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

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:17 PM Jul 2015

Looks like the "Hillary's top donors are banks" meme needs to be debunked for the 200th time...

I'm talking about this chart. You've probably seen it in some Hillary bashing posts.


Somehow people read this and come out of it thinking that Citibank and JPMorgan have been writing checks to the Hillary's campaigns. So, sigh, once again.

--The totals shown are money contributed to Hillary from people who work at Citibank (or JPMorgan, etc). That's why it's in the "individuals" column.
--It is, in fact, illegal for corporations to contribute money directly to political campaigns.
--No, it's not one big check from the CEO, because campaign contributions are limited to $2700 per person (or whatever it was when she was running for Senate).
--It is wholly unsurprising that Hillary or any other politician from NY State would have a lot of donations from people working at Citibank or JPMorgan, because banks are some of the largest employers in the state.

In case you think I'm making this all up, this chart comes from opensecrets.org, and comes with the following explanation:

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.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019
143 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Looks like the "Hillary's top donors are banks" meme needs to be debunked for the 200th time... (Original Post) DanTex Jul 2015 OP
I'm recing this 'debunking' for exposure. PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2015 #3
The "debunk" is bunk. It's the same difference if Citibank writes the checks or gives bonus to rhett o rick Jul 2015 #16
Really? You have evidence that Citibank gives bonuses to people in order to get them to write DanTex Jul 2015 #19
What difference does it make if Citibank writes the check or all of it's exec's write the checks? rhett o rick Jul 2015 #21
OK, so no evidence. Another conspiracy theory. Good to know. DanTex Jul 2015 #22
"Banks are corporations that care about nothing but profit." < Which would give them the best motive jtuck004 Jul 2015 #42
If they do it what possible evidence would there be? zeemike Jul 2015 #48
It's the best kind of conspiracy theory... impossible to prove! DanTex Jul 2015 #63
It's also the best kind of conspiracy...one impossible to prove. zeemike Jul 2015 #79
Your pushing the meme that it isn't the big banks that support Clinton but just their rhett o rick Jul 2015 #112
During my 45-year working career, I worked for several large corporations, I was never asked... George II Jul 2015 #83
Well there you have it then, anecdotal evidence it never happens. zeemike Jul 2015 #87
Let's see the breakdown of Sanders' contributors employers for his NATIONAL contributions... George II Jul 2015 #100
Well what you see as a problem I see as a solution zeemike Jul 2015 #108
A candidate without a national presence will only win 3 electoral votes. George II Jul 2015 #109
You mean like Carter, Clinton, and Obama did? zeemike Jul 2015 #113
pretty much stupidicus Jul 2015 #45
However, it’s worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s... AlbertCat Jul 2015 #55
Funny how republican arguments such as these tymorial Jul 2015 #58
Those numbers are for ALL employees, not just executives. George II Jul 2015 #81
Yes, Hillary gets campaign contributions from companies headquartered in NY Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #2
Huge sums, actually. Bubzer Jul 2015 #62
Well that's not based in reality... Agschmid Jul 2015 #94
Allow me to clarify Bubzer Jul 2015 #129
What difference does it make?! I'm sure all those very well paid individuals brewens Jul 2015 #4
. Agschmid Jul 2015 #95
Well aware of that. And of what it really says. Wilms Jul 2015 #5
Well, most Democrats period prefer Hillary to Sanders. DanTex Jul 2015 #20
Straight up. Wilms Jul 2015 #27
...now tell me... DanTex Jul 2015 #31
Great song. Agschmid Jul 2015 #96
So, then, all bankers are Democrats? Bubzer Jul 2015 #65
Some are. For example, the ones that donated to Hillary. DanTex Jul 2015 #70
I'd venture an easy majority of Banksters are conservative (if not 3 out of 4). Bubzer Jul 2015 #80
Some are Dems on social issues Depaysement Jul 2015 #71
Of course the banks themselves don't cut big donation checks. Avalux Jul 2015 #6
How does this improve the situation for Clinton? OpenSecrets, Bernie Sanders: Jefferson23 Jul 2015 #7
What situation needs improving? DanTex Jul 2015 #8
Ok. n/t Jefferson23 Jul 2015 #25
Oh, of course. And most people in Vermont must work for unions, right? Makes sense! senz Jul 2015 #43
My neighbor who works for the Bank of New York is a huge Hillary fan! Walk away Jul 2015 #9
Many years ago I worked for the Bank of New York and was never "asked" to contribute... George II Jul 2015 #52
The Bank didn't ask for anything. Walk away Jul 2015 #116
No they didn't. In fact in 43 years of working not a single employer asked me... George II Jul 2015 #118
Of course. But good luck convincing the folks wearing those tin foil hats.... Walk away Jul 2015 #126
Since we're talking millions and millions of dollars, that's got to be thousand and thousands.... George II Jul 2015 #127
Or just the fringe element of our party who suspect conspiracy.... Walk away Jul 2015 #128
I am puzzled CTBlueboy Jul 2015 #10
Exactly. London Lover Man Jul 2015 #12
You can debunk this type of crapola 2,000,000 times ... NanceGreggs Jul 2015 #11
It's called BUNDLING. In 2008, the HRC campaign called their bundlers "Hillraisers" progressoid Jul 2015 #13
The "debunk" is bunk. While Citibank doesn't write the checks themselves, their employees rhett o rick Jul 2015 #14
Aha. So the new meme is that all 25,000 Citibank employees in New York state are DanTex Jul 2015 #18
... Phlem Jul 2015 #54
Can I second your plonk? Depaysement Jul 2015 #73
! Phlem Jul 2015 #74
You are just stating a bunch of jibberish. The bottom line is that the big banks rhett o rick Jul 2015 #110
It's still very telling when so many of your donors work for banks. HappyPlace Jul 2015 #101
You are exactly correct. The working people support Sen Sanders while the banksters support rhett o rick Jul 2015 #111
It also doesn't include money given to the candidates' Super-PACs. arcane1 Jul 2015 #15
So it's bankers, and not banks, that are going to run her white house. Well in that case Doctor_J Jul 2015 #17
No, Hillary Clinton is going to run her White House. George II Jul 2015 #104
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2015 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2015 #24
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2015 #28
It also is a reflection of campaign donations from 1999 to 2016. sufrommich Jul 2015 #26
How's this thread working out for you, DanTex? Scootaloo Jul 2015 #29
Well, the Hillary bashing swarm is here, of course. A conspiracy theory here, willful ignorance DanTex Jul 2015 #32
Gotcha. Facts counter to yours are "bashing' and "conspiracy theory" Scootaloo Jul 2015 #34
The conspiracy theory is that the banks are coercing the contributions with financial DanTex Jul 2015 #37
You're sounding kind of like Mitt Romney there, DanTex Scootaloo Jul 2015 #39
The exact opposite, in fact. I'm kind of disappointed in you here. DanTex Jul 2015 #41
So, what, all this money comes from tellers and janitors? Scootaloo Jul 2015 #44
It comes from individuals employed at the corporations. DanTex Jul 2015 #46
If you are as naive (which is unlikely) as your posts indicate, I have the deed to a bridge.... HERVEPA Jul 2015 #90
Actually, it's math. Banks don't hire people so bad at it that they can't figure out that DanTex Jul 2015 #93
It is when it's given through a corporate bundle.Any lobbying for pro-corporate interests thereafter ancianita Jul 2015 #134
The money is not given in a corporate bundle. It's being given by individuals. Not corporations. DanTex Jul 2015 #136
Most people don't know what you know, and I can tell you that it happens way more than any of ancianita Jul 2015 #137
Citibank execs know what I know, though. And can afford lawyers. DanTex Jul 2015 #138
Are their names on any "real" donor list you insist the OP chart doesn't represent? ancianita Jul 2015 #139
I don't understand the question. The OP chart represents donations from employees DanTex Jul 2015 #140
You don't distinguish the interests of the bundlers's names from those individuals within it. That's ancianita Jul 2015 #142
Oh, bundlers. No it doesn't list bundlers and it doesn't show what fraction of the contributions DanTex Jul 2015 #143
Fox news wants their saying back. HERVEPA Jul 2015 #88
So let me get this straight - bank executives are Exilednight Jul 2015 #30
I'm pretty sure the bank employees that donated to Hillary support her. DanTex Jul 2015 #33
According to the records, those "employees" are mostly executives. Exilednight Jul 2015 #92
A lot of those folks are contributing to other candidates too. Organizations typically Hoyt Jul 2015 #35
*facepalm* Man from Pickens Jul 2015 #36
"the fact that bankers overwhelmingly choose HRC is no accident - she's their candidate" Bubzer Jul 2015 #72
kicking frylock Jul 2015 #38
Gee, it's so interesting .... senz Jul 2015 #40
See below...... George II Jul 2015 #49
People don't understand that according campaign finance law, contributions over a certain amount.... George II Jul 2015 #47
Sure. Phlem Jul 2015 #61
Yes. George II Jul 2015 #69
Good luck with that! Phlem Jul 2015 #76
None of "the friends she keeps" can contribute more than $2700. George II Jul 2015 #77
You are completely missing my point. Phlem Jul 2015 #84
The geographic distribution of Hillary donors by zip code is interesting. senz Jul 2015 #50
Here's something else from that site, which explains how they know who the employers are.... George II Jul 2015 #51
BOOM! As always, the LEFT needs to lie to score points! MannyGoldstein Jul 2015 #53
Funny, isn't it? I thought the "left" would know the difference between corporations and people. DanTex Jul 2015 #60
Dude, do your self a favor and take a breath. Phlem Jul 2015 #85
You might not, but Manny does... DanTex Jul 2015 #86
While I can't speak for Manny Phlem Jul 2015 #89
Manny can speak for himself. DanTex Jul 2015 #91
Read it. Phlem Jul 2015 #98
I did. It says "2008". DanTex Jul 2015 #99
alright then. Difference of opinion. Valid. Phlem Jul 2015 #103
NOWHERE did he say he wished McC had won. kath Jul 2015 #105
Question: if you could reverse one election, which would it be. Answer: 2008. DanTex Jul 2015 #107
Possibly the most damming thing I've ever seen on DU MannyGoldstein Jul 2015 #114
Clarifying is the word that I'd use. DanTex Jul 2015 #122
Nah, we pretty much all know. zappaman Jul 2015 #123
Are you referring to Hillary preferring McCain over Obama? Ino Jul 2015 #120
No. Hillary endorse Obama and campaigned for him, in case you forgot. DanTex Jul 2015 #121
Only after she was eliminated. Ino Jul 2015 #124
Not as clearly as Manny. And I suspect many others on the far left. DanTex Jul 2015 #125
I hate when I agree with one of your posts. bravenak Jul 2015 #115
lol tymorial Jul 2015 #56
KnR and good luck. All they want is truthiness, not actual facts. Hekate Jul 2015 #57
Bankers... Not Banks. BANKERS Motown_Johnny Jul 2015 #59
so the gaping differences in "who" and "how much" are all good to go, then? MisterP Jul 2015 #64
Well, the difference in total fundraising is one of the reasons that Hillary is much better DanTex Jul 2015 #68
Her foundation accepted $81m from tax cheats and sex offenders, OnyxCollie Jul 2015 #66
I see banksters on one side and unions on the other Feeling the Bern Jul 2015 #67
Surely you're not that naive, but just in case ... GeorgeGist Jul 2015 #75
Corporations and people are different. I was under the impression that people DanTex Jul 2015 #78
KnR for clarity and exposure Sheepshank Jul 2015 #82
What manner of foaming self delusion be this? whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #97
Absolutely true HassleCat Jul 2015 #102
As as seasoned "donation getter" I have devised a counter argument to this thought Capn Sunshine Jul 2015 #106
I didn't realized that Bernie Sanders rejects all money from anyone who works at a bank. DanTex Jul 2015 #119
Maybe Bernie Sanders should take out an ad stating that anyone working for a bank.... Walk away Jul 2015 #117
Recent donor breakdowns show HRC's 17% are $200 or less, while Bernies' are 75% at $200 or less. ancianita Jul 2015 #130
That's because Bernie raised hardly any money from donations of over $200. DanTex Jul 2015 #131
All factually true, but my RECENT numbers undergird the OP chart's use in calling out union PACs ancianita Jul 2015 #132
The chart is most definitely not a "visual representation of corporate PACs for Hillary". DanTex Jul 2015 #133
Okay,I'll study it. Hill's hard put to erase the names that are the corporate aegis for individuals. ancianita Jul 2015 #135
You're not going to convince right wingers. It isn't even worth the time. NCTraveler Jul 2015 #141

Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #1)

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
16. The "debunk" is bunk. It's the same difference if Citibank writes the checks or gives bonus to
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:52 PM
Jul 2015

exec's who write the checks. Notice that Citibank exec's don't donate to Sen Sanders. Hmmm. It's not even very clever way to circumvent the law, but it fools some.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
19. Really? You have evidence that Citibank gives bonuses to people in order to get them to write
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:58 PM
Jul 2015

checks to Hillary? Or is that just another conspiracy theory. A link could clear this up.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
21. What difference does it make if Citibank writes the check or all of it's exec's write the checks?
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:08 PM
Jul 2015

It's a not-so-clever way around the law. But it doesn't fool anyone.

Tell me you don't think all the big banks prefer Clinton. I choose a candidate that will try to regulate the banks.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
22. OK, so no evidence. Another conspiracy theory. Good to know.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:14 PM
Jul 2015

And, yes, it makes a huge difference whether it's a company or it's employees that are contributing. You see, people who work at banks are people, who have a variety of interests and opinions. Banks are corporations that care about nothing but profit. Unless your conspiracy theory is true and the donations are being coerced. But I doubt that.

I think that the corporations themselves would like to see Bernie get nominated, because he would be much easier for the GOP to defeat. Democrats employed at the banks probably prefer Clinton, after all, most Democrats prefer Clinton to Sanders. And NY is her home state. People in Vermont probably prefer Sanders.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
42. "Banks are corporations that care about nothing but profit." < Which would give them the best motive
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:47 PM
Jul 2015

of nearly anyone, and a near psychopathic ability - what with all the arms, legs, eyes, and ears it controls - to commit nearly any act to improve it's position.

It's like Alien, but instead of Sigourney Weaver fighting it, you have Ms. Clinton nurturing the beast.

AAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol. ...serious mode re-engaged.

If Bernie got a nomination HE would actually mobilize the people that this president dangled.

And the corporations, many times a tool of the most evil of people and their lapdogs, know this deep in the cold pig iron that forms their bones.

And it makes even that beast shudder.




zeemike

(18,998 posts)
48. If they do it what possible evidence would there be?
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:05 PM
Jul 2015

Do you think they put out a memo saying you give to HRC and we will give you a bonus?
What kind of fools do you think they are?
You can never prove that quid pro quo and you know it. But it serves you well to dismiss what is obvious to most people.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
79. It's also the best kind of conspiracy...one impossible to prove.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:22 PM
Jul 2015

Only fools conspire in a way that can be proven.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
112. Your pushing the meme that it isn't the big banks that support Clinton but just their
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:21 AM
Jul 2015

employees. I bet that the janitors and secretaries don't donate to Clinton. It's the wealthy execs. The bank doesn't have to write the checks as long as they can encourage their wealthy exec's to do it.

George II

(67,782 posts)
83. During my 45-year working career, I worked for several large corporations, I was never asked...
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:29 PM
Jul 2015

....to contribute to any candidate and I was never given a "bonus" in order to contribute to a candidate.

Among the corporations I worked for were:

Bank of New York
Citicorp (YES, Citicorp!)
Honeywell International

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
87. Well there you have it then, anecdotal evidence it never happens.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:38 PM
Jul 2015

But no one evers says I want you to contribute to X and will give you a bonus to do it do they?
But some know that if they do certain things rewards will come...that is how it works.

It is like the interviewer asked this guy with mob ties how much it would cost to whack someone...and the mob guy told them that is not how it works. You do favors with the knowledge that you will be rewarded for it.

But perhaps all of that was above your pay grade.

George II

(67,782 posts)
100. Let's see the breakdown of Sanders' contributors employers for his NATIONAL contributions...
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:07 PM
Jul 2015

...once that's available.

Something always overlooked is that Sanders' elections have all been the relatively small and sparsely populated state of Vermont (290,000 voters in 2012) and he never had a national presence until April 2015.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
108. Well what you see as a problem I see as a solution
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:11 AM
Jul 2015

It's time for someone without a national presence...we have had nothing but bad things come out of those with national presence. Time for someone honest and trustworthy.

But Sanders does not have a super pack so that right there says a lot.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
113. You mean like Carter, Clinton, and Obama did?
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:35 AM
Jul 2015

No one had heard of them 2 years before the election...the same is true of W outside of Texas.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
55. However, it’s worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s...
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:52 PM
Jul 2015

"However, it’s worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s, rather than just donations to their current presidential bids. "

This tidbit makes it look even WORSE for Clinton!

tymorial

(3,433 posts)
58. Funny how republican arguments such as these
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:57 PM
Jul 2015

Are generally hated "Its okay that JP Morgan and Chase have given so much money to Clinton because they are the biggest employers!!!!!"

The Koch Brothers have a lot of employees too... lol Hypocrisy just makes me warm and tingly.

George II

(67,782 posts)
81. Those numbers are for ALL employees, not just executives.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:24 PM
Jul 2015

Sanders has been running exclusively in elections within Vermont - how many of the companies on Clinton's top employees' contributor lists have a presence in Vermont, and of those who do how many employees are there in Vermont?

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
2. Yes, Hillary gets campaign contributions from companies headquartered in NY
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:22 PM
Jul 2015

And it is in big sums of money.

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
62. Huge sums, actually.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:59 PM
Jul 2015

More than is accountable by the claim that members of a bank are donating to Hillary.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
94. Well that's not based in reality...
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:56 PM
Jul 2015

We aren't even talking members we are talking employees, if you add in members that # would be even higher, but no one tracks that.

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
129. Allow me to clarify
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 09:15 AM
Jul 2015

I'm not referring to depositors, or any other bank customer. In this instance, member = the various employees.

brewens

(13,612 posts)
4. What difference does it make?! I'm sure all those very well paid individuals
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:24 PM
Jul 2015

in the banking industry know who has their back. The big boys will pony up their share to her PAC I'm sure.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
95. .
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:57 PM
Jul 2015
I'm sure all those very well paid individuals in the banking industry know who has their back.


Yup, the Republicans.
 

Wilms

(26,795 posts)
5. Well aware of that. And of what it really says.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:26 PM
Jul 2015

You're underscoring the fact that something like 99 out of 100 people who work in Big Banks prefer Hillary to Sanders .

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
20. Well, most Democrats period prefer Hillary to Sanders.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:01 PM
Jul 2015

But 99 out of 100 people who work on Wall Street either work or live in New York, if that's what you're getting at. Not many of them contribute to Vermont senate campaigns, that's also true.

Also, people who live in Arizona don't contribute much to Vermont senate campaigns. Or New York senate campaigns, for that matter.

 

Wilms

(26,795 posts)
27. Straight up.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:25 PM
Jul 2015

She's in the pocket of Wall Street.

How Hillary Clinton Once Disappointed Elizabeth Warren on Wall Street Reform

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251442716

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
65. So, then, all bankers are Democrats?
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:02 PM
Jul 2015

I find that quite hard to believe. And, if that's not the case, how does one explain the absurdly large donations?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
70. Some are. For example, the ones that donated to Hillary.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:04 PM
Jul 2015

I'd say probably more are Republicans, but there are plenty of liberals in finance. For example, George Soros, Tom Steyer.

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
80. I'd venture an easy majority of Banksters are conservative (if not 3 out of 4).
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:22 PM
Jul 2015

So, the question still begs to be answered... how does one explain the absurdly large donations?
It certainly could not be explained away by pointing at the employees.

Avalux

(35,015 posts)
6. Of course the banks themselves don't cut big donation checks.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:28 PM
Jul 2015

It's worth noting who within those companies are donating. Hillary is buddies with Goldman Sach's CEO, and her hedge-fund manager son-in-law gets a nice chunk from him. Mr. CEO has stated publicly that he doesn't care whether Hillary or Jeb! win the presidency. Of course not, they'll both continue the status quo.

How can anyone expect her to champion any sort of meaningful reform with her ties to Wall Street? She won't.

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
7. How does this improve the situation for Clinton? OpenSecrets, Bernie Sanders:
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:30 PM
Jul 2015
Sanders Plays Small Ball on Fundraising, Still Racks Up Big Totals

by Russ Choma on May 4, 2015



Nobody will be asking Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) how he made his money nor how beholden he is to his corporate donors: He’s short on both commodities.

That’s not to say Sanders is a political naif or unfamiliar with the world of campaign fundraising. But his money profile isn’t much like most others in the crowded presidential field. In his career he has raised at least $19.5 million, including $7.2 million for his last Senate bid in 2012, in which he steamrolled an opponent who only brought in just $135,000. But, the vast majority of his funds come from individuals, and also (at least recently) from small donors — those who give $200 or less.

There are no lavish foreign donors to whom he owes favors. But he personally owes Visa quite a bit — possibly putting him more in line with the average American.

Sanders was first elected to Congress in 1988 and spent 18 years in the House before winning a Senate seat in 2006; he won reelection in 2012. He’s raised $19.5 million in the course of his congressional year, not counting the funds he raised for his first race (OpenSecrets.org data extends back only to 1989). Since 2009, Sanders has raised $8.1 million, of which 93 percent came from individual donors. Those giving $200 or less provided 61 percent of that ($4.9 million).

Compare that to the numbers posted by Sanders’ Senate colleague from Vermont, Patrick Leahy (D). Leahy raised $4.5 million over the last five years, with 67 percent coming from individual donors. But only $90,000 of that came from small donors. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — who had been rumored to be considering a run as the liberal counterpoint to presumed Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton — raised 97 percent of her funds in the last five years from individual donors, but only 47 percent of her total came from small donors. In Clinton’s last five years in the Senate, she also raised 93 percent of her cash from individual donors, but the large/small donor ratio was reversed — 77 percent of her cash came from large donors, and just 28 percent from the $200-and-under set.

Sanders has also raised about $520,000 from PACs in the last five years, the majority of it from labor union PACs. In fact, out of the top 20 sources of donations to Sander’s campaign, 12 were labor unions.

On Friday, Sanders said he had raised $1.5 million in his first official day as a presidential candidate, a number that’s impossible to confirm until July when his presidential campaign files its first disclosure. There is scant information on other candidates’ early fundraising, but according to a disclosure made by the presidential campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — who declared his candidacy in time to have to file a first-quarter FEC report — he raised $589,000 in donations from individuals giving donations of more than $200 in his first full day as a candidate, and $1.8 million from donors giving less than $200 in the first eight days of his campaign. There’s no way to know when those donations were made, but well could have come in his first day. In total, Cruz raised $4.3 million in his first eight days.

Personal Wealth

While Clinton battles critics and the press on questions about her plentiful personal wealth and whether or not special interests helped enrich her family or her husband’s charitable foundation while expecting favors returned, Sanders will likely have no such issues. According to his most recent personal financial disclosure, which covers the 2013 calendar year, Sanders has a net worth of $330,000 — a number that has been shrinking in recent years, in sharp contrast to most members of Congress.

Sanders’ biggest listed asset was an investment in a mutual fund valued at between $50,000 and $100,000, and the only investment in a single stock was one worth less than $1,000 in IBM.

On the liabilities side, Sanders listed owing between $25,000 and $65,000 on two different Visa cards.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/sanders-plays-small-ball-on-fundraising-still-racks-up-big-totals/

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
8. What situation needs improving?
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:32 PM
Jul 2015

She ran for senate in NY, and raised money from people who worked at the biggest employers in New York. There's no "situation".

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
9. My neighbor who works for the Bank of New York is a huge Hillary fan!
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:32 PM
Jul 2015

She held the block meetings for Clinton at her house when Hillary was running against President Obama. It will be the same this year and lots of the women who work with her will be there too. They donate the maximum and really get out the vote as well. Successful business women make up a large part of Hillary's base. They organize and use their skills on her behalf.

All of the Dems in my neighborhood are pretty excited about voting for Hillary!

George II

(67,782 posts)
52. Many years ago I worked for the Bank of New York and was never "asked" to contribute...
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:33 PM
Jul 2015

...to any political candidate.

I also worked for two large corporations, one of them Honeywell International (designated a "heavy hitter" by Opensecrets) and was never asked to contribute.

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
116. The Bank didn't ask for anything.
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 01:56 PM
Jul 2015

Just like minded professional women banding together to support their favorite candidate! I don't actually know many Bernie Sanders supporters outside of some of my niece's college friends. I live in a Blue town in a Blue state and the Hillary signs are already coming out!

George II

(67,782 posts)
118. No they didn't. In fact in 43 years of working not a single employer asked me...
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 02:39 PM
Jul 2015

...or to my knowledge anyone to contribute to any candidates. Actually, to do so is a violation of Federal campaign finance laws and probably a bunch of other labor laws, too.

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
126. Of course. But good luck convincing the folks wearing those tin foil hats....
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 02:40 PM
Jul 2015

It's their contention that no one could possibly support Hillary Clinton unless they were being forced to or paid to. If the Clintons are that powerful and rich why would the waste time serving as Presidents?

It's going to come as a big shock to them when the votes start rolling in.

George II

(67,782 posts)
127. Since we're talking millions and millions of dollars, that's got to be thousand and thousands....
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:18 PM
Jul 2015

....of people "forced" to make contributions or accepting "bonuses" to turn around and contribute that money.

I can't believe that there hasn't been a SINGLE person who balked and reported it to the FEC.

It's a rationale based on envy - envy that the fundraising effort of the "candidate of the people" is being dwarfed the "corporatist's" individual contributions.

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
128. Or just the fringe element of our party who suspect conspiracy....
Wed Jul 15, 2015, 03:54 PM
Jul 2015

in anything that doesn't support their own ideology.

 

CTBlueboy

(154 posts)
10. I am puzzled
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:33 PM
Jul 2015

That means HRC has friends within the organization that cut her checks and majority of them are Banks

So how does negate the fact Banking industry are her top donors

NanceGreggs

(27,816 posts)
11. You can debunk this type of crapola 2,000,000 times ...
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:36 PM
Jul 2015

... and it will still be posted over, and over, and over.

progressoid

(49,992 posts)
13. It's called BUNDLING. In 2008, the HRC campaign called their bundlers "Hillraisers"
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:43 PM
Jul 2015
One consequence of the limitation upon personal contributions from any one individual is that campaigns seek out "bundlers"—people who can gather contributions from many individuals in an organization or community and present the sum to the campaign. Campaigns often recognize these bundlers with honorary titles and, in some cases, exclusive events featuring the candidate.

Although bundling existed in various forms since the enactment of the FECA, bundling became organized in a more structured way in the 2000s, spearheaded by the "Bush Pioneers" for George W. Bush's 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. During the 2008 campaign the six leading primary candidates (three Democratic, three Republican) had listed a total of nearly two thousand bundlers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#cite_ref-nyt083107b_22-0


Clinton’s 2008 mega-donors wait with open wallets

Washington (CNN) – During Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, a loyal group of fundraisers – called the "Hillraisers" – donated and bundled millions of dollars for the then-senator's White House bid.

...

Alan Patricof, the man who founded the $20 billion private equity firm Apax Partners, was a substantial supporter of Clinton’s 2008 bid. When asked if he would look to bundle and fundraise for Clinton in 2016 - should she run - he said, “Yes, I can say that with certainty.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/30/clintons-2008-mega-donors-wait-with-open-wallets/




 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
14. The "debunk" is bunk. While Citibank doesn't write the checks themselves, their employees
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:47 PM
Jul 2015

do. These employees aren't welders, and pipefitters, they are exec's that personally profit from the special treatment their companies expect to get if their chosen candidate wins. The CEO's of the big corps essentially "pass the hat" for their exec's to donate to the company's candidate. It looks like all the "workers" at Citibank favor Clinton. Hmm. But they wouldn't be working there if they donated to Sen Sanders.

Goldman-Sachs equates Clinton and Bush equal. H. Clinton is favored by the big banks over Sen Sanders and trying to claim otherwise is bunk.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
18. Aha. So the new meme is that all 25,000 Citibank employees in New York state are
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:54 PM
Jul 2015

corrupt scumbags. That's progress, I guess.

And you're right, those people probably wouldn't be working at Citibank if they donated to Sanders's senate campaign (these charts are totals from previous senate campaigns, not the current one). This is because, if they donated to Sanders, they would probably be living in Vermont, where Citibank doesn't have many employees at all.

You'll also notice that neither Clinton nor Sanders raised much senate money from people who lived in Idaho. Fascinating stuff, really.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
110. You are just stating a bunch of jibberish. The bottom line is that the big banks
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:17 AM
Jul 2015

thru their employees (now isn't that sneaky?) are the big donors for H. Clinton. And it makes sense. She has close relationships with banks like Goldman-Sachs that helped bring Greece to it's knees and also HSBC, the bank that laundered drug money.

Sen Sanders represents the 99% while H. Clinton represents the big banks and Wall Street.

 

HappyPlace

(568 posts)
101. It's still very telling when so many of your donors work for banks.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:38 PM
Jul 2015

I think it's a distinction without a difference; people who work for whatever industry support the politicians that they think will support that industry.

And the handful of people I've met who are in the financial sector are nothing like a progressive and none are Democrats.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
111. You are exactly correct. The working people support Sen Sanders while the banksters support
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:19 AM
Jul 2015

H. Clinton.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
15. It also doesn't include money given to the candidates' Super-PACs.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:50 PM
Jul 2015

That's where the real money is, and we'll never know.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
17. So it's bankers, and not banks, that are going to run her white house. Well in that case
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 06:53 PM
Jul 2015


You guys kill me, really.

Response to DanTex (Original post)

Response to DanTex (Original post)

Response to 1000words (Reply #24)

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
26. It also is a reflection of campaign donations from 1999 to 2016.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:24 PM
Jul 2015

Which would reflect donations for state campaigns,hence the donations for both Clinton and Sanders are going to look significantly different.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
32. Well, the Hillary bashing swarm is here, of course. A conspiracy theory here, willful ignorance
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:31 PM
Jul 2015

there, but in the end I put up the facts, people make their own decisions.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
37. The conspiracy theory is that the banks are coercing the contributions with financial
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:39 PM
Jul 2015

incentives. I doubt that's factual.

Then there are people who aren't able to distinguish between corporations and their employees, (you know, that employees are people with varied interests and opinions, where corporations care only about profit). But I kind of expected that this distinction would be too subtle for some of the bashers. Then some people seem to be confused about the fact that Bernie ran in Vermont, while Hillary ran in NY, which means Bernie got money from Vermonters and Hillary got money from New Yorkers.

Still, like I said, I put the facts out there.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
39. You're sounding kind of like Mitt Romney there, DanTex
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:42 PM
Jul 2015


And getting about the same reaction he did from the crowd you're playing to.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
41. The exact opposite, in fact. I'm kind of disappointed in you here.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:45 PM
Jul 2015

Corporations are not people. That is precisely why the distinction between corporate money and money from people who work at a corporation is crucial. I wouldn't have pegged you for one of the people who couldn't grasp this.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
44. So, what, all this money comes from tellers and janitors?
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:55 PM
Jul 2015

Of course not. it's coming from individuals, yes - individuals who are maxing out their donation limits in the hopes that the candidate they fund will scratch their back in return.

That's why it's tracked, DanTex, so the public can know where hteir candidate's money is coming from and what impact it has on that candidate's legislation and policy positions.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
46. It comes from individuals employed at the corporations.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:03 PM
Jul 2015

Which, as I pointed out, is entirely different from money coming directly from a corporation.

Have you ever contributed to a campaign? I have. I've even maxed out. Did I do it in the hope that my preferred candidate would "scratch my back"? Obviously not. I did it because I supported that candidate and thought they would take the country in a good direction.

It's quite a stretch to think that those bank employees writing $1K and $2K checks to Hillary were trying to in effect bribe her to deregulate the banking industry so that the company they work for could make more profit which in turn would increase their bonus. In fact, financially that would be a very stupid decision, because there's no way that the effect of a $2K contribution is going to pay off in $2K of extra salary and bonuses.

These people are bankers. They know how to calculate expected profits. I wouldn't be surprised of some of the Hillary bashers thought that was a sound financial decision, but people who work at banks certainly do not.

 

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)
90. If you are as naive (which is unlikely) as your posts indicate, I have the deed to a bridge....
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:50 PM
Jul 2015

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
93. Actually, it's math. Banks don't hire people so bad at it that they can't figure out that
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:56 PM
Jul 2015

a $2700 campaign contribution intended as a bribe is a horrible investment. People who can't figure that out end up being Hillary bashing conspiracy theorists, not bankers.

ancianita

(36,129 posts)
134. It is when it's given through a corporate bundle.Any lobbying for pro-corporate interests thereafter
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:42 AM
Jul 2015

seldom have the workers' interests in mind -- those who were pressured (at least from my experience) to contribute through their employer.

I was a full donor who gave individually. You can't equate the bundlers' political influence with yours or mine or even the interests of their contributing employees.' The result of bundlers' political influence leaves workers' interests under the corporate aegis behind.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
136. The money is not given in a corporate bundle. It's being given by individuals. Not corporations.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:49 AM
Jul 2015

Not corporate PACs.

Have you been pressured by your employer to donate to a campaign? If so, contact a lawyer, because that's blatantly illegal.

It does sometimes happen with small businesses where the owner pressures employees to donate in accordance with his/her political views. But to think that a big, highly regulated bank is going to risk the legal fallout by coordinating employee donations to campaigns is more than slightly conspiratorial.

If a single employee at Citibank could show that they had been pressured to donate to Hillary, or if they were denied promotion because of a donation, or anything like that, they would win a settlement that would totally dwarf the $800K in total donations to Hillary from all Citi employees over all her career.

ancianita

(36,129 posts)
137. Most people don't know what you know, and I can tell you that it happens way more than any of
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:52 AM
Jul 2015

us want to believe. Affording a lawyer costs employees much less than capitulating to employee pressure.

Think on that.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
138. Citibank execs know what I know, though. And can afford lawyers.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:56 AM
Jul 2015

That's why I said it happens mostly with small businesses.

Like I said, if any Citi employee could show they were pressured or denied promotion or anything like that, they would win a settlement that would make all those Citi donations to Hillary look like pocket change. And that would be just the beginning of the problems for Citi. They'd be accused of corruption, possibly charges of bribery. They'd have to spend millions on PR because of the damage to their image.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
140. I don't understand the question. The OP chart represents donations from employees
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 11:02 AM
Jul 2015

at various corporations. Banks, or any other kind of corporation, are not allowed to donate to political campaigns.

ancianita

(36,129 posts)
142. You don't distinguish the interests of the bundlers's names from those individuals within it. That's
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 11:09 AM
Jul 2015

exactly how they mislead both the public and politicians later into believing that money of others somehow gives them legitimacy in pressuring legislation not in their individuals' favor but in their profit favor.

In her stump even Hillary fails to make the distinction in political influence after all the "individual" donations are in -- because she knows your explanation doesn't go over with middle and working class voters

Seriously.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
143. Oh, bundlers. No it doesn't list bundlers and it doesn't show what fraction of the contributions
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 11:12 AM
Jul 2015

are bundled. But the corporations aren't bundlers. Bundlers are individuals. Yes, they get more access to candidates than non-bundlers, but they are still individuals.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
30. So let me get this straight - bank executives are
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:28 PM
Jul 2015

maxing out donations, but they don't support Hillary?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
33. I'm pretty sure the bank employees that donated to Hillary support her.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:32 PM
Jul 2015

It would be strange for them to donate otherwise. Same goes for anyone else that donated to her.

Exilednight

(9,359 posts)
92. According to the records, those "employees" are mostly executives.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:55 PM
Jul 2015

These aren't the hourly paid tellers or branch managers, these are the 1%ers that are donating.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
35. A lot of those folks are contributing to other candidates too. Organizations typically
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:35 PM
Jul 2015

spread their money around, just in case another candidate wins or ends up in a influential position.

 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
36. *facepalm*
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:36 PM
Jul 2015

even if it is individuals all individually motivated and not a common bundling tactic designed to skirt the law, the fact that bankers overwhelmingly choose HRC is no accident - she's their candidate. And if you support their candidate you're their sucker.

Bubzer

(4,211 posts)
72. "the fact that bankers overwhelmingly choose HRC is no accident - she's their candidate"
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:16 PM
Jul 2015

Has the ring of truth to it.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
40. Gee, it's so interesting ....
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 07:44 PM
Jul 2015

Individuals who work for the nation's largest banks and blue chip corporations give money (in very large amounts) to Hillary Clinton, while individuals who work for unions give money (in smaller amounts) to Bernie Sanders.

I wonder what that could mean?

Uhh. Probably nothing...

George II

(67,782 posts)
47. People don't understand that according campaign finance law, contributions over a certain amount....
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:04 PM
Jul 2015

....($50 for local elections in Connecticut) have to be documented with the occupation and employer of the contributor.

What Opensecrets does (and other sites that publish details of candidates' contributors) is aggregate all employees from each individual business and publishes them.

Taking Citicorp for example, contributions from INDIVIDUALS (NOT the company itself) totaled $774,000. Considering that Citicorp has 241,000 employees, if only 5% of those employees contributed to her campaign, that's an average of $64 PER contributor.

Unfortunately people who don't understand campaign finance laws and the accompanying reporting requirements make the blind (uninformed) statement "Clinton got $774,000 from Citicorp - WHAT A SCANDAL!!!!"

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
84. You are completely missing my point.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:29 PM
Jul 2015

But that's OK, easier for me to say that than explain.

You have a good night bud.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
50. The geographic distribution of Hillary donors by zip code is interesting.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:16 PM
Jul 2015

Top Zip Codes

10021 (New York, NY) $4,311,473
10022 (New York, NY) $2,369,404
10023 (New York, NY) $2,057,897
10024 (New York, NY) $2,030,550
10128 (New York, NY) $1,889,039
10028 (New York, NY) $1,843,230
20007 (Washington, DC) $1,288,832
10019 (New York, NY) $1,263,733
20016 (Washington, DC) $1,229,333
20008 (Washington, DC) $1,220,957
10011 (New York, NY) $1,213,817
90210 (Beverly Hills, CA) $1,107,015
10025 (New York, NY) $1,067,721
10583 (Scarsdale, NY) $1,002,357
10014 (New York, NY) $981,813
10003 (New York, NY) $940,571
20815 (Chevy Chase, MD) $910,798
10017 (New York, NY) $841,119
20854 (Potomac, MD) $818,921
10013 (New York, NY) $765,099


Places in New York City, Washington D.C., Beverly Hills, Scarsdale, Chevy Chase, Potomac --

Would be interesting if they had info. on income ranges.

George II

(67,782 posts)
51. Here's something else from that site, which explains how they know who the employers are....
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:29 PM
Jul 2015

....(I mentioned this previously, noting in CT the limit is $50, Federal law it is $200):

Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided."

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
53. BOOM! As always, the LEFT needs to lie to score points!
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:35 PM
Jul 2015

BANKERS are Clinton's largest contributors, NOT BANKS as our lying moonbat friends claim.

That "ER" makes all the difference.

Regards,

TWM

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
60. Funny, isn't it? I thought the "left" would know the difference between corporations and people.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:57 PM
Jul 2015

Who knew that the Hillary bashers are cut from the same cloth as Mitt Romney?

But there were clues along the way -- like wishing that McCain had won the 2008 election.

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
85. Dude, do your self a favor and take a breath.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:32 PM
Jul 2015

I don't know of any DU'er that wished McCain had won!

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
89. While I can't speak for Manny
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:48 PM
Jul 2015

I've been here for a while and find it hard to believe that Manny would pick a Republican over a Democrat any time, any day. I think he just get's frustrated as anyone would when we think people are not connecting the dots. I'm a Socialist Democrat so you know my leanings.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
91. Manny can speak for himself.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:52 PM
Jul 2015
If you could reverse ONE election outcome, which would it be?


2008.
Edited on Mon Mar-28-11 06:18 PM by MannyGoldstein
In the prior elections, people got what they wanted, whether it was good or bad, perhaps with the exception of the stolen 2004 election (which was close, anyway). So, no matter who won, things would have generally gone the way they did. For example, Al Gore was an active participant in Clinton's development of the outsourced-torture "extraordinary rendition" program.

In 2008, people voted overwhelmingly for hope and change, but we got much other, for examples:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/resp...

This is an enormous problem. We've had almost 20% real unemployment for years, and more shoveling of worker's cash to the wealthiest. So now the Democratic brand is badly damaged, and the people have returned even-crazier Republicans to office in a desperate attempt for actual, helpful change. It's like the poor souls who leaped from the Twin Towers on 9/11 to avoid the fire. Awful, awful choices.

Would McCain's policies be much different? I don't see how. In addition, at least we'd have a chance for bringing in people with Democratic ideals in 2010 and 2012 - 2010 was a disaster, and 2012 is unlikely to see a good outcome at the Presidential level.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=761367&mesg_id=761480

Phlem

(6,323 posts)
98. Read it.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:01 PM
Jul 2015

Seems to me he's more reporting on 3rd Way policies from past to date, and I can't argue with him.

Maybe he went to far in his analysis, but this does not mean he supports the Republican candidate more than showing the flaws "Sarcastically" of our 3rd way policies to date.

Still doesn't convince me 100% that he is a Republican supporter.

Sorry.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
99. I did. It says "2008".
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:04 PM
Jul 2015

I didn't say he's a Republican supporter. I said he wished McCain won in 2008. Which is plainly, obviously, true.

kath

(10,565 posts)
105. NOWHERE did he say he wished McC had won.
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:49 PM
Jul 2015

Read it again -- (at least in your small snippet - I haven't tracked down the full post)he said that McCain's policies wouldn't have been much different, and speculated that Democrats might have been more motivated to come to the polls in 2010 and possibly the upcoming 2012 election. He did NOT say that he wished McCain had won.

"which is plainly, obviously, true" -- so you're a mindreader?

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
114. Possibly the most damming thing I've ever seen on DU
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 12:55 AM
Jul 2015

You should post this as an OP. People need to know.

Regards,

TWM

Ino

(3,366 posts)
120. Are you referring to Hillary preferring McCain over Obama?
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 03:24 PM
Jul 2015
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-says-she-and-mccain-offer-experience-obama-offers-speeches/
Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Funny, isn't that?! Hillary saying a Republican is a better choice than her Democratic opponent?!

Talk about throwing your own Party under the bus. She and Lieberman made a good team.

Ino

(3,366 posts)
124. Only after she was eliminated.
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 03:57 PM
Jul 2015

Before that, she made it clear that McCain would be a better choice than Obama. Which was pretty low, IMO.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
125. Not as clearly as Manny. And I suspect many others on the far left.
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 04:01 PM
Jul 2015

I didn't like the way she ran her 2008 campaign either. But she redeemed herself with everything she's done since then.

tymorial

(3,433 posts)
56. lol
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:53 PM
Jul 2015

--The totals shown are money contributed to Hillary from people who work at Citibank (or JPMorgan, etc). That's why it's in the "individuals" column.

Exactly, individuals from wall street have contributed millions of dollars to her career - 13 years.


--It is, in fact, illegal for corporations to contribute money directly to political campaigns.

True and yet Super PACs exist which allow crowd funding of multiple sources to funnel donations to a candidates. Corporations are people.


--No, it's not one big check from the CEO, because campaign contributions are limited to $2700 per person (or whatever it was when she was running for Senate).


Isn't this the arguments republicans use when defending PACs?


--It is wholly unsurprising that Hillary or any other politician from NY State would have a lot of donations from people working at
Citibank or JPMorgan, because banks are some of the largest employers in the state.


So if Hillary was a republican you would be just fine with wall street providing millions in campaign donations over their career? Oil Companies are some of the biggest employers too, are you super cool with them donating to republicans like Rick Perry?

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
59. Bankers... Not Banks. BANKERS
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 08:57 PM
Jul 2015

The same is true for Bernie. It is not unions donating, it is people who are in labor unions.


This still amounts to the same outcome.

The people supporting Hillary are the rich and the people supporting Bernie are middle class workers.l



DanTex

(20,709 posts)
68. Well, the difference in total fundraising is one of the reasons that Hillary is much better
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:03 PM
Jul 2015

suited to face the GOP attack machine than Sanders.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
66. Her foundation accepted $81m from tax cheats and sex offenders,
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:02 PM
Jul 2015

all through a bank that laundered $800m from Mexican drug cartels.

Clinton Foundation Received Up To $81m From Clients Of Controversial HSBC Bank - Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank

The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank. Leaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva.

They include Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate and one of the foundation’s biggest financial backers, and Richard Caring, the British retail magnate who, the bank’s internal records show, used his tax-free Geneva account to transfer $1m into the New York-based foundation.

~snip~

Giustra’s Swiss HSBC account, created in 2002, contained up to $10m in the 2006-2007 period. Lawyers for the mining magnate said that he held the account for investment purposes, and that it was in compliance with Canadian laws that required disclosure of foreign assets.

Caring was legitimately permitted to keep his assets offshore by a hereditary quirk of UK tax law, under which he is registered as “non-domiciled”, courtesy of his Italian-American father. The HSBC records suggest Caring’s $1m donation was paid in return for former president Bill Clinton’s attendance at a lavish costume charity ball organised by Caring in St Petersburg, Russia.

Another Clinton foundation donor who had a HSBC account in the tax haven is Jeffrey Epstein, the hedge fund manager and convicted sex offender who once flew the former president on his private jet for charity events in Africa. The identities of Clinton supporters who banked with HSBC in Geneva are contained in internal bank data leaked by a HSBC computer expert turned whistleblower, Hervé Falciani.
 

Feeling the Bern

(3,839 posts)
67. I see banksters on one side and unions on the other
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:02 PM
Jul 2015

Solidarity. I'll support my union brothers and sisters, not the banksters.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
78. Corporations and people are different. I was under the impression that people
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:22 PM
Jul 2015

on DU understood that. Was.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
102. Absolutely true
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 10:40 PM
Jul 2015

And what difference does it make? None that I can see. Many of those people will give money to both the Republican and Democratic candidate. They want access, and they cover their bases because they know they can show up in the office of either President Jeb Bush or President Hillary Clinton, and they will be remembered because they gave a bunch of money. Sanders does not get money from such people because they are reasonably confident it wouldn't do them any good, even if he would accept their money.

Capn Sunshine

(14,378 posts)
106. As as seasoned "donation getter" I have devised a counter argument to this thought
Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:50 PM
Jul 2015

We did this with Obama. "You want access to the eventual victor, don't you? The money means much more now than after the election. Don't expect anything, but access is pretty damn important, and it could be the difference you might measure in millions of dollars."

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
119. I didn't realized that Bernie Sanders rejects all money from anyone who works at a bank.
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 02:42 PM
Jul 2015

Do you have a link for that? It's kind of a strange policy to have.

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
117. Maybe Bernie Sanders should take out an ad stating that anyone working for a bank....
Tue Jul 14, 2015, 02:03 PM
Jul 2015

should not send in a donation. Better make that family members too because you don't want to take the chance of sullying his Purity with nasty bank money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Better include and one working for a oil company in any capacity!

ancianita

(36,129 posts)
130. Recent donor breakdowns show HRC's 17% are $200 or less, while Bernies' are 75% at $200 or less.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 09:57 AM
Jul 2015

What his less money, overall, indicates, apparently, is greater donor enthusiasm.

The chart's use around here certainly doesn't indicate conspiracy thinking at all. It indicates a map of historical allegiances that cross class lines.

Thus Hill's recent call for her AFT friend's help in to prop her corporate PAC list with worker support from a majority women's union.

Anyone's evidence can be argued as incomplete in primary days. That's not evidence of conspiracy.

If anything, the opensecrets timeline might reveals a past individual passive enthusiasm within the PACs intionality. The PACs are still corporate. Corporations are not people, even as people work within their spheres of influence.

The populist vote is a growing fight, one that Bernie can and will afford. Because evidence doesn't meet your clarity or recency standards doesn't mean you can proclaim "conspiracy" to discredit those who know these candidates' historical allegiances.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
131. That's because Bernie raised hardly any money from donations of over $200.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:04 AM
Jul 2015

For under $200, it's $8M for Hillary, $10M for Bernie. Pretty close, though I agree she needs to improve there by the time she gets to competing with the GOP.

For over $200, it's $38M for Hillary and $3M for Bernie.

So they are pretty close in small donors, and it's a landslide in larger donors. Of course, some might argue that a person donating $300 is more enthusiastic than a person donating $100...

ancianita

(36,129 posts)
132. All factually true, but my RECENT numbers undergird the OP chart's use in calling out union PACs
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:32 AM
Jul 2015

as somehow the same kind of PAC as corporate sponsored PACs. The OP called out users of this chart "conspiracists." But its worth depends on the context of its use around DU.You can add all the money comparisons you like here, but my intent in this thread is to stop label flinging. One can correct and improve people's relevant facts without the label flinging around here that stirs up cheap infighting.

My own issues are with citizen-worker representation. My issues align with the issues of most of DU'ers who want to gain more representative power in this country. I was recently fired up by my AFT's leadership failing to represent rank and file teaching professionals by compromising that representative process to endorse Hillary.

Union allegiances to this party need to be more closely representative of their numbers. This chart is a visual representation of corporate PACs for Hillary, a list that the AFT joined. Endorsing charters -- the corporate education agenda that Hillary endorses -- is the way to end the union teaching force, a collection of education expertise that has done far more to educate talent in America well than not well, that historically has earned its right to stand by all other unions.

I'm done with label flinging around here, when corrections that help citizen-worker representation power concern me.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
133. The chart is most definitely not a "visual representation of corporate PACs for Hillary".
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:38 AM
Jul 2015

It's the opposite of that. Did you even look at the chart? Hillary's donations almost entirely fall under the "individuals" column and not the "PACs" column.

I'm not calling out union PACs. Unions are great. Even the ones who endorse Democrats who might not be my top choice for presidential nominee.

But this chart is the furthest thing possible from a representation of corporate PACs for Hillary.

ancianita

(36,129 posts)
135. Okay,I'll study it. Hill's hard put to erase the names that are the corporate aegis for individuals.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 10:46 AM
Jul 2015

As I've said elsewhere, it's not conspiracy to want to disassociate worker-citizens donations from corporate fictional personhoods.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
141. You're not going to convince right wingers. It isn't even worth the time.
Thu Jul 16, 2015, 11:02 AM
Jul 2015

They are low information voters and the truth is insignificant.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Looks like the "Hill...