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
BlueMTexpat
BlueMTexpat's Journal
BlueMTexpat's Journal
April 1, 2016
This article has some excellent graphs. Once again, Bernie's campaign is being disingenuous - at best.
The article notes that while Greenpeace's understanding of money, oil and the presidential race is simplistic, a narrower focus on fundraising from oil industry lobbyists would be more difficult to shake off. However, it does not provide a similar analysis of how much of Bernie's fundraising has come from oil industry lobbyists. IMO, it should have before deciding to end on that note.
Why Hillary Clinton is justifiably annoyed by criticism of her Big Oil fundraising
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/01/why-hillary-clinton-is-justifiably-annoyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/This article has some excellent graphs. Once again, Bernie's campaign is being disingenuous - at best.
The Center for Responsive Politics compiles data on the money given to candidates by industry, and Clinton and the PACs supporting her have raised more from that industry than has Sanders. Both totals, though, are far less than has been given to Republicans -- especially Republicans from the oil-rich states of Texas and Louisiana.
But note: Both Democrats have received money from "the oil and gas industry." The total for Clinton's campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders's, it's about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer. If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that's counted as "oil and gas industry" money.
As a percentage of all the money campaigns have raised, both Clinton and Sanders have only raised a fraction of their totals from that industry.
But note: Both Democrats have received money from "the oil and gas industry." The total for Clinton's campaign is about $308,000; for Sanders's, it's about $54,000. As Clinton noted in the moment, the Center for Responsive Politics mostly aggregates contributions by employer. If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that's counted as "oil and gas industry" money.
As a percentage of all the money campaigns have raised, both Clinton and Sanders have only raised a fraction of their totals from that industry.
The article notes that while Greenpeace's understanding of money, oil and the presidential race is simplistic, a narrower focus on fundraising from oil industry lobbyists would be more difficult to shake off. However, it does not provide a similar analysis of how much of Bernie's fundraising has come from oil industry lobbyists. IMO, it should have before deciding to end on that note.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHome country: USA
Current location: Switzerland
Member since: Wed Oct 29, 2008, 04:01 PM
Number of posts: 15,374
