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
"Look at their donors."
Want to know what sets Bernie Sanders apart from Hillary Clinton? Look at their donors.
Updated by Dylan Matthews on April 30, 2015, 1:10 p.m. ET
The differences could hardly be more striking. Out of Clinton's top 20 organizational donors, only two (EMILY's List and the University of California) aren't corporate. There are seven mega-banks, five corporate law/lobbying firms, and three big entertainment companies. Now, to be fair to Clinton, the vast majority of these donations came from individuals rather than corporate PACs, and as a senator from New York it's understandable that finance and media interests (not to mention New York ceramics giant Corning) would give to her heavily. But it's still a very corporate-heavy list.
By contrast, 19 of Sanders's top 20 donors are unions. The one non-labor group on the list is the American Association for Justice, an interest group for plaintiff's attorneys, perhaps the most reliable non-union Democratic constituency. This isn't too surprising. Sanders is, along with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), just about the most pro-labor member of the Senate. He has fought free trade agreements for decades and is a major opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he's critical of guest worker programs that he believes undercut Americans' wages, and he's pushed back on the Obama administration's education reform agenda. (Vermont, it should be said, is the only state in the union without charter schools.)
This is precisely the contrast Sanders wants to set up: Clinton's donor list reads bank, bank, bank, and his reads union, union, union. That won't be enough to win, not least because Democratic primary voters aren't actually more liberal than Clinton. But the threat of being tarred as a tool of finance could be enough to push Clinton in a more populist direction, which is what victory for Sanders would really look like.
more@link: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8522019/bernie-sanders-hillary-donors
Updated by Dylan Matthews on April 30, 2015, 1:10 p.m. ET
The differences could hardly be more striking. Out of Clinton's top 20 organizational donors, only two (EMILY's List and the University of California) aren't corporate. There are seven mega-banks, five corporate law/lobbying firms, and three big entertainment companies. Now, to be fair to Clinton, the vast majority of these donations came from individuals rather than corporate PACs, and as a senator from New York it's understandable that finance and media interests (not to mention New York ceramics giant Corning) would give to her heavily. But it's still a very corporate-heavy list.
By contrast, 19 of Sanders's top 20 donors are unions. The one non-labor group on the list is the American Association for Justice, an interest group for plaintiff's attorneys, perhaps the most reliable non-union Democratic constituency. This isn't too surprising. Sanders is, along with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), just about the most pro-labor member of the Senate. He has fought free trade agreements for decades and is a major opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he's critical of guest worker programs that he believes undercut Americans' wages, and he's pushed back on the Obama administration's education reform agenda. (Vermont, it should be said, is the only state in the union without charter schools.)
This is precisely the contrast Sanders wants to set up: Clinton's donor list reads bank, bank, bank, and his reads union, union, union. That won't be enough to win, not least because Democratic primary voters aren't actually more liberal than Clinton. But the threat of being tarred as a tool of finance could be enough to push Clinton in a more populist direction, which is what victory for Sanders would really look like.
more@link: http://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8522019/bernie-sanders-hillary-donors
Yup. Union, union, union. Solidarity.
