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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Magoo48

(4,660 posts)
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:00 PM Nov 2018

Ocasio-Cortez is right on point. Democrats can't fully condemn Big Oil while taking their payola.

I hope she and other new Congress Critters go after Big Oil hard.

Here's what each Rep. in this piece has taken from Big Oil:

Rep. Cuellar: $708,127
Rep. Pallone: $135,689
Rep. DeFazio: $74,420
Rep. Lowenthal: $47,850
Rep. Beyer: $47,452
Rep. Huffman: $18,000
Rep. Garamendi: $7,750

We welcome any politician willing to join the 35 (& counting!) Members of Congress who've signed the #NoFossilFuelMoney pledge: http://nofossilfuelmoney.org/politician-signup/

**Note: These totals are solely Oil & Gas – they don't include coal industry contributions, nor do they include fossil fuel-dominated utility money. In light of that, these are likely substantial underestimates.

129 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ocasio-Cortez is right on point. Democrats can't fully condemn Big Oil while taking their payola. (Original Post) Magoo48 Nov 2018 OP
Jesse M. Unruh former CA Treasurer. nycbos Nov 2018 #1
that's sadly nonsense though...that money doesn't keep coming in if you're voting against them. nt JCanete Nov 2018 #2
Wall Street donated a lot of money to Obama in 2008, and 2012. nycbos Nov 2018 #4
okay, sure, but what does hedging your bet mean then? nt JCanete Nov 2018 #8
President Obama never made Wall Street 1%ers pay for their crimes against our common welfare. Magoo48 Nov 2018 #19
Your point? George II Nov 2018 #31
Post removed Post removed Nov 2018 #40
You're calling Obama corrupt. betsuni Nov 2018 #42
That is a great way to stop a ligitimate conversation on here HopeAgain Nov 2018 #55
What? betsuni Nov 2018 #58
On this, I'm with you, Magoo. earthshine Nov 2018 #46
To be honest, "Wall Street" didn't donate a lot of money to Obama in those two campaigns, but.... George II Nov 2018 #51
And not one banker was prosecuted for their criminal behavior. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #59
"quid, meet quo" ..So the purpose is punishment.. JHan Nov 2018 #98
The bankers and other financial industry people created the near disaster. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #120
guillaumeb we know those things.. but you have judged Obama as a shill.. JHan Nov 2018 #121
I judge his actions as a failed response to the crisis. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #122
A failed response to the crisis? JHan Nov 2018 #123
Yes, because the criminals went free. And were rewarded. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #124
So once again for you it's all about punishment. JHan Nov 2018 #125
My position is for equal justice under the law. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #126
and mine isn't ? You're on a progressive board. Here's the thing: JHan Nov 2018 #127
"Wall Street contributes a LOT of money to a LOT of candidates. "Wall Street" encompasses.... George II Nov 2018 #119
Then there are certainly a few that don't belong there. Magoo48 Nov 2018 #18
As well as Billion $$$ Media Corporations. Bfd Nov 2018 #3
maybe she can be on a committee samnsara Nov 2018 #5
Agree completely!! Thekaspervote Nov 2018 #53
I am afraid we are becoming like repubs wasupaloopa Nov 2018 #6
Tea Party was succesful...and for that matter, wasn't at all grass-roots. It wsas astroturfed. It JCanete Nov 2018 #9
Tea Party Skidmore Nov 2018 #13
but again, its because the Tea Party's ideas are antiquated and very poorly thought out. JCanete Nov 2018 #14
No to coercion. Stand clean next to what you believe in. Magoo48 Nov 2018 #17
I see this much more as a dynamic exchange of ideas LanternWaste Nov 2018 #24
You are so right. Some of us are following Chickensoup Nov 2018 #82
BS proposal without campaign finance reform... JCMach1 Nov 2018 #7
The funding that wants to be dark is dark now. What is your proposal? nt JCanete Nov 2018 #10
Have to sort a way to throttle the dark money and circumvent the BS JCMach1 Nov 2018 #12
With you. Small-Axe Nov 2018 #11
Integrity for financing is always a shitty deal. Magoo48 Nov 2018 #15
Not an AOC fan and liking her less and less every day... LenaBaby61 Nov 2018 #16
I was thinking just the opposite; the more fierce she becomes the more I like her. Magoo48 Nov 2018 #21
+1 melman Nov 2018 #62
So do I. The woman is fearless. We need that. Autumn Nov 2018 #65
absolultely Locrian Nov 2018 #105
Me neither.. leadership is not going in new and telling everyone what you will and won't do or else Thekaspervote Nov 2018 #54
Is the point that these Representatives have been bribed and are not to be trusted making policy? The Polack MSgt Nov 2018 #20
Let me ask you this. Do only Republicans crumble under weight of payola and the ravenous greed Magoo48 Nov 2018 #27
So,the answer is yes. Yes you do believe these Rep.s are tainted. The Polack MSgt Nov 2018 #36
I believe that openly addressing our shortcomings can only make us stronger. Magoo48 Nov 2018 #41
Not if the "shortcomings" are imaginary. betsuni Nov 2018 #43
They don't have to be bribed. They just have to be liked by an industry. That they are liked JCanete Nov 2018 #28
These are democrats, why are they being OPENLY ATTACKED here at DU? What the FUCK? Eliot Rosewater Nov 2018 #29
Good point. Instead of simply attacking Democratic leaders, I would like to see factual evidence Wintryjade Nov 2018 #37
Yes. There is this treestar Nov 2018 #45
betcha it's people working in those industries... I'll take that bet. JHan Nov 2018 #61
Quite simply and objectively - people should go to opensecrets.org and fec.org to see.... George II Nov 2018 #22
Unclear here which attacks you might be referring to... Magoo48 Nov 2018 #30
The attacks on politicians who are being accused of accepting money from "big oil"... George II Nov 2018 #32
So why does it always be either-or scenario? The world can not function beachbum bob Nov 2018 #23
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!! Throw them out of the party! Have them arrested! Stinky The Clown Nov 2018 #25
Exactly. Wintryjade Nov 2018 #38
Beto O'Rourke was at the top of the list according to Open Secrets oberliner Nov 2018 #26
What do those numbers represent? George II Nov 2018 #33
Campaign contributions from the Oil and Gas Industry oberliner Nov 2018 #39
From "Oil and Gas Industry" or EMPLOYEES who work for the "Oil and Gas Industry".... George II Nov 2018 #47
Bazinga! sheshe2 Nov 2018 #63
This sector regularly pumps the vast majority of its campaign contributions into Republican coffers oberliner Nov 2018 #71
Exactly as I thought... a completely BOGUS accusation in the OP! NurseJackie Nov 2018 #67
What is the bogus accusation? oberliner Nov 2018 #70
Explained elsewhere in this thread. I'm sure you can... NurseJackie Nov 2018 #76
Can you point to a specific post? oberliner Nov 2018 #81
Yes I can. NurseJackie Nov 2018 #85
Ok, thank you oberliner Nov 2018 #86
I bet you didn't miss it at all. R B Garr Nov 2018 #106
The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. oberliner Nov 2018 #69
But not a single penny from an oil or gas company, correct? George II Nov 2018 #93
Just the people who manage those companies oberliner Nov 2018 #97
"Just the people who manage", or those who manage among the people who contribute? George II Nov 2018 #111
Is that the reason why JP Morgan Chase was on AOC's list of donors in the primary? lapucelle Nov 2018 #75
Well well well... you make an excellent point. What do you know? NurseJackie Nov 2018 #77
+1 betsuni Nov 2018 #80
Kim Morton and Jerry Garcia were her two donors from JP Morgan Chase oberliner Nov 2018 #84
It was listed as money from JP Morgan Chase. lapucelle Nov 2018 #88
Federal Election Commission website oberliner Nov 2018 #89
Interesting reading... lapucelle Nov 2018 #91
Thanks oberliner Nov 2018 #99
Whoosh! Where did you read that the JP Morgan Chase primary election money lapucelle Nov 2018 #115
But if people simply use the same criteria that has been used against other Democratic candidates... George II Nov 2018 #96
I think people donate to candidates that they think will be good for them oberliner Nov 2018 #100
That's why oil and gas and other industries overwhelming donate to Republicans. betsuni Nov 2018 #103
You mean like ex-Republicans such as Justice Democrats founder R B Garr Nov 2018 #107
That's basically the logic behind people contributing, they think the person they contribute to... George II Nov 2018 #112
That's correct. Small-Axe Nov 2018 #92
THIS !!!! uponit7771 Nov 2018 #128
Again I will ask: Magoo48 Nov 2018 #35
There are contribution limits, no politician takes "large sums of money" from anyone. George II Nov 2018 #48
But it certainly does sound ominious and scary and corrupt when... NurseJackie Nov 2018 #78
Taking large sums of money from industry in return for favorable legislation is illegal. betsuni Nov 2018 #57
Go after Citizens United first. Qutzupalotl Nov 2018 #34
Even though I usually hate sports metaphors, here I go The Polack MSgt Nov 2018 #44
As an old offensive (and defensive) tackle, I agree on all points. Small-Axe Nov 2018 #64
I know... it's totally insane for anyone to intentionally put themselves at a disadvantage... NurseJackie Nov 2018 #79
They call holding when they catch O-linemen grabbing jerseys oberliner Nov 2018 #87
Which means get the court treestar Nov 2018 #50
"DeFazio is one of our best reps, period." Stinky The Clown Nov 2018 #56
Trashing Demsrule86 Nov 2018 #49
Most of big oils money goes toward defeating democrats. What does that tell you? pwb Nov 2018 #52
Of course. Glad she's talking about it, elleng Nov 2018 #60
Pelosi has mentioned Buckley v Valeo a long while now.. JHan Nov 2018 #73
+1 betsuni Nov 2018 #83
So what's being advocated here is that a file clerk who works for an oil company... George II Nov 2018 #66
I disagree with Rep. Cuellar frequently, TexasTowelie Nov 2018 #68
Yes, those are political realities. JHan Nov 2018 #74
I never worried about the contributions that are acknowledged pecosbob Nov 2018 #72
Tenth trashed thread ismnotwasm Nov 2018 #90
Democrats are not going to win elections by calling for the dismantling of industries. Small-Axe Nov 2018 #94
Climate change will only get worse if we maintain the status quo oberliner Nov 2018 #102
Yes, Republicans in charge is maintaining the status quo and very bad for climate change. betsuni Nov 2018 #104
You should read up on what Al Gore has to say about this R B Garr Nov 2018 #109
Yup, totally nutty. Someone needs to educate her on Al Gore's R B Garr Nov 2018 #108
She needs to focus on HER district. LBM20 Nov 2018 #95
Climate change impacts everyone in every district oberliner Nov 2018 #101
The more I think about this the more facepalming it is. JHan Nov 2018 #110
So how do you, she, and others involved in this discussion feel about out of state money? George II Nov 2018 #113
Out-of-state money certainly does muddy the waters with regard to someone's TRUE popularity... NurseJackie Nov 2018 #116
My thought is, if contributions from a particular industry signal a desire for actions on the part.. George II Nov 2018 #117
"77% of the contributions came from out of state." --- WOW! That's amazing! NurseJackie Nov 2018 #118
Once again, AOC shows that she knows the words but not the music... Blue_Tires Nov 2018 #114
Sure. Because there can be no revolushun without breaking the strongest protectors of American Bfd Nov 2018 #129

nycbos

(6,033 posts)
1. Jesse M. Unruh former CA Treasurer.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:02 PM
Nov 2018

"If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you've got no business being up here."

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
2. that's sadly nonsense though...that money doesn't keep coming in if you're voting against them. nt
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:06 PM
Nov 2018

nycbos

(6,033 posts)
4. Wall Street donated a lot of money to Obama in 2008, and 2012.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:15 PM
Nov 2018

This despite Dodd/Frank and the creation of the CFPB.

People who have enough money hedge there bet.

Response to George II (Reply #31)

George II

(67,782 posts)
51. To be honest, "Wall Street" didn't donate a lot of money to Obama in those two campaigns, but....
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 06:12 PM
Nov 2018

....employees of "Wall Street" (clerical workers, maintenance workers, service workers, etc.) contributed to Obama.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
98. "quid, meet quo" ..So the purpose is punishment..
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:40 AM
Nov 2018

Because the bankers you wanted to be ruined were not personally ruined, Obama was compromised despite whatever else he got accomplished. Despite the fact the banks spent millions daily trying to hamstring Dodd frank - which contained some of the biggest bank reforms in decades.

So we have this spectacle where Democrats created Wall Street regulations, under Obama, but he still gets called a shill.

I think that's telling.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
120. The bankers and other financial industry people created the near disaster.
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 01:51 PM
Nov 2018

And nothing was done, other than to bail them out and buy up their failed investment holdings.

And millions lost their homes, and their savings.

And Dodd Frank replaced what bi-partisan compromise previously allowed to be eliminated. And that was regulations that prevented behavior that lead directly to the failure of 2008.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
121. guillaumeb we know those things.. but you have judged Obama as a shill..
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 01:57 PM
Nov 2018

because they didn't face the guillotine ( metaphorically) while ignoring whatever else he did, that is a one dimensional and incorrect take, a smear.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
122. I judge his actions as a failed response to the crisis.
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:01 PM
Nov 2018

As I judged his actions in not investigating and possibly prosecuting Bush and others in his Administration for lying the country into a war.

He traded these things in hopes of securing bi-partisan co-operation with the GOP. The same can be said of the ACA. It was a GOP plan endorsed by the Heritage Foundation.

That does not make him a shill, but a man who misjudged.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
123. A failed response to the crisis?
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:05 PM
Nov 2018

do you remember what Democrats had on their plate at the time?

You tell me where impeachment was going to fit in? Have you forgotten the public hearings? Is institutional memory no longer a thing?

You insinuated he's a shill- You said "quid pro quo" you are suggesting that he was compromised.

what did Democrats have on their plate at the time? - Healthcare, the bailout.. trying to save the economy...why do I need to remind democrats of all this? And if some wanted him to do even more, they had a duty to vote in 2010 didn't they?

And the politcal metric of going after an impeachment at the time given what they had before them was a risk . People's priorities were the economy and getting things back on track.

you know I wish we lived in perfect world where we always get what we want but we don't.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
124. Yes, because the criminals went free. And were rewarded.
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:10 PM
Nov 2018

I said nothing about impeachment because Bush was no longer President.

And as I explained, I feel he traded a lack of action on possible criminal behavior in hopes of bi-partisan compromise. A trade that was met with over 400 filibusters.

So your claim is incorrect.

As to 2010, that was a failure of voters to recognize that the voters are the most important part of the political process. I never blamed President Obama for the failure of voters to actually vote in 2010. And in 2014.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
125. So once again for you it's all about punishment.
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:12 PM
Nov 2018

My take is very different. I focus on what is done in response to what was actually an industry wide crisis due to irresponsible risk taking.

My claims are not incorrect - you are making claims about the man's intent.

Dodd Frank was not a joy for Republicans either.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
126. My position is for equal justice under the law.
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:14 PM
Nov 2018

And we both know that rich people rarely suffer for their actions. Trump is the perfect example, as is Jamie Dimon.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
127. and mine isn't ? You're on a progressive board. Here's the thing:
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:23 PM
Nov 2018

Hate bankers all you like

Know why I've had it with the "Obama didn't prosecute the bankers" meme? because it is the wrong conversation starter.

You start the conversation with: which of our laws allow bankers to get away with excessive risk taking You start with the law and take it from there and what was possible, not possible at the time.

For example in Iceland, and their pots and pans rebellion, Icelandic bankers went to jail but their crimes were run of the mill : we're talking tax evasion, insider trading, Ponzi schemes etc.

Lehman and Bear Stearns and the rest of them were selling terrible products and engaged in risk-taking - which risked the *system* but it wasn't just them alone. Smaller financial institutions took risks as well. Unregulated risk-taking by mortgage brokers and realtors across the country led to the crisis. Handing out shoddy products without proper documentation and shafting best anti-risk practices created a bubble. Easy money came and people enjoyed their fat commission cheques. And I haven't even touched on the Fed policy of low-interest rates.

This was greed on a massive scale. So you start with fixing how the system came to be so much at risk. what you don't do is smear people who try to fix the laws.

George II

(67,782 posts)
119. "Wall Street contributes a LOT of money to a LOT of candidates. "Wall Street" encompasses....
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 01:34 PM
Nov 2018

...brokers, clerical workers in the back rooms, maintenance and custodial workers, telephone operators, etc. And if banks are to be included in "Wall Street" or some other perceived negative industry, there there are tens of thousands of average Americans working in those industries.

ALL of those people are lumped into "Wall Street" or the "Financial Industry" or "Pick your big bad industry". Bottom line, campaigns are financed by millions of plain, ordinary, every-day AMERICANS!

 

Bfd

(1,406 posts)
3. As well as Billion $$$ Media Corporations.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:12 PM
Nov 2018

If they didn't like your message they wouldn't allow your voice.
Ask Hillary Clinton how much coverage those Billion $$$ Media Corporations gave her voice.

Who all has been Corporate Media's darlings.
Trump, certainly.


samnsara

(17,572 posts)
5. maybe she can be on a committee
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:19 PM
Nov 2018

...seriously its either BIG oil..BIG Pharma...endangered species...climate...gun control...we have so much..its a sin to concentrate on just ONE plight because someone screams the loudest about it...Some things will get solved quicker than others but that doesnt mean they are back burnered or less important...we are GOOD but we CANT do EVERYTHING at once! Start at local levels..maybe the easiest way to solve these problems, but dont go squawking at the Sr leadership.. Good lord they are trying to save our country... from facism and whatever else trump is tossing our way. They need our help not our backstabbing. Shame on us.



plz dont jump on me for this.. just had a tooth filled and my mouth is numb.. Im just heart broken how some of our own are treating some very well established, battle tried and tested, loyal and respected, true blue thru and thru Senior Statespeople. its sad. We are supposed to respect each other and support each other and its sad when that doesnt happen.

 

wasupaloopa

(4,516 posts)
6. I am afraid we are becoming like repubs
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:24 PM
Nov 2018

in coercing members to toe the line on some form of agenda.

It is very much like what the tea party did.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
9. Tea Party was succesful...and for that matter, wasn't at all grass-roots. It wsas astroturfed. It
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:33 PM
Nov 2018

just got out of the Republican establishment's hands. And what it wanted was shit that was horrible.

Progressive democrats on the other hand, want things that I keep being told here we all agree on. So whats the problem? If they can effect change this way, then good. Its the RIGHT kind of change.

Skidmore

(37,364 posts)
13. Tea Party
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:02 PM
Nov 2018

is also goose stepping into oblivion. Thoughtful discussion and planning would be helpful now that we have achieved power.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
14. but again, its because the Tea Party's ideas are antiquated and very poorly thought out.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:04 PM
Nov 2018


These progressive ideas really are the path to a better future, and we aren't goosestepping to the left.

Chickensoup

(650 posts)
82. You are so right. Some of us are following
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 08:01 PM
Nov 2018

The republicans play book. Any one
who is not falling in line is attacked
Viciously.
Any way ms Cortez you are a breath
of fresh air, your courage is inspiring,
and in short supply. Keep going god
bless and god speed.
I LOVE U.

JCMach1

(27,544 posts)
7. BS proposal without campaign finance reform...
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:27 PM
Nov 2018

The funding will just go dark...

Not an AOC fan and liking her less and less every day...

JCMach1

(27,544 posts)
12. Have to sort a way to throttle the dark money and circumvent the BS
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 04:58 PM
Nov 2018

SC rulings regarding funding.

LenaBaby61

(6,965 posts)
16. Not an AOC fan and liking her less and less every day...
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:08 PM
Nov 2018

She's trying to do too much, too soon, too fast. She just got TO Washington DC.

She's going to get into real trouble if she doesn't slow down and actually take all in first, work for her constituents and get herself somme footing first. Reset NOW that she's part of the DC Machine.

We're in for the fight of our LIVES vs thuglicans in the Senate, our courts are getting stacked with YOUNG RWNJ's, and she wants to make everything "perfect," right away.

Dems eating their OWN






Magoo48

(4,660 posts)
21. I was thinking just the opposite; the more fierce she becomes the more I like her.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:21 PM
Nov 2018

We will need many more of our Democrats in the House to Catch fire like her. Bring the high heat.

Locrian

(4,522 posts)
105. absolultely
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 08:02 AM
Nov 2018

The planet is burning, the gop is shredding democracy, the corporate/wealthy are looting the country - and some people want to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic.

The Polack MSgt

(13,159 posts)
20. Is the point that these Representatives have been bribed and are not to be trusted making policy?
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:16 PM
Nov 2018

Then I would like some links showing their questionable votes or perhaps screen shots of the cut and paste verbiage from industry "think Tanks" grafted into their proposals.

After all we can easily find such things from ALEC supported politicians.

Rep. Cuellar, Rep. Pallone, Rep. DeFazio, Rep. Lowenthal, Rep. Beyer, Rep. Huffman and Rep. Garamendi are all tainted? Is this the list of Democrats to be challenged in the 2020 primaries?

That Garamendi dude is a real chancre ain't he? $7,750? Bought and paid for - at only $7,750 - my my my.

I'm sure this "nofossilfuelmoney.org" group has vetted these amounts and they all represent CORPORATE money, not donations from individuals who work in those industries.

I would also like to see the list of GOP representatives that the No fossil fuel money people are going after.

You know since promoting a group that only attacks Democrats seems like an odd this to do on a Democratic Forum

Magoo48

(4,660 posts)
27. Let me ask you this. Do only Republicans crumble under weight of payola and the ravenous greed
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:31 PM
Nov 2018

which accompanies the knowledge that there’s more where that came from.

The Polack MSgt

(13,159 posts)
36. So,the answer is yes. Yes you do believe these Rep.s are tainted.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:46 PM
Nov 2018

Not only tainted- they are are also crumbling under the weight of payola and evidently posses ravenous greed.

Unfortunately, I can't disprove that position out of hand but personally I need to see proof.

Look, we all want money out of the process. The Agenda floated by Rep. Pelosi includes beginning that fight by passing legislation in the house. Which is all we can do since we only hold a majority in the house.

A majority that includes the people you list here in this OP.

If this group is going after the GOP then I can see posting this here - But it sure looks like they are attacking Democrats exclusively.



 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
28. They don't have to be bribed. They just have to be liked by an industry. That they are liked
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:33 PM
Nov 2018

means something about how favorable their policies are to that industry, versus say, a primary competitor(more likely than a republican challenger).

 

Wintryjade

(814 posts)
37. Good point. Instead of simply attacking Democratic leaders, I would like to see factual evidence
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:47 PM
Nov 2018

the receiving any money has changed their liberal voting record. If that cannot be done, then what is the point of the laser sharp attack on Democrats. It is like attacking Pelosi not being liberal (progressive) enough when she votes exactly as the liberal/progressive. Non factually based attacks. Just enough.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
45. Yes. There is this
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:58 PM
Nov 2018

Assumption they will legislate with that in mind. That can only rest on the assumption that voters respond only to expensive campaigns.

George II

(67,782 posts)
22. Quite simply and objectively - people should go to opensecrets.org and fec.org to see....
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:22 PM
Nov 2018

....the money various politicians have received and disbursed, including the one mentioned in the subject line, and also look at the methodology/disclaimer behind the numbers published by opensecrets.org

It might shut down some of these attacks.

Magoo48

(4,660 posts)
30. Unclear here which attacks you might be referring to...
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:36 PM
Nov 2018

would that be AOC’s attacks on Big Oil or what exactly?

George II

(67,782 posts)
32. The attacks on politicians who are being accused of accepting money from "big oil"...
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:37 PM
Nov 2018

..."pharma", "Wall Street", etc.

An understanding of the numbers people are using to back such attacks, and the FEC regulations, would most likely reduce such attacks by 99%.

 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
23. So why does it always be either-or scenario? The world can not function
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:24 PM
Nov 2018

with zero oil based products....having this kind of line in the sand never serves a useful purpose.

Stinky The Clown

(67,697 posts)
25. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!! Throw them out of the party! Have them arrested!
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:29 PM
Nov 2018

Take Away Their Library Cards!

No Lunch For Them.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
26. Beto O'Rourke was at the top of the list according to Open Secrets
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:30 PM
Nov 2018
1 O'Rourke, Beto (D-TX) $429,752
2 Ryan, Paul (R-WI) $391,763
3 Cramer, Kevin (R-ND) $374,901
4 Brady, Kevin (R-TX) $339,200
5 McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $338,275
6 Hurd, Will (R-TX) $289,141
7 Scalise, Steve (R-LA) $271,830
8 Walden, Greg (R-OR) $245,400
9 Denham, Jeff (R-CA) $243,687
10 Culberson, John (R-TX) $223,337
11 McSally, Martha (R-AZ) $221,285
12 Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN) $220,372
13 Sessions, Pete (R-TX) $211,650
14 Graves, Garret (R-LA) $192,350
15 Gianforte, Greg (R-MT) $184,438
16 Olson, Pete (R-TX) $174,228
17 Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) $161,400
18 Flores, Bill (R-TX) $158,850
19 Shimkus, John M (R-IL) $143,250
20 Mullin, Markwayne (R-OK) $137,450

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2018&recipdetail=H&mem=Y&sortorder=U

George II

(67,782 posts)
47. From "Oil and Gas Industry" or EMPLOYEES who work for the "Oil and Gas Industry"....
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 06:01 PM
Nov 2018

...Do you realize that if someone works at an Exxon station pumping gas and he contributes to a candidate, his contribution is included in the category "Oil and Gas Industry"?

Someone who cleans the toilets at a Citibank branch in Manhattan who contributes to a candidate is included in the category "financial industry".

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
71. This sector regularly pumps the vast majority of its campaign contributions into Republican coffers
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:26 PM
Nov 2018
Led by the oil and gas industry, this sector regularly pumps the vast majority of its campaign contributions into Republican coffers. Even as other traditionally GOP-inclined industries have shifted somewhat to the left, this sector has remained rock-solid red.

Since the 1990 election cycle, more than two-thirds of this sector's contributions to candidates and party committees has gone to Republicans. Besides oil and gas, the electric utilities industry is another big donor in this sector. Less generous, but even more partisan, is the mining industry.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?cycle=2018&ind=E01
 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
86. Ok, thank you
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 08:16 PM
Nov 2018

And side note: That Madeline Kahn clip from Clue cracks me up every time!

Edit to add: I think I missed which post you pointed to? Which number?

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
69. The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:23 PM
Nov 2018

lapucelle

(18,044 posts)
75. Is that the reason why JP Morgan Chase was on AOC's list of donors in the primary?
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:45 PM
Nov 2018

She also received donations in the GE from
- the real estate industry
- commercial banks
- the security and investment industry
- lawyers/law firms
- lobbyists

Are these donations automatically suspect or could it simply be that regular citizens who happen to work in an industry/sector donated to her campaign?

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/industries?cycle=2018&id=NY14&spec=N
https://www.opensecrets.org/races/sectors?cycle=2018&id=NY14&spec=N

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
77. Well well well... you make an excellent point. What do you know?
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:48 PM
Nov 2018

The outrage and indignation appears to be absent, so I guess it's "different" depending on who the recipient is.

Lord!

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
84. Kim Morton and Jerry Garcia were her two donors from JP Morgan Chase
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 08:13 PM
Nov 2018

Kim Morton
Vice President Corporate Communications at JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Jerry Garcia
Managing Director & Market Manager - Andes, Central America & The Caribbean at J.P. Morgan

Garcia gave the max $2700.

lapucelle

(18,044 posts)
88. It was listed as money from JP Morgan Chase.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 08:39 PM
Nov 2018

See how easily suspicions can be raised?

Do you have a link for your information? It might be useful in clearing up similar matters for other Democrats.

lapucelle

(18,044 posts)
115. Whoosh! Where did you read that the JP Morgan Chase primary election money
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 12:51 PM
Nov 2018

came from Garcia? The wealth management advisor's donation was for the general election.

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?201808219121507612

George II

(67,782 posts)
96. But if people simply use the same criteria that has been used against other Democratic candidates...
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 10:12 PM
Nov 2018

....most recently Corey Booker, those would be considered contributions from the "Banking industry" or "Wall Street" or "big money", wouldn't they?

See how that works? For a couple of years Booker has been bashed for being "in the pocket of big pharma", "beholden to big pharma", etc., when clearly he's not. Same for ALL candidates who have or will be similarly criticized.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
100. I think people donate to candidates that they think will be good for them
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 07:49 AM
Nov 2018

If a lot of people in leadership positions in companies the Oil and Gas industry are donating to one candidate over another, then presumably they think that candidate will be good for their companies and the industry. Same goes for Wall Street or any other sector.

R B Garr

(16,920 posts)
107. You mean like ex-Republicans such as Justice Democrats founder
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 08:55 AM
Nov 2018

Cenk Uyger think dark money will be good for them?

George II

(67,782 posts)
112. That's basically the logic behind people contributing, they think the person they contribute to...
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:54 AM
Nov 2018

....will be good for their financial well being, health, safety, or a number of other issues. It has nothing to do with the level of their positions in their organization.

I doubt many people who contribute have money laying around that they give away just to reduce their clutter, they have a reason for doing so.

Magoo48

(4,660 posts)
35. Again I will ask:
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:43 PM
Nov 2018

How can one wage the kind of battles needed to dismantle the Fossil Fuel Industry back to a size that doesn’t further threaten our common welfare due to runaway climate change and also take large sums of money from that very industry?

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
78. But it certainly does sound ominious and scary and corrupt when...
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:50 PM
Nov 2018

... it's deceptively framed and described that way. We're smarter than they're giving us credit for.

betsuni

(25,142 posts)
57. Taking large sums of money from industry in return for favorable legislation is illegal.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 06:30 PM
Nov 2018

Calling Democrats corrupt isn't very nice. Also it's a waste of time.

Qutzupalotl

(14,230 posts)
34. Go after Citizens United first.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:43 PM
Nov 2018

DeFazio is one of our best reps, period. He also happens to be my rep, so yeah, I take this personally.

What AOC is doing is pressuring D reps to starve themselves of funding ... when she’s not calling for them to be primaried. Thanks but no thanks.

The Polack MSgt

(13,159 posts)
44. Even though I usually hate sports metaphors, here I go
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 05:57 PM
Nov 2018

I'm old and I can not stand that offensive linemen can extend their arms and grab jerseys.

To me that's holding, it's cheating.

But I will not try top force my team to play under the old rules and get demolished by the opposition.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
79. I know... it's totally insane for anyone to intentionally put themselves at a disadvantage...
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:52 PM
Nov 2018

... in sports OR in politics.

pwb

(11,205 posts)
52. Most of big oils money goes toward defeating democrats. What does that tell you?
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 06:15 PM
Nov 2018

The amounts shown in the post above are minuscule in comparison and could easily be replaced by Michael Bloomberg. It would not be devastating if these politicians refused their money. I am all for the idea, no big oil money for democrats. Its a needed correction.

elleng

(130,156 posts)
60. Of course. Glad she's talking about it,
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 06:40 PM
Nov 2018

it may be our WORST problem, keeping us from thriving due to owing our souls to the payers.

We may never get out from under it, given the Supreme's decision that talk = $.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), is a U.S. constitutional law Supreme Court case on campaign finance. A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken".[1]

Buckley v. Valeo was extended by the U.S. Supreme Court in further cases, including in the five to four decision of First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti[2] and in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010.[3] The latter held that corporations may spend from their general treasuries during elections. In 2014, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission held that aggregate limits on political giving by an individual are unconstitutional.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

JHan

(10,173 posts)
73. Pelosi has mentioned Buckley v Valeo a long while now..
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:28 PM
Nov 2018

But from the gist of how this thread is going, are we saying that people who work in certain industries should not be allowed to donate to the democratic party - Pharma etc etc?

I just need to know if this is the logic. And there was disinformation spread about Cortez herself and JP Morgan - when it was employees donating to her.

Generally speaking of course, if we want to get rid of "big money" in politics, Buckley is a good start and you're going to have reverse Citizens United/ FEC vs McCutcheon. The ideal for many is publicly funded elections.

And what do we mean when we say "big money" in the current climate. Money helped us a ton this past mid terms.

Just to broaden the discourse, let's take for example super PACS. Claiming to not take PAC donations is not enough because statements like that amount to politicking. If a candidate says they won't accept PAC donations, they're using sleight of hand because PAC's operate independently from the candidate, and their individual contributions cut off at 5 grand I believe per election. PACS can be created with or without the candidate's endorsement of them. And PAC's donate to political parties - would a candidate then refuse party funds because a PAC donated to its coffers?

What also gets lost in a lot of the outrage is that Unions and Liberal groups want their own means to influence the agenda. Emily's List is a massive pro-choice PAC, the AFL-CIO also huge, intriguingly Clinton's biggest special interest PAC was the American Teacher's Union.

So we can be outraged as much as we like, but we also need an honest conversation about how politics operates currently, how lobbying works. Right now corporate lobbyists have sway in D.C more than other lobbying groups, and they tend to rank Democrats poorly.

George II

(67,782 posts)
66. So what's being advocated here is that a file clerk who works for an oil company...
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:04 PM
Nov 2018

...will be barred from contributing to a candidate?

TexasTowelie

(111,322 posts)
68. I disagree with Rep. Cuellar frequently,
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:18 PM
Nov 2018

but I also grew up near his congressional district. There are two economic drivers in that district: trade with Mexico and the oil & gas industry. The land in the area is barren enough that grazing cattle and farming is difficult. Refusing to take support from the oil & gas industry is the equivalent to surrendering that seat to a Republican. Cuellar recognizes that reality.

The concern of the people in that area is to the more immediate future (having a job to pay the bills) than for something further in the future that may not affect them much directly (they are already inland and it's already hot as hell so a few degrees more doesn't matter). An environmentalist or a progressive has almost no chance of winning of that seat because it would cause massive unemployment.

It's unfortunate that AOC doesn't realize that the dynamics in other congressional districts isn't the same as her metropolitan district in New York. Despite my disagreements with Cuellar, I prefer him in office over a Republican.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
74. Yes, those are political realities.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:41 PM
Nov 2018

Defense contractors are another example because Pharma and even oil pale in comparison to their shenanigans.

Defense contractors target swing districts, not just to provide employment, but also interject themselves as a power to be reckoned with. Their influence is there in the military appropriations committees. No Congressman or Congresswoman is going to reject investment by a major corporate entity if that entity provides jobs and economic activity to their state/district. From downstream economic input right on up. I just want the conversation to take into consideration these facts, instead of just pure driven outrage 100% of the time.

pecosbob

(7,511 posts)
72. I never worried about the contributions that are acknowledged
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 07:27 PM
Nov 2018

I worry about the billions with a B in dark money that are being funnelled to the Republican crime syndicate by people such as the Kochs and the Sinclairs. I worry that they'll ultimately capture all the State Houses and permanently make change impossible. Individual corporations can be shamed and boycotted into public accountability...the billionaire owners, unfortunately cannot.

 

Small-Axe

(359 posts)
94. Democrats are not going to win elections by calling for the dismantling of industries.
Mon Nov 19, 2018, 09:56 PM
Nov 2018

It is nutty.

Instead, we need to support cleaner alternatives. Which our party is already doing and has been doing for a long time.

A dumb thread that attacks Democrats on a Democratic forum. What up with that?

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
102. Climate change will only get worse if we maintain the status quo
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 07:51 AM
Nov 2018

Especially with respect to fossil fuels.

R B Garr

(16,920 posts)
109. You should read up on what Al Gore has to say about this
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 09:20 AM
Nov 2018

from decades ago. Implying Democrats are corrupt is really getting old. Status quo is letting Republicans run that industry while lying about Democrats.

R B Garr

(16,920 posts)
108. Yup, totally nutty. Someone needs to educate her on Al Gore's
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 09:03 AM
Nov 2018

green jobs decades ago. This is political malfeasance from her mentors to ignore what was previously done on this front and why divisive politics kept Gore from office. Makes you wonder about her ex-Republican mentor at Justice Democrats.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
110. The more I think about this the more facepalming it is.
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 10:41 AM
Nov 2018

One of the ways the anti-establishment arguments of 2016 poisoned the well was projecting the notion that everything has some simple fix, that everything could be done *if only* - the biggest lie there ever was, it's not easy, it won't be fixed with one election, it won't be fixed in the approach by the OP.

Apparently, those of us concerned with this approach, don't realize Climate Change is serious It's because I take it seriously, I realise how empty all of this is... It gets headlines going but not much else.

I have a lot more faith that a "Green Plan" will address things more substantively but since we are dealing with a Trump administration how is this the narrative? Not understanding the impact of economics or the importance of focusing on the Republicans rather than Democrats, especially those in States where fossil fuel extraction dominates their economy is not being serious.

Democrats have been beating on about infrastructure development for years. Obama was notoriously obstructed on this front. "Imported Solar panels" had an impact on energy globally, with China and Taiwan producing them at competitive rates and SK and Malaysia making parts. This resulted in fairly cheap panels and the mushrooming of solar installation jobs in areas you were hard pressed to find them before.

Then Trump implemented a 30% tariff on solar panels, what does this mean? We were able to eek out a market for ourselves by manufacturing solar panel framing - if you want to nerd out on how promising this looked just a few years ago: https://www.fmanet.org/blog/2016/07/12/manufacturing-for-solar

So we make the framing, and the industry now involves truckers, technicians, farmers leasing their lands and American solar companies themselves. The opportunity existed for us then to export our own product back to the Asian market, but we have a dumbass xenophobic administration. How do Trump's tariffs impact the consumer in this area? Not directly. It impacts jobs obviously, it stymies whatever path of progress that we're on, it doesn't help our carbon emissions.

What it does is also make power companies think twice about the switch to solar because of costs and rely on more extraction ( the kind of industry innovation you're seeing in renewables shames fossil fuels right now in a massive way) Once power companies think twice about holding on to their solar suppliers, we're looking at more fracking, more clean coal nonsense etc.

And the approach in the OP puts focus on individuals rather than the collective.

There are systemic reasons for environmental destruction. In much the same way we recognize that criminal justice reform isn't just about racist cops, but cultural attitudes and an approach to policing which needs reform. Poverty, poor infrastructure, poor housing, are all interconnected to environmental degradation.

If you're part of the richest populations on earth, you contribute to the problem globally, and your actions matter too. Where is the introspection?

If the actions of the people at the top bother you then strengthen laws to hold them accountable ( something Democrats already tried to do but now we have a President getting rid of regulations REMEMBER? Regulations IMPLEMENTED under Obama, remember??? )

George II

(67,782 posts)
113. So how do you, she, and others involved in this discussion feel about out of state money?
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:20 AM
Nov 2018

Is that proper?

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
116. Out-of-state money certainly does muddy the waters with regard to someone's TRUE popularity...
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 12:52 PM
Nov 2018

Out-of-state money certainly does muddy the waters with regard to someone's TRUE popularity and the amount of support being given by the local constituents.

I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but I do think it's important that things like this be clarified as separate "line-items" on whatever disclosures or financial summaries may be required.

Did AOC receive a lot of out of state money? If so, did it create or conflict with the appearance of a spontaneous "grass roots" up-swelling? All I'm saying here is that complete transparency is always a good thing.

George II

(67,782 posts)
117. My thought is, if contributions from a particular industry signal a desire for actions on the part..
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 01:26 PM
Nov 2018

....of the recipient in favor of that industry, what is the underlying motive of out of state contributors?

I doubt there are two separate, unrelated "motives" - so either the perceived motive of contributors from a particular industry is incorrect, or the motives of out of state contributors are similar.

To answer your question, yes, she received quite a bit of money from out of state. In fact, very little money was contributed from within the 14th district itself (roughly $15,000 of $1.3M). 77% of the contributions came from out of state.

Top states:

MA $622,436.59
NY $306,610.03
CA $195,232.43
DC $ 36,749.86
TX $ 19,321.00

Curious, isn't it?

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
118. "77% of the contributions came from out of state." --- WOW! That's amazing!
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 01:33 PM
Nov 2018
77% of the contributions came from out of state.
WOW! That's amazing! I'm not sure what to make of that.

Curious, isn't it?
Indeed it is. I was previously under the impression that she had raised all her campaign money directly from the enthusiastic voters in the 14th district.

Clearly I was wrong.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
114. Once again, AOC shows that she knows the words but not the music...
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:33 AM
Nov 2018

Today it's big oil, tomorrow it's big pharm, then big tech and then all of a sudden Dems are wondering why they don't have any money for their goddamn campaigns anymore. And it's easy for AOC coming from a solid blue district where there ain't no oil wells to make declarations like this...

The *CORRECT* fucking question here boys and girls IS: "What is removing all money from elections period, and having publicly-funded candidates?"

Can we at least get sworn in and settled first before starting the hardcore purity purges? Dems were elected to fight Trump and all they can think of is inter-party civil war.

 

Bfd

(1,406 posts)
129. Sure. Because there can be no revolushun without breaking the strongest protectors of American
Tue Nov 20, 2018, 02:30 PM
Nov 2018

Democracy.
The Democratic Party & its strongest protectors.

Oh they can try, but they will never succeed.
So far Justice D's are an online organizing Pac.

They need the billion$$$ Media industry to even exist.
Betting they don't bite the social media hand.

Big Media Money is no different than Big Oil Money.

Watch their words. They would cease to exist without billion $$$ FB, Twitter & Instagram.



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ocasio-Cortez is right on...