, which Wagner went on to draft and sponsor as New York senator, is still in force, seventy years of judicial tinkering and two legislative amendments (Taft-Hartley in 1947 and Landrum-Griffin in 1959) have put organizers and negotiators, like their pre-NLRA predecessors, haplessly at the mercy of employer-side labor lawyers. The results will be familiar to those who follow labor politics: one in five workers are fired during NLRB election campaigns, according to Cornell’s Kate Bronfenbrenner, and a third of all elections involve such firings; unlawful threats and inducements against organizing workers are ubiquitous; organizers and employers have unequal access to workers; striker replacement is legal; Board remedies to unlawful activity take several years and do not act as a deterrent. Little of this was intended when Congress passed the Wagner Act in 1935. They are the results of the decisions of judges.
Once softened by a full-employment economy, the courts’ imprimatur on American employers’ anti-union regime has plagued anyone wondering how to increase workers’ bargaining power since the stagnation in real wages began forty years ago. So constrained are unions by contemporary labor law that some feel the need to act surreptitiously. The UFCW, in organizing Walmart workers, has denied that its goal is recognition by the corporation or bargaining on behalf of its employees. If it admitted these goals, it would, by force of law, be required to file a petition for a perilous NLRB election within thirty days. Unlike in the de facto restrictions listed above, here the statutory language is clear.
For four decades, organized labor’s insider strategy to amend the NLRA and escape these restrictions has been nothing short of quixotic. Four times union-backed amendments have passed the House, four times they have had some degree of presidential support, yet not one has become law. One might be inclined to give up the insider game, and this is what Thomas Geoghegan’s advice in Only One Thing Can Save Us amounts to. “[W]e need something radically different than old-fashioned U.S.-style collective bargaining,” he explains. In its place, Geoghegan proposes a grand bargain: organized labor sacrifices fair-share dues from nonmembers covered by collective bargaining agreements in exchange for legislation strengthening organizing rights. His amendment would throw the established postwar bargaining paradigm, and the union bureaucracies it engendered, out the window. To win it he proposes a series of mass mobilizations of the sort that won the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. .........................(more)
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/elrod-review-reorganizing-labor
October 3, 2015
(Bloomberg) A single, 5,000 percent price hike on an anti-parasitic drug made by Turing Pharmaceuticals garnered national media attention. But it’s just one of hundreds of smaller price increases drug companies make in the U.S. each year, a tactic the industry uses to generate more revenue from older medications.
Pfizer Inc., the nation’s biggest drugmaker, has raised prices on 133 of its brand-name products in the U.S. this year, according to research from UBS, more than three-quarters of which added up to hikes of 10 percent or more. It’s not alone. Rival Merck & Co. raised the price of 38 drugs, about a quarter of which resulted in increases of 10 percent or more. Pfizer sells more than 600 drugs globally while Merck has more than 200 worldwide, including almost 100 in the U.S.
Drugmakers have long said these increases aren’t felt by most consumers because intermediaries like insurers negotiate what is ultimately paid -- meaning what they really charge for their drugs is far below the list price. Pfizer and its rivals say they can’t make those negotiated prices public for competitive reasons.
Like its competitors, Pfizer has been raising prices on older drugs in its portfolio for years. The increases in the U.S. have added $1.07 billion of quarterly revenue from mid-2012 to the middle of this year, helping limit the company’s total decline in quarterly revenue over that time period to $2 billion even as patents on blockbuster drugs expired, according to estimates from SSR, an investment research firm. In the case of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., increasing the price of existing drugs in the U.S. brought in $435 million of revenue over the past three years, leaving the contraction of the company’s global sales at $280 million, SSR estimates show. .................(more)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-02/pfizer-raised-prices-on-133-drugs-this-year-and-it-s-not-alone
Pfizer Raised Prices on 133 Drugs This Year, And It's Not Alone
(Bloomberg) A single, 5,000 percent price hike on an anti-parasitic drug made by Turing Pharmaceuticals garnered national media attention. But it’s just one of hundreds of smaller price increases drug companies make in the U.S. each year, a tactic the industry uses to generate more revenue from older medications.
Pfizer Inc., the nation’s biggest drugmaker, has raised prices on 133 of its brand-name products in the U.S. this year, according to research from UBS, more than three-quarters of which added up to hikes of 10 percent or more. It’s not alone. Rival Merck & Co. raised the price of 38 drugs, about a quarter of which resulted in increases of 10 percent or more. Pfizer sells more than 600 drugs globally while Merck has more than 200 worldwide, including almost 100 in the U.S.
Drugmakers have long said these increases aren’t felt by most consumers because intermediaries like insurers negotiate what is ultimately paid -- meaning what they really charge for their drugs is far below the list price. Pfizer and its rivals say they can’t make those negotiated prices public for competitive reasons.
Like its competitors, Pfizer has been raising prices on older drugs in its portfolio for years. The increases in the U.S. have added $1.07 billion of quarterly revenue from mid-2012 to the middle of this year, helping limit the company’s total decline in quarterly revenue over that time period to $2 billion even as patents on blockbuster drugs expired, according to estimates from SSR, an investment research firm. In the case of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., increasing the price of existing drugs in the U.S. brought in $435 million of revenue over the past three years, leaving the contraction of the company’s global sales at $280 million, SSR estimates show. .................(more)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-02/pfizer-raised-prices-on-133-drugs-this-year-and-it-s-not-alone
October 3, 2015
This Chart Truly Depicts New, Terrible Trend in Jobs Mess
by Wolf Richter • October 2, 2015
The jobs report today has been described as “ugly,” though it certainly didn’t, or shouldn’t have, come out of the blue: Layoffs in the energy, Big Tech, retail, and other sectors have recently mucked up our rosy scenario.
“The third quarter ended with a surge in job cuts,” is how Challenger Gray, which tracks these things, started out its report yesterday. In September, large US-based companies had announced 58,877 layoffs. In the third quarter, they announced 205,759 layoffs, the worst quarter since the 240,233 in the third quarter of 2009!
Year-to-date, we’re at nearly half a million job cut announcements (493,431 to be precise), up 36% from the same period last year. And they’re “on track to end the year as the highest annual total since 2009, when nearly 1.3 million layoffs were announced at the tail-end of the recession.”
These dogged references to crisis-year 2009!
It’s been going on all year. In the first half, it was the energy sector. But more recently, Big Tech and others jumped into the fray. ..................(more)
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/10/02/chart-depicts-new-terrible-trend-in-jobs-mess-fewer-employed/
This Chart Truly Depicts New, Terrible Trend in Jobs Mess
This Chart Truly Depicts New, Terrible Trend in Jobs Mess
by Wolf Richter • October 2, 2015
The jobs report today has been described as “ugly,” though it certainly didn’t, or shouldn’t have, come out of the blue: Layoffs in the energy, Big Tech, retail, and other sectors have recently mucked up our rosy scenario.
“The third quarter ended with a surge in job cuts,” is how Challenger Gray, which tracks these things, started out its report yesterday. In September, large US-based companies had announced 58,877 layoffs. In the third quarter, they announced 205,759 layoffs, the worst quarter since the 240,233 in the third quarter of 2009!
Year-to-date, we’re at nearly half a million job cut announcements (493,431 to be precise), up 36% from the same period last year. And they’re “on track to end the year as the highest annual total since 2009, when nearly 1.3 million layoffs were announced at the tail-end of the recession.”
These dogged references to crisis-year 2009!
It’s been going on all year. In the first half, it was the energy sector. But more recently, Big Tech and others jumped into the fray. ..................(more)
http://wolfstreet.com/2015/10/02/chart-depicts-new-terrible-trend-in-jobs-mess-fewer-employed/
October 2, 2015
from The Nation:
Alabama, Birthplace of the Voting Rights Act, Is Once Again Gutting Voting Rights
Alabama passed a strict voter-ID law and then closed 31 DMV offices in the state.
by Ari Berman
It was Alabama that brought the country the Voting Rights Act (VRA) because of its brutality against black citizens in places like Selma. “The Voting Rights Act is Alabama’s gift to our country,” the civil-rights lawyer Debo Adegbile once said.
And it was a county in Alabama–Shelby County–that brought the 2013 challenge that gutted the VRA. As a result of that ruling, those states with the worst histories of voting discrimination, including Alabama, no longer have to approve their voting changes with the federal government.
After the Shelby County decision, Alabama’s strict voter ID law, passed by the GOP legislature in 2011, was allowed to go into effect without federal approval. And now Alabama is making it much tougher to obtain the government-issued ID required to vote by closing 31 DMV locations in the state, many in majority-black counties.
The state is shuttering DMV offices in eight of the 10 counties with the highest concentration of black voters. Selma will still have a DMV office but virtually all of the surrounding Black Belt counties will not. “Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed,” writes John Archibald of the Birmingham News. “The harm is inflicted disproportionately on voters who happen to be black, and poor, in sparsely populated areas.” ........(more)
http://www.thenation.com/article/alabama-birthplace-of-voting-rights-act-once-again-gutting-voting-rights/
Alabama, Birthplace of the Voting Rights Act, Is Once Again Gutting Voting Rights
from The Nation:
Alabama, Birthplace of the Voting Rights Act, Is Once Again Gutting Voting Rights
Alabama passed a strict voter-ID law and then closed 31 DMV offices in the state.
by Ari Berman
It was Alabama that brought the country the Voting Rights Act (VRA) because of its brutality against black citizens in places like Selma. “The Voting Rights Act is Alabama’s gift to our country,” the civil-rights lawyer Debo Adegbile once said.
And it was a county in Alabama–Shelby County–that brought the 2013 challenge that gutted the VRA. As a result of that ruling, those states with the worst histories of voting discrimination, including Alabama, no longer have to approve their voting changes with the federal government.
After the Shelby County decision, Alabama’s strict voter ID law, passed by the GOP legislature in 2011, was allowed to go into effect without federal approval. And now Alabama is making it much tougher to obtain the government-issued ID required to vote by closing 31 DMV locations in the state, many in majority-black counties.
The state is shuttering DMV offices in eight of the 10 counties with the highest concentration of black voters. Selma will still have a DMV office but virtually all of the surrounding Black Belt counties will not. “Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed,” writes John Archibald of the Birmingham News. “The harm is inflicted disproportionately on voters who happen to be black, and poor, in sparsely populated areas.” ........(more)
http://www.thenation.com/article/alabama-birthplace-of-voting-rights-act-once-again-gutting-voting-rights/
October 2, 2015
(Boston Globe) So far this year, there have been at least 294 mass shooting incidents. There have been 274 days.
That’s according to the Mass Shooting Tracker. The project tracks incidents in which four or more people are shot — but not necessarily killed — in a spree or setting.
Of the mass shootings, 84 incidents can be categorized as spree murders, including the shooting Thursday at Umpqua Community College in Oregon that left at least 13 people dead and more injured.
Spree murders are defined by the FBI as the murder of two or more people committed without a cooling-off period, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker. ................(more)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/01/there-have-been-more-mass-shootings-this-year-than-days/nsbTfUlAAL6iyBh0KvHmhO/story.html
There have been more mass shootings this year than days
(Boston Globe) So far this year, there have been at least 294 mass shooting incidents. There have been 274 days.
That’s according to the Mass Shooting Tracker. The project tracks incidents in which four or more people are shot — but not necessarily killed — in a spree or setting.
Of the mass shootings, 84 incidents can be categorized as spree murders, including the shooting Thursday at Umpqua Community College in Oregon that left at least 13 people dead and more injured.
Spree murders are defined by the FBI as the murder of two or more people committed without a cooling-off period, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker. ................(more)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/01/there-have-been-more-mass-shootings-this-year-than-days/nsbTfUlAAL6iyBh0KvHmhO/story.html
October 2, 2015
Depressed finances, artisanal culture and the comfortable snare of social media may be leading millennials to throw and attend fewer house parties than previous generations of North Americans.
News of the decline is concerning because regular opportunities to interact free of the kinds of rules that govern other types of social environments, such as in business or education, are necessary for full social development, psychologists say.
“In college, there were way more house parties, but I’ve only been to a handful in my two years since,” Mitchell Friedman, a 24-year-old who lives in Brooklyn, told The New York Times. “My roommates and I never threw any parties, either.”
Madeleine Watson, 29, of Vancouver, British Columbia, said: “I’ve been to, maybe, three or four house parties in the last couple of years, and they’re always Halloween or New Year’s or a holiday event. And it’s always the same house and the same people throwing it.”
In their first couple of years in Brooklyn, Christine Vines, 27, and her roommate hosted maybe two house parties, Vines told the Times. “That was a trial,” she said. “We decided it was more effort than it was worth. I went to a handful a year, usually Halloween or New Year’s.” ................(more)
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/americans_struggle_to_party_like_they_used_to_20151001
Americans Don’t Party Like They Used To
Depressed finances, artisanal culture and the comfortable snare of social media may be leading millennials to throw and attend fewer house parties than previous generations of North Americans.
News of the decline is concerning because regular opportunities to interact free of the kinds of rules that govern other types of social environments, such as in business or education, are necessary for full social development, psychologists say.
“In college, there were way more house parties, but I’ve only been to a handful in my two years since,” Mitchell Friedman, a 24-year-old who lives in Brooklyn, told The New York Times. “My roommates and I never threw any parties, either.”
Madeleine Watson, 29, of Vancouver, British Columbia, said: “I’ve been to, maybe, three or four house parties in the last couple of years, and they’re always Halloween or New Year’s or a holiday event. And it’s always the same house and the same people throwing it.”
In their first couple of years in Brooklyn, Christine Vines, 27, and her roommate hosted maybe two house parties, Vines told the Times. “That was a trial,” she said. “We decided it was more effort than it was worth. I went to a handful a year, usually Halloween or New Year’s.” ................(more)
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/americans_struggle_to_party_like_they_used_to_20151001
October 2, 2015
While Jeb and Boehner and Pat Roberts were urging everyone to pray the violence away.......
[font size="3"]Chris MurphyVerified account
?@ChrisMurphyCT
This is on us. Silence from Congress has become quiet endorsement of those whose minds unhinge and veer toward mass violence.[/font]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-shooting-congress-twitter_560d9521e4b0af3706e00bed?o6c1sjor
Amen Chris Murphy..........
While Jeb and Boehner and Pat Roberts were urging everyone to pray the violence away.......
[font size="3"]Chris MurphyVerified account
?@ChrisMurphyCT
This is on us. Silence from Congress has become quiet endorsement of those whose minds unhinge and veer toward mass violence.[/font]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-shooting-congress-twitter_560d9521e4b0af3706e00bed?o6c1sjor
October 2, 2015
Posted on October 2, 2015 by Yves Smith
The US Postal Service’s Board of Governors which has had a strong tendency to rubber-stamp management’s plans, has been operating without a quorum. Board member terms are staggered and Obama served up a slate of nominees in March. I’ve attached a letter at the end of this post from The Leadership Conference to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid urging them to reject Obama’s set of five nominees in their entirety. In other words, they are telling Obama to start from scratch.
The letter singles out two particularly troubling candidates. One is Mickey Bennett, who has been a lobbyist for the payday lending industry. One proposal to fix the Postal Sevice’s trumped-up budget problems would be to offer low-cost financial services at bank branches. Needless to say, that’s the last thing the predatory payday lending industry would like to see. Separately, anyone who has worked in or served as a lobbyist for industries know to engage in widespread abuses, like payday lending and debt collection, should be deemed to be unfit for government service of any sort unless they’ve become whistleblowers.
Another nominee, James Miller, has advocated privatizing the Postal Service since his time at the Office of Management and Budget, back in the 1980s. He remains fixated on this idea, despite ample evidence that privatization leads to higher costs and worse service. Of course, I’m charitably assuming that Miller is actually interested in producing better results for the public, as opposed to a big looting opportunity for corporate interests.
Note that we were onto this issue early, and cross-posted an article from Angry Bear on the board nominees by former postmaster Mark Jamison on the heels of the nomination. I suggest you read the piece in full; it flags the considerable problems with Postal Service oversight and the Obama nominees. ....................(more)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/fight-over-postal-service-board-heats-up-as-laborconsumer-advocatesminority-coalition-opposes-payday-lender-lobbyist-privatization-backers.html
WTF? The Postal Service Board candidates include a privatization advocate and a Payday loan hack?
Fight Over Postal Service Board Heats Up as Labor/Consumer Advocates/Minority Coalition Opposes Payday Lender Lobbyist, Privatization BackersPosted on October 2, 2015 by Yves Smith
The US Postal Service’s Board of Governors which has had a strong tendency to rubber-stamp management’s plans, has been operating without a quorum. Board member terms are staggered and Obama served up a slate of nominees in March. I’ve attached a letter at the end of this post from The Leadership Conference to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid urging them to reject Obama’s set of five nominees in their entirety. In other words, they are telling Obama to start from scratch.
The letter singles out two particularly troubling candidates. One is Mickey Bennett, who has been a lobbyist for the payday lending industry. One proposal to fix the Postal Sevice’s trumped-up budget problems would be to offer low-cost financial services at bank branches. Needless to say, that’s the last thing the predatory payday lending industry would like to see. Separately, anyone who has worked in or served as a lobbyist for industries know to engage in widespread abuses, like payday lending and debt collection, should be deemed to be unfit for government service of any sort unless they’ve become whistleblowers.
Another nominee, James Miller, has advocated privatizing the Postal Service since his time at the Office of Management and Budget, back in the 1980s. He remains fixated on this idea, despite ample evidence that privatization leads to higher costs and worse service. Of course, I’m charitably assuming that Miller is actually interested in producing better results for the public, as opposed to a big looting opportunity for corporate interests.
Note that we were onto this issue early, and cross-posted an article from Angry Bear on the board nominees by former postmaster Mark Jamison on the heels of the nomination. I suggest you read the piece in full; it flags the considerable problems with Postal Service oversight and the Obama nominees. ....................(more)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/fight-over-postal-service-board-heats-up-as-laborconsumer-advocatesminority-coalition-opposes-payday-lender-lobbyist-privatization-backers.html
October 1, 2015
(Bloomberg) The Democratic money primary has turned into a battle of big ticket fundraisers versus online donations.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised $28 million during the third quarter, her campaign said Wednesday, bringing the fundraising haul since her April launch to $75 million. Clinton spent the final days of the quarter on a cross-country dash to headline events where tickets generally cost between $1,000 and $2,700.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, raised $25 million, his campaign said Wednesday. He held just a handful of fundraising events all quarter, instead building his war chest through hundreds of thousands of online donations. Since he launched his White House bid in the spring, his campaign said it has collected over 1 million individual contributions.
The latest quarter was never expected to be quite as strong for Clinton as her first, yet the total will be parsed as show of relative strength amid a summer of questions about her use of a private e-mail server while at the State Department.
“Thanks to our supporters, we are able to meet our goals and build an organization that can mobilize millions of voters to ensure Hillary Clinton is their fighter in the White House,” campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement. .............(more)
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-01/hillary-clinton-raises-28-million-in-third-quarter
Hillary Clinton Raises $28 Million in Third Quarter, Barely Beating Bernie Sanders
(Bloomberg) The Democratic money primary has turned into a battle of big ticket fundraisers versus online donations.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised $28 million during the third quarter, her campaign said Wednesday, bringing the fundraising haul since her April launch to $75 million. Clinton spent the final days of the quarter on a cross-country dash to headline events where tickets generally cost between $1,000 and $2,700.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, raised $25 million, his campaign said Wednesday. He held just a handful of fundraising events all quarter, instead building his war chest through hundreds of thousands of online donations. Since he launched his White House bid in the spring, his campaign said it has collected over 1 million individual contributions.
The latest quarter was never expected to be quite as strong for Clinton as her first, yet the total will be parsed as show of relative strength amid a summer of questions about her use of a private e-mail server while at the State Department.
“Thanks to our supporters, we are able to meet our goals and build an organization that can mobilize millions of voters to ensure Hillary Clinton is their fighter in the White House,” campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement. .............(more)
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-01/hillary-clinton-raises-28-million-in-third-quarter
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Detroit, MI
Member since: Fri Oct 29, 2004, 12:18 AM
Number of posts: 77,094
