Do Bernie fans not understand the difference between people and corporations?

[DanTex]

Because I keep seeing people posting those silly internet memes about how Hillary's campaign is funded by banks, or pharma companies, or whatever else. Do Bernie fans not know that those funds are actually contributed by individuals employed in those industries, and not by the corporations themselves? Or do they just consider a corporation and its employees to be the same thing?

I remember when Romney said that "corporations are people." Now we have Bernie fans telling us that people are corporations. And these people are claiming to be the "real" progressives?

[Duckhunter935]

1. of course

They know who is going to be better for their industry and it is not Bernie

[DanTex]

3. They know who is going to be better for the country and it is not Bernie.

[JRLeft]

4. Yeah if you are a billionaire, we agree.

[Duckhunter935]

10. The millionaires

And the top one percent agree with you.

[PosterChild]

23. Shessh, So do most democrats ....

.... polls don't actually include very many billionaires.

[cascadiance]

49. So you say that people "love" government favoring corporations? Show us the polls please!

People won't support corporations if they don't feel that the corporations are more working for their own interests (and that being those who they've been shown to reward with just about ALL of the corporate profits in recent decades which is the execs and stockholders NOT the employees). People are discovering it despite the corporate controlled media trying to spew propaganda to the contrary, which is why the more people know Bernie the more they like him, and the more that people see how other pols like Hillary serve the corporate interests more the more her favorability ratings fall.

Yes she had that spat about Bengazi (which basically was a distraction from other more important issues as Bernie noted, and even a distraction from the real issues with emails itself which was WHY she moved her email to private servers). Yes, that seemed to be engineered to either reward Republicans or her by the corporate PTB, but people aren't going to fall for that too long.

[PosterChild]

119. What I said was that the....

.....polls that shows overall suport for Hillary do not include many billionaires (if any at all). In other words there are a large number of people who believe Hillary will be better for them and for the country than bernie would be; they outnumber those who support bernie; and there are very few billionaires amongst them.

So, that's my point. You can disagree with it if you want to, or bring up something else, but please don't mischaricterize it.

[cascadiance]

129. The polls showed the same thing in 2007 for Hillary too....

... until people were more drawn to the nebulous (but hopeful) hope and change message that Obama gave them, that Hillary didn't when they got past the name recognition stages.

Bernie this time around provides a bit more detail on how he intends to make (and has had a history of pushing for) changes that people want, and has also grown his support as he gets more name recognition too. Hillary may have gotten a boost from the debate a bit, and from the orchestrated theater that we see the corporate media give on the bengazi crap of her emails that ignores her poor judgement on actually privatizing her emails... Obama showed similar fluctuations before he had a steady surge upward too. It's still way too early to say this race is over, just as it was when people tried to say that in 2007 too.

[PosterChild]

142. I think you are missing the point . ....

,... the point is that hillary has wide, deep and strong support amongst Democrats and independents, including those here on DU, who are not billionaires , millionaires, 1 percenters, oligarchs , wall street economic criminals or any of the other supposed riff-raff that she is accused of being subservient to.

That support amoung those good people is due to their justified belief that hillary will best serve their interests and the best interest of our country as a whole. Slander and vilification for what amounts to be nothing more than running an effective broad-based campaign for the presidency is, imho, petty and lame.

[cascadiance]

144. Well, personally I'm pretty offended by her support for H-1B visa program expansion...

... which is NOT progressive. Now the video for her STRONG support for expansion of this was from back in 2007, so she'll probably try to say that she's evolved on that, but just like everything else, she doesn't take any public stances on this program NOW when people want to hear from her how she stands on issues like this. She's looking at her corporate consultant polls to see how she takes a stance on this later when it becomes something that people ask more about, just like she waited until AFTER the critical vote on Fast Track TPA passed before making any comments on it, when she earlier had supported it and was helping to get it put in place with her actions with other affected countries as SOS. Now she tries to make some negative comments about it right before the first debate, very conveniently for her.

Personally, as a person that in IT that has been unemployed a lot lately and, this has affected my life and career pretty severely lately, as it has many Americans in the IT field who have lost their life's savings, etc., and many of those who want to immigrate here, who are told they should look for a guest worker program instead to move here to work, instead of becoming a naturalized citizen, where there's a lot of barriers now that in my and many others' book who look at it, are there intentionally there to get them directed in to these "guest worker" programs where they can be exploited, and basically only benefit the 1% at the top, who's obviously paid for politicians like Clinton for her support of this CRAP!

The point is as I just tried to say, that the polls showed her having a BIGGER lead at this time of the last election over Obama, by those who later decided after learning more about Obama and the issues, and how the candidates stood on them, they moved towards him after Edwards left the race when just right before Super Tuesday, between him and the PTB he decided to pull out because of his personal issues after drawing many of the progressive votes before then that might have looked at Kucinich if he'd pulled out earlier, or have provided them a bigger voice in a debate with him still in the race later when it got down to two people then. An engineered outcome from what many of us perceived.

And this time around, Bernie's NOT pulling out like Edwards did, and HE is the challenger, not Obama, who was more nebulous on his commitments to progressive issues that people wanted dealt with then as they do now, that Hillary is not showing support for as I just indicated two issues amongst many others that affect people that the corporate PTB want a different way in place. There are many they don't care as much about, which they pay the corporate media to focus on to distract us. This time around that's not going to work. People will want to hear how Clinton and Republicans are going to deal with the fundamental issues such as going after banksters, "free trade" deals, etc., campaign finance reform, etc.

[PosterChild]

146. Thanks for sharing...

.... your point of view. I think you should vote for the candidate that you believe will best represent your interests and the best interests of the nation as a whole.

I will, of course , do the same . At this time, my choice is hillary clinton.

While you are offended by a policy choice that hillary has advocated, I am offended by the smears that characterize hillary as being a shill and a lapdog of criminal oligarchs. I think this is basically a juvenile and ultimately ineffective , actually self-destructive, tactic which is also divisive , disruptive and dishonerable. While bernie seems to be above such behavior , that isn't true of all of his supporters and that does not bode well for him or our country.

[cascadiance]

147. It's not a smear to say she's a shill when she advocates H-1B visa expansion...

That program IS for the oligarchs, whether you want to admit it or not!

Bernie Sanders has been there for those are being screwed by these guest worker programs that only serve to benefit those at the top of the heap. And to characterize us as "juvenile" for wanting someone that works FOR us instead of those who want to SCREW us to redistribute wealth to themselves I also find insulting too.

[PosterChild]

148. Yes it is...

.... the existance and extent of h1b visas are policy questions about which reasonable, progressive liberals in good standing may, and do, disagree. Your opinion is your opinion, and just your opinion , not the gold standard of progressive purity.

[cascadiance]

154. Even those that work for these "body shops" as "indentured servants" would be insulted as well...

... as noted in this report, where a local station interviews one of them undercover to note how they aren't happy with this CRAP of a program either!

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Body-Shop-Secret-280567322.html

H-2B visa people had to go to court to go after those bastards that did even worse to them in effect holding them HOSTAGE to do SLAVE LABOR for them after Katrina instead of these people spending a bit more money on domestic American workers to do this job when many of then could use a job to help rebuild their communities then.

https://www.thenation.com/article/these-workers-came-overseas-help-rebuild-after-hurricane-katrina-and-were-treated-prison/

If H-1B workers they aren't happy with being slaves in body shops, and so many of us aren't happy having our IT careers screwed up by this program, WHO THE F*K IS HAPPY with how this program is run sir? Same goes for workers treated like "prisoners" with the H-2B program.

Why would Clinton support such a program if she isn't a shill for those who financially benefit from exploiting the low wages that are artificially created for the PTB with them? In the case of those hiring undocumented workers, they are ILLEGAL employers in those situations, and in these cases our laws are warped to institutionalize such exploitation and "legalize" it. That way the government doesn't have to get "paid" not to prosecute the illegal employers which it doesn't do when going after those who hire undocumented workers and exploit them instead of getting them green cards, etc. to work here.

Sorry but if Hillary is coming out and strongly supporting H-1B then, and is completely avoiding taking any public stance now to show that she's "evolved" on this issue at all, then she in my book is a shill for those who use these guest labor programs to benefit themselves, and not workers in general. Please don't just say that this is a "policy difference". If you want to make the case that this action isn't that of a shill, then please back it up with articles of your own to show how average American workers benefit from this and not the 1%ers.

[PosterChild]

158. I think you are a bit too concerned....

.... about an issue that isn't even getting much (specific) attention in the campaign, and won't make much difference one way or the other. If that's your concern, vote the way you believe is best.

I'm not for building a big wall around American , as are some candidates, be it a physical wall or a legal wall.

[cascadiance]

159. If they want people like me who've been screwed by this shit to vote for them they will!

It is not given attention because the corporate media don't want it to have that attention, like so many issues that the corporate candidates want to avoid being discussed in favor of social issues that they use to divide us artificially while keep us from being united on those issues that we should be against the oligarchs that increasingly are moving us to fascism...

[treestar]

138. It isn't exactly all us vs. them

A lot of people have jobs and their jobs are with corporations, banks, insurance companies, etc. They do not see "the corporations" as this automatic enemy. I see on DU this expectation that we be against "the corporations." Well we wouldn't want them all shut down. There would be massive unemployment.

[cascadiance]

145. Corporations and other entities are organizational entities, NOT people...

... and should be treated legally as such, and not empowering those in power of them to BUY our government through this fictional "corporate person" entity to reward themselves at the expense of the rest of us. Do I blame "corporations" for all of these problems and want them shut down? No! The better question to ask is whether the system that allows these ENTITIES to be used as a proxy to wield fascist power should be shut down, and most Americans DO want that CRAP shut down now.

Now does that mean shutting down corporations? NO! It means though a constitutional amendment ending the so-called "corporate personhood rights" which is a fictional judicial activist notion that wasn't even made by the Supreme Court, but by a head note of a court clerk who used to be a former railroad exec in the 19th century.

They are now enemies in the way the system has them set up, and the way that PEOPLE behind them are using them to gain too much power over our democracy that even threatens that as being viable system of government for us. Yes, many of us are dependent on them for jobs now, and ALSO yes, many now are having to work in contract jobs instead (which likely are now placeholders until they get a congress they can buy enough to pass more H-1B and H-2B quota expansion so that they can end all of our contracts to make way for guest workers later when that happens).

Many aren't able to express their feelings as they don't want to have that publicly known when they are dependent on jobs with the present system too. There are many of us that want change there now, that I don't think many of you that shill for them here are aware of the depth of the way many people feel.

[treestar]

149. As I said, most voters are not

going to immediately believe that "the corporations" have "bought our government" or wield "fascist power." That is going to sound tinfoil hat to most voters.

[cascadiance]

153. The Koch brothers are laughing at you (or laughing with you if you are one of the 1%)...

Do you really think that they aren't getting anything back from the billion dollars they are spending in each of these elections? As evil as they are, do you really think that they are that stupid to waste that much money if they don't get anything back from BUYING THESE POLITICIANS and how they are getting elected (or getting pushed out of office)? Pardon me for not being stupid enough to believe otherwise.

[leveymg]

47. You've simplisticated that. Under Citizs United corps can give all they want to SuperPacs.

Like the two or three SuperPacs that are actively coordinating with the Clinton campaign.

You're talking about bundling, an important concept from before our wonderful 5-4 SCOTUS held corporations to be fully human for issues giving, politically. Antebellum.

Simplisticate much, DanTex?

[leveymg]

81. I sure hope you're reading from talking points, Dan. If this is your takeout, it mispeaks

Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

or is simply misinformed or, if you're brighter than this makes it seem, your OP is disinformation.

[Blus4u]

156. I find that disinformation seems to be the purpose of all of this poster's missives.

Eom

[treestar]

139. They still can't vote

In the end they can only help candidates with advertising.

[PatrickforO]

2. Well, I hear you, Dan. The only problem is this:

When I read how thousands of corporate officers from Wall Street, big pharma, the MIC and private prison 'industries' have contributed to Clinton, the phrase that comes to my mind is, "If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then it probably IS a duck."

[DanTex]

5. So all people who work for banks or pharma companies are suspect?

Citibank has some 100,000 employees. Anyone else you want to throw under the bus?

[leftofcool]

7. Gee, I hope that chemist working hard for cancer cures is not thrown under the bus.

[99th_Monkey]

9. Goldman Sachs, Big Pharma giants, et. al.

Each of these corporations has some kind of pac or super-pac that PROMOTES its favorite candidate
WITHIN the company to its employees, probably mostly to it's best paid execs, but probably to
all employees, and each employee can donate up to $2700 in a given year.

THIS^ is how I understand how it works under the CU guidelines. If THIS^ is incorrect, I'm open
to hearing how it really works.

[DanTex]

14. It's illegal for an employer to coerce workers to donate to political campaigns.

The way it really works is simple. Individuals decide to donate money to political campaigns they support. Their bosses have nothing to do with that.

[Omaha Steve]

17. It is illegal to kill thousands of works every year because you didn't provide safe equipment

Corporations just don't like these silly rules. This doesn't even include serious injuries.

https://www.osha.gov/dep/fatcat/dep_fatcat.html

WORKER FATALITIES
4,679 workers died on the job in 2014

[DanTex]

19. Obviously you have evidence that Goldman and Pfizer and the rest are illegally coercing their

employees to make political donations.

Right? Or is this just another conspiracy theory?

[Omaha Steve]

21. Only good corporations give to Hillary then?

Wait a minute. No bankers went to jail....

[DanTex]

22. I'll take that as a "no evidence."

Oh, and corporations don't donate to Hillary. People do. Re-read the OP.

[PosterChild]

26. +100 !! (NT)

[Omaha Steve]

28. Citizens United

It was in all the papers. Free speech. People are corporations my friend. PACs.

Funny you trust the banks that robbed us and got bailed out.

[DanTex]

56. Yes, Hillary wants to overturn CU.

By the way, "Hillary for America" isn't a PAC, that's her campaign. Priorities USA Action is a superPAC. The donors are mainly wealthy liberals like George Soros and Jeffrey Katzenberg. You can see the Donors here:

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib.php?cmte=C00495861&cycle=2016

[leveymg]

64. But, she's perfectly happy to take corporate money given to her captive SuperPacs

She'll get around to that after she's coronated. I mean nominated. After the Convention, then the damn breaks and the real corporate money washes over the airwaves.

[AgingAmerican]

66. She's just keeping it a big secret!

Until after the election

[Omaha Steve]

67. A good start would be refusing PAC $ to show good faith perhaps?

Just asking.

[Duckhunter935]

106. Overturn this week

She will evolve

[Omaha Steve]

78. With an attitude

Good luck getting party unity next summer.

[DanTex]

86. Interesting. What you're implying is, first, that Hillary is going to win (you're right about that)

and second, you're not going to support her against the GOP in order to spite me.

[Omaha Steve]

98. Not just U

And IF!

[restorefreedom]

120. amen. nt

[99th_Monkey]

31. "Their bosses have nothing to do with that." Oh please. I know bosses "can't coerce"

i.e. they can't threaten to fire people if they don't donate to a certain candidate. However,
employers can "suggest" (wink-nod), "make opportunities" for employees to give THROUGH
their corporation's PAC, if they so choose to do so.

Are you trying to tell me this^ isn't true?

[DanTex]

32. Like Omaha Steve, I'm sure you have evidence that Hillary's donations have been coerced.

Because obviously there's no way you'd just be making conspiracy theories....

[99th_Monkey]

33. I've already SAID .. "of course employers cannot coerces" <- i don't disagree

do you need those reading glasses checked?

Do you care to respond to what I DID SAY, rather than what i didn't say?

[DanTex]

38. Well, without coercion, all those donations that Bernie fans keep complaining about

are simply individuals deciding to support political causes with their own money. Which was the point of my OP.

I'm glad I can count on you to speak up next time someone accuses Hillary of being "owned by big corporations" simply because her contributors have jobs.

[99th_Monkey]

52. Here is what I'll be "speaking up" about

What makes a super PAC super?
Traditional political action committees are bound by a $5,000 annual limit on the size of contributions they can accept from individuals and are prohibited from accepting contributions from corporations and labor unions. A super PAC is freed from these restrictions under two conditions: The PAC must neither 1) give money directly to a candidate or other political committees that give directly to candidates, nor 2) coordinate how it spends its money with a federal candidate. As long as those two conditions are met, a super PAC may accept donations directly from corporate or union treasuries and in amounts that are limited only by the size of donors' bank accounts. Movie mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg wrote a $2 million check to the super PAC backing President Obama's reelection; casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife have reportedly underwritten a super PAC backing Newt Gingrich to the tune of $10 million. Neither of these donations could have been legally given to a traditional PAC.

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/01/31/nine-things-you-need-know-about-super-pacs/

Which is why Bernie has refused to take support from Super-Pacs and why he's always REFUSED money from them, unlike his opponent Hillary Clinton.

Trying to obscure and deny the above facts does not reflect well on your candidate

[DanTex]

53. Hillary is in favor of overturning Citizens United.

Until then, rather than let the GOP simply win, she has a SuperPAC funded by wealthy liberals like Katzenberg, Soros, Tom Steyer, etc.

[99th_Monkey]

55. But it's not only "wealthy liberals" who give to pro-Hillary Super-PACs

It's also huge Wall St. financial corporations, Big Pharma & MIC corporations that donate
to pro-Hilary Super-PACs, and Hillary's using private prison bundlers to raise campaign cash.

[DanTex]

58. Which huge Wall St corporations gave to pro-Hillary SuperPACs and how much?

The donors to the main pro-Hillary SuperPAC, Priorities USA Action, are mostly wealthy individuals. There are a few donations from organizations (like $1.5M from the Plumbers/Pipefitters Union) but mostly it's individuals:

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib.php?cmte=C00495861&cycle=2016

[99th_Monkey]

76. Dark Money donors - by definition - cannot be traced or identified, so it's anyone's guess on those

While it may be true that it's "individual employees" who give to corporate pacs & bundlers, it's a ruse
to claim there's no corporate agenda or influence involved in the donation, when so much comes from
any one corporation.

Hillary's trying to have it both ways, saying "I'll use CU to defeat CU". Bernie, not at all.

Group Backing Hillary Clinton Gets $1 Million From Anonymous Donors
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/08/10/group-backing-hillary-clinton-got-1-million-from-anonymous-donors/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-money_55c90342e4b0f1cbf1e5edf7

Hillary Clinton Isn't Ready to Disclose Who's Funding Her Campaign
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-bundler-disclosure-campaign-finance

HILLARY CLINTON
In her career as a politician, Hillary Clinton’s top donors have been Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Morgan Stanley. Many say such alliances irrevocably endear her to said institutions, rendering her incapable of reigning in financial corruption on Wall Street.

Her 2016 donors are slightly different, but really very much the same.
Corporate and other Special Interest donors (top 5):
Morgan & Morgan ($274,767)
Sullivan & Cromwell ($148,100)
Akin, Gump et al ($125,598)
Yale University ($95,434)
Latham & Watkins ($94,580)

Note: Morgan Stanley, Time Warner, JPMorgan Chase & Co and others are high on the list as well.
It is also important to point out that the lobbying and law firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, which employees many of Hillary’s lobbying “bundlers,” took donations from two of the biggest private prison contractors, Corrections Corporation of America and Geo Group, with fees totaling almost $300,000.

Super PAC/”Dark Money”:
Priorities USA Action is the super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. So far, the group has raised $25 million in only three months. Predictably, hardline progressives stringently object to Clinton using the wealthy billionaires of Priorities to raise money, but supporters say there is really no choice if she is to compete with the Republicans in a general election.
The most notable Priorities super PAC donors are George Soros and Steven Spielberg, but the list includes 31 individual donors who contributed over $200k each.

It’s fair to point out that Hillary Clinton recently made headlines by embracing a tactic to publically reveal big corporate donors. Whether this is political posturing or not, I will leave to the reader. According to the Los Angeles Times:
“Companies like Google Inc. — and even Shell Oil — touting environmental awareness have been exposed supporting shadowy organizations skeptical of climate change.”
Hillary Clinton, total raised so far: over $45 million

http://theantimedia.org/who-owns-your-candidate/

[DanTex]

83. Aha, so your evidence is an article from TownHall. Lordy.

And then you again repeat the error of pretending that individual donations are the same as corporate donations from their employers.

The fact of the matter is, the "corporate money" that Hillary bashers go on about simply doesn't exist.

[99th_Monkey]

88. You are right about that ONE link, I checked it, then removed it.

Care to comment on the rest of that very lengthy post with many other links?

[DanTex]

94. Like I said, you repeated the same mistake of pretending that individual donations come from

the corporations employing the individuals.

If you have evidence of a Wall St Bank or Big Pharma company contributing to Hillary's campaign or her PAC, maybe just present that without the misinformation next time.

[99th_Monkey]

101. Your equivocations are duly noted. You nave NOTHING

to say about the Mother Jones, Huffington Post or AntiMedia links or the information
presented therefrom.

Just what "misinformation" did you find in those again? I'm still waiting.

[DanTex]

103. None of them, as far as I could tell, presented any evidence of a Wall St bank or big pharma

company donating to Hillary or a SuperPAC supporting her. If I'm wrong, show me where.

And the misinformation, like I said, is pretending that those donation totals come from the corporations rather than individuals who work at the corporations.

[99th_Monkey]

109. I've already flatly said, repeatedly, what you say I didn't say.

I've already said in several posts up string that yes, all those Corporate Donations to Hillary came from employees at Goldman Sachs, et. al.

You are the pretender, to say otherwise.

And I'm supposed to just take at face value that all those "employees" at these huge corporations have absolutely no political agenda that is squarely aligned with their employer's interests.

THIS ^ is where we part company

[Ed Suspicious]

80. When the lights are off I see no roaches. When the

lights are on, again, no roaches. The only reasonable conclussion is that there are no roaches.

[DanTex]

87. So no evidence, huh. That seems to be the theme here.

[Live and Learn]

95. +1000 nt

[mythology]

84. You can't actually be seriously claiming that coercion wouldn't cover opportunities for promotion

A coercive relationship doesn't have to be a negative coercion.

But I would like to point out that you didn't actually offer any evidence of that occurring, just saying that of course it does. It's almost like you don't have any evidence.

[Omaha Steve]

35. I can't prove that banks that paid fines in the millions are honest on EVERYTHING else they do

PACs are the BIG$ in play because it is unaccountable. Bernie has none. That tells me something...

[DanTex]

39. You can't prove anything. That's my point. It's all conspiracy theories.

[Omaha Steve]

40. Can you prove the Kochs are dishonest?

I got all day.

[DanTex]

45. Umm, what? Not sure what that has to do with anything.

[Omaha Steve]

71. ALL political donors are honest if I get your gist?

[DanTex]

75. No, not all. Still don't see what your point is.

[Ed Suspicious]

152. Of course you don't. That would cause you to question your strident position.

[DanTex]

41. I don't believe the moon landing was faked either.

[strategery blunder]

97. They can't coerce but they can advertise their company PAC and solicit contributions

Hell, it even happens in retail.

I received promotional stuff from a store I worked for (which shall remain nameless, though I resigned over insufficient scheduled hours) about their PAC. There was a poster exhorting the PAC in the breakroom. Of course I did not donate, for I knew the company's interests were almost completely opposite mine (esp. re employment law), but of course I'm very well informed about labor law issues and not all retail employees are.

Though I wasn't "coerced" to donate to the company PAC, the fact that the company had one and let it be known made for a very uncomfortable moment one day when a well-meaning city council member asked me during checkout if I knew about/supported the minimum wage initiative that is to be on the ballot this year. Of course I support it, but I wasn't at liberty to say it because the presence of the employer's political advertising "coerced" me into not answering the question.

I replied with something about the right to cast a secret ballot. Probably the best that I could've done in that situation. The city council member understood what I meant.

[DanTex]

99. The donations you see on all those internet charts are primarily from individuals directly

to Hillary's campaign. You know, the one that has Citibank and JP Morgan or whatever as her "top donors." What that means is that people working at Citibank donated money directly to Hillary.

[strategery blunder]

102. You completely missed or disregarded my point

Which is that even though employers may not technically "coerce" employees into making donations, that kind of pressure can show up in other ways, as happened to me.

[DanTex]

105. Is there any evidence that any of the Hillary donations were pressured?

Or is this just another conspiracy theory?

[strategery blunder]

108. Well considering the FEC literally can't enforce election laws due to political paralysis

it's not like such issues can even be seriously investigated by the relevant enforcement agency at this time!

But you don't have to take my word for it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html

[lostnfound]

133. In executive suites, coercion is commonplace. Nt

[pnwmom]

131. When individual union members employed at Boeing, for example,

give a couple hundred dollars to their favored candidate, this does not mean they did it involuntarily or that anyone bought their votes. In decades at Boeing, my family member was never encouraged to vote for any particular candidate or party.

The point DanTex is making is that Boeing employee donations, added together, don't constitute a Boeing corporate donation; they represent the combined donations of thousands of individual employees, labeled by employer as government regulations require.

Millions of Americans work for corporations and they are as free to donate individually as anyone else. Their individual donations don't add up to a corporate position on a candidate.

[Armstead]

50. I donlt think the average worker is in a position to chip in the maximum

And you forget the PAC and SuperPacs

[reformist2]

59. No, but the top people at those big banks are suspect.

[DanTex]

62. OK, but there aren't many of them. I don't know of the CEOs wrote $2700 checks to Hillary,

but even if they all did, it would be a tiny drop in the bucket.

[treestar]

141. Exactly.

I think they want to go back to an agrarian society.

Large companies are not inherently evil. But they seem to expect us to go along with that.

Like we really are the Marxists the Republicans claim we are.

[pnwmom]

96. And millions of union employees of giant corporations have donated to

various Democrats, including the Clintons, Obama, and Sanders.

The fact that a person works for a corporation and donates to a Democrat means nothing.

[upaloopa]

116. Show me the link where it says thousands of corporate officers from Wall Street, big pharma,

the MIC and private prison 'industries' have contributed to Clinton.

I want the list of names if you have it.

Now you can get the list of names who gave over $200 and where they work. My name is there.

[George II]

123. Yes, we've "heard that" many times, yet not a single person has been able to actually....

...confirm it.

[treestar]

140. Is there proof of that?

And now you are including corporate officers as part of the bad guys?

Those big entities will contribute to both sides (probably more to the Republicans). They decide to do that after the polls show that candidate might succeed.

[leftofcool]

6. Oh for crying out loud, Dan!

I have been on the receiving end of big pharma, ya know, chemo and all that jazz, so I guess since I just gave another 100 bucks to Hillz, I AM big pharma and not a real person.

[ronnykmarshall]

51. I'm a working class clerk at a bank .....

Does that make me one of the corporate fascist bankers?

[emulatorloo]

61. According to some, yes

Since Open Secrets reports your contribs under your company name, Some are unable to grasp that individual liberal Dems have been known to donate to democrats.

[ronnykmarshall]

70. Yup I saw that.

Waiting for me to be on some meme on the internet as some evil banker like this guy


[url=https://flic.kr/p/Ab7DYd][img][/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/Ab7DYd]

[emulatorloo]

73. Ha ha ha ha!

Thanks I needed that.

[MohRokTah]

8. You cannot be pure if you work for any corporation.

Having a job is anti-progressive to the radical leftist extremists on DU.

[R B Garr]

36. Heck, I'm just a Real Housewife of Orange County,

and I've been called a "corpo dem". Even teenage girls were called corporatists when a sign they made for a Hillary rally looked too professional -- like a "corporation" made it. The silly name calling is just too ridiculous for words.

[Omaha Steve]

11. Remember Citizens United?

[AgingAmerican]

12. Ben and Jerry's is not a person

[DonCoquixote]

13. your points, debunked?

" Do Bernie fans not know that those funds are actually contributed by individuals employed in those industries, and not by the corporations themselves?"

If someone is getting rich because their industry is not regulated, then yes, they will have a lot more money to give as individuals. By this bit of logic, if a Mafia Godfather gives a lot of money as an individual, then that means the money he gives has nothing to do with the Mafia. Not everyone in the South owned slaves, does that mean the slave owner's contributions had nothign to do with slavery?

Yes, there may be some middle class folks who work for a drugstore or a bank, but the big contributions, the big money, is given by people who have a vested interest in the status quo, and if said status quo involves people getting hurt, then you cannot just say "These people are individuals" if their vested interests are in that status quo. As Mark Twain put it: "tell me where a fellow gets his corn-pone from, and i'll tell you his opinions."

Also, this OP can be debunked at another point:

" Do Bernie fans not know that those funds are actually contributed by individuals employed in those industries, and not by the corporations themselves? "

Actually, we do not know where a corporation begins and a person ends when it comes to political contributions. To be fair, a lot of this was cause by Citizens United, and I am sure Hillary has some position on that that she will maintain as long as it is politically expedient to do so, and perhaps a few seconds after. However, the fact is, we have no way of knowing if companies may coerce donations: it has happened before, where the boss makes it clear who he/she favors. We also do not and cannot know of a corporation may use someone as a pawn to donate top someone else. In Florida, a state senator's daughter was given a prize of several thousand dollars, after the senator did not take an earlier donation.

Are there individual middles class employees of said industries that just want Hillary instead of Bernie, sure (NO sarcasm at all), BUT, you cannot deny that companies, to the extent they even have to hide and trick, will indeed lie, and use people as pawns.

Considering that Hillary will need us in the primary, you might want to avoid demonizing people. Many of us, including myself, are supporting Bernie because Hillary needs to feel pressure from the base, and as the supporters of TPP and Keystone XL can tell you, that strategy is working. Perhaps if you focused more of your ammo on Jeb Bush or Donald Trump, you might be happier in the end.

[DanTex]

15. Wow, you're actually comparing bank and pharma employees to Mafia Godfathers!

And people wonder why the Bernie movement doesn't have broad appeal...

[PosterChild]

25. +100 !! (NT)

[AgingAmerican]

27. The bankers who stole over half of the middle class wealth? Those bankers?

And Pharma Bro? You support Pharma bro?

[DanTex]

30. Citibank has 100,000+ employees, are all of them evil?

And all the scientists doing drug research, also evil?

Like I said, no wonder the Bernie movement isn't catching on. You basically have to not have a job in order to not end up under the bus.

[AgingAmerican]

42. You don't jail 100,000 employees

You jail the executives.

Pharma Bro said he raised that drug price 5000% so the 'scientists doing drug research' can invent a replacement drug.

So Pharma Bro is the 'Gold Standard' for Hillary supporters Pharma dreams?

[DanTex]

43. All of the executives? Really? Anyone with an executive job, you would jail.

Interesting...

[AgingAmerican]

46. Do you even know what we are talking about?

You seem to have gotten off track. Well, when Pharma Bro and Goldman Sachs are your ideal Pharma and Banking entities, changing the subject is a necessity.

Will Hillary hire Pharma Bro to do her Pharma industry advising?

[DanTex]

48. You keep posting a picture of that Pharma guy. Not sure why.

[AgingAmerican]

63. You claim the public is gung ho behind the Pharma industry!

Thus Merkins must love Pharma Bro!

Will Hillary be hiring him?

[DanTex]

90. When did I claim that?

[AgingAmerican]

115. You imply it

With your gushing praise of the Pharma and Bankster industries

[DonCoquixote]

113. because he represents the status quo

for those making the decisions for the pharm industry.

Now, I know you are going to say "are all of them evil?" No, but this fellow whose face you wonder why is posted, did make a very evil decision. BTW, Bernie rejected a donation from him, which I am sure someone else will be happy to take.

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/10/18/pharma-bro-gets-mad-at-rejected-donation-twitter-destroys-him/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/19/1435283/-Despised-pharmaceutical-CEO-just-can-t-help-himself-claims-broken-wrist-in-tantrum-over-Bernie

Now, if you are going to complain because we quote someone who has made a very PUBLIC AND LOUD FOOL of himself, and point out he is a prime example of an status quo that we are less happy with than Hillary, then do not be surprised why you do not have the appeal you think you should have, but then again I remember you also at one point stated that Glass Steagall was only supported by people who do not understand finance" we understand the status quo is good for rich people, lousy for middle class.

[Ed Suspicious]

85. Who said "the buck stops here?"

[reformist2]

60. They are very much like extortionists! The more Bernie says this, the more the public will like him.

[Ino]

16. Oh right, it's all the janitors & secretaries ...

who are contributing the max to Hillary, driving up those totals into the stratosphere.

[DanTex]

18. Who said anything about janitors and secretaries?

[JRLeft]

37. They're heads are in the sand I can't hear you.

[emulatorloo]

68. By your logic, some could claim Bernie's in the pocket of Kaiser Permanente, Federal Coal

And the US Navy.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f

Those people would be intellectually dishonest, IMHO. But that's what happens when people conflate individual donations with corporate donations.

[RobertEarl]

20. Keep at it Dan

You may just convince one or two people to actually vote or the same old same old politician who is a 1%er and who will make sure the 1% keep control of the government.

But really, you are just wasting time.

[TBF]

24. "Fans"? This is not a concert, Dan. This is real life

for most people and they are not looking for a celebrity.

Those of us who support Bernie do so because we agree with his stated policies and many votes over the years (principles which have not wavered).

Your choice of terms appears deliberate and really quite insulting.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Yes. Corporations are the ones that bailed Hillary out of being "dead broke".

And, corpoprations are the ones that Bernie doesn't take money from.

[Armstead]

44. I guess those PACS and SuperPacs don't matter much.

[Thinkingabout]

54. K & R,

These are good examples of your op, sometimes the truth does not fall into the cognitive dissonance thinking F those willing to ignore the truth.

[redstateblues]

65. Another great post from Dan Tex

I've always wondered who Bernistas consider corporatists. Middle management? Share holders? People who support corporations by buying their products?

[Armstead]

126. Let's put it this way. I don't think the people who work in Wal Mart stores ...

made a conscious decision to get shitty wages

[BainsBane]

69. What they don't understand is campaign finance law

and sadly that misunderstanding has been encouraged through the rhetoric of their candidate.

[Armstead]

72. Then I guess the Kochs are irrelevant?

Sheldon Adelson is just a casino owner?

I know i'm using GOPers as examples, but it shows how toothless campaign finance law is.

[BainsBane]

77. The campaign finance system is a travesty

it enables legalized corruption. That isn't my disagreement with Sanders supporters. It is that the personalize the issue as about Sanders virtue vs. Clinton's supposed greed. They repeat his claim that he "doesn't take money from Super Pacs," ignoring that no candidate takes money from Super Pacs and the fact Super Pacs are in fact operating for Bernie, including one led by a former high-ranking staffer.

They circulate outdated and misleading memes saying Clinton takes money from banks. She does not and cannot. Banks can donate to Super Pacs, but their money is going to the GOP, and that has been the direction of their support since 2008.

Additionally, I submit it is impossible to address problems in campaign financing if one doesn't understand the nature of the law and how it actually works.

[Skidmore]

74. I want to know if they understand that

their plumber and the pest control guy they hire is likely also incorporated. Also the doctor and the roofer and and the yard service guy or any number of business owners who are not multinational businesses. Likewise, most towns and cities are incorporated. There are thousands and thousands of small businesses who have corporate status.

[Ed Suspicious]

91. We're all corporations! Self loathing corporate

entities seeking to slander our own good name! Corporations aren't just people, my friends. People are corporations.

[Omaha Steve]

79. This started from my OP aout the AFSCME FaceBook graphic

Very simple. Hillary made enemies in her own words in the debate. But has no problem taking $ from employees of her enemies.

Sorry you don't get it.

OS

[99th_Monkey]

104. Hey, Goldman Sachs, et. al. did NOT water-board their employees to get those Hillary donations!!

So they are entirely legit.

[MisterP]

82. Clinton's been a loyal warrior for Wall Street, pharma, and the MIC, and her campaign is rolling in

its money day and night

so, yeah, you're right: I want you to go running around bringing up the fact that it's her campaign that's getting bundled money from the megacorps that have reamed the average American; be sure and hammer home over and over how these millions are REALLY flowing around and who's REALLY paying for her campaign; tell your neighbors that's she's not Shkreli's servant, but just a Shkreli-style Democrat

they'll run to the polls so hard that the booth will tip over like in Airplane, mark my words!

[DanTex]

89. Corporations don't donate money to campaigns. The money on those charts you see comes from

individuals, not corporations. I know, it doesn't fit the Hillary-is-evil narrative, but it's the truth.

[Armstead]

125. How bout those SuperPacs?

I'm sure they're funded by little old ladies who hold bake sales

[Ed Suspicious]

93. They'll crawl over glass to vote for a Shkreli Democrat!

[hobbit709]

92. I understand quite well who is a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman-Sachs.

[Garrett78]

132. Some are quite obviously in denial about plutocracy.

Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

For cryin' out loud, large corporations and multinationals have written federal legislation that has then become law. When's the last time you or I were asked to write legislation?

The correlation between what the economic elite desire and what gets enacted is plain to see. As is the lack of correlation between what the majority of Americans want and what gets enacted. Not wanting to believe that about the US doesn't erase that reality.

I don't care if people want to argue that a Clinton presidency would be better than, say, a Bush or Rubio or Trump presidency. They're right, if for no other reason than the fact that some Supreme Court justices are getting pretty darn old. But the refusal to accept that the US is much more of a plutocracy than a democracy is both sad and frustrating, because it means bringing about change will be even more difficult.

[Android3.14]

100. It's like a community of vampires

Don't be naive.

[Vinca]

107. The OP can't be serious.

[SandersDem]

110. This is one of the most naive OPs I have ever read on DU.

Let's just take a look at one of the PACs contributing to HRC shall we?

How about this one?
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000106&lname=Morgan+Stanley

Morgan Stanley is one of the world's top investment banks, offering its clients everything from stock portfolio management to credit services. Like others in the securities industry, however, it lobbied for money from the federal government in 2008 and 2009 when the industry-along with the economy-was floundering.

and there is more, want to know what they want?

Things like this:
You can see all of their lobbying here:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000000106

H.R. 1210 would weaken the CFPB's Ability-to-Repay standards for mortgage loans. These standards are designed to protect consumers against the kind of toxic and exploitative mortgage loans which helped cause the financial crisis and led to massive consumer losses, and should not be weakened. The bill would allow depository institutions that hold a loan in portfolio to receive a legal safe harbor, even if the loans present safety and soundness concerns and contain terms and features that are abusive and harmful to consumers.

How about some PAC News like this?
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/hillary-clinton-morgan-stanley-and-tpp-a-free-trade-triumvirate/

As pressure increases for 2016 presidential contender Hillary Clinton to say where she stands on the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, her ties to avid TPP supporters won’t escape notice.
One glaring example: A linked trifecta consisting of the TPP, the mega-investment firm Morgan Stanley, and the Clinton family that involves campaign contributions, former members of Bill Clinton’s administration and large donations to the Clintons’ foundation.
Morgan Stanley is one of many U.S. companies supporting the TPP. It’s a member of the U.S. Business Coalition for TPP, and since 2013 the firm has lobbied on issues pertaining to the agreement. According to reports filed by the company and its lobbyists, Morgan Stanley spent $4.04 million in 2013, $4.82 million in 2014 and $530,000 in 2015 (thus far) lobbying on a slew of issues, including TPP. Lobbying disclosure rules don’t require a breakdown of how much is spent on any particular matter, so it’s impossible to know exactly how much of Morgan Stanley’s budget was devoted to the pending deal.
Morgan Stanley’s role in the Clinton orbit is multifaceted. Thomas R. Nides, the firm’s current vice president, was deputy secretary of state for management under Clinton and is considered a close confidant, though he won’t be taking up a formal role in her 2016 campaign. Nides was also Morgan Stanley’s chief operating and administrative officer prior to joining the State Department, and served as chief-of-staff to former U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor in the 1990s.

How about just a little more about what Morgan Stanley wants?

The investment bank received billions in taxpayer money from the bailout bill. Morgan Stanley invests in and advises virtually every industry affected by federal legislation. The company, which splits its contributions evenly between Democrats and Republicans, has been a major proponent of privatizing Social Security. Morgan Stanley also has lobbied in favor of proposals to deregulate the securities industry, so that investment firms can further extend their reach into financial services.

Yes, my friend Corporations are people too. Wonder where I have heard that before?

Well, take a close look at what these people WANT!

[Armstead]

124. NO they just believe in supporting democracy

No connection there whatsoever

[tammywammy]

111. This comes up all the time

I work for a Fortune 50 company that many on here detest. When I make a donation to a campaign I, like everyone else, put down my employers name. My company has never encourage or coerced me or anyone to donate to anyone.

So, whatever.

[Cleita]

127. Why would you have to do that?

I have never had to put my employer's name on an individual donation I made from my own bank account. I have never donated to a campaign at the office either.

[tammywammy]

130. It's on the form

Where do you think these lists of top donors comes from?

[PatrynXX]

112. bit of a disconnect when conservatives are funding

your candidacy however the company CEO whatever than owns it is giving said money so if you wanna get technically name same CEO who donates to Hillary. which means even less people donate to Hillary ... thus Bernie has way more supporters per person than Hillary does as far as donations.

[INdemo]

114. OMG You had to really dig deep

Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

to pull that one out
Hillary supporters are sounding and acting more like Republicans every day. I mean that
Read your post and think about what you just posted.
Hillary could run as a Republican and would have the same contributors as the Republican candidates
Hillary talks about being a moderate-right and then declares she is a progressive.
If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination she wont be winning anything because its being bought for her.

Just like she said the pharmaceutical companies were her enemies she then takes/accepts a $160,000+ check from them
Give me a break


https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=All&id=N00000019&type=f

[Ed Suspicious]

151. In what ways, I'm wondering, does Hillary break from the ideology of compassionate conservatism?

[stupidicus]

117. anything a Hillary supporter does or can understand, a Sanders supporter long has

we BS supporters also understand that you are impotent in the face of the perception being generated by such lists http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/ which inarguably fits the political pursuits and outlooks of the respective candidates.

What's most remarkably asinine about this particular effort on your part is that there's no link/relationship between "progressives" and the assertion, since anyone from a "real" liberal to a "real" con could make the same claim. By all means genius, explain to the readers here how making it in any way undermines or erodes their claimed "real progressive" bona fides.

WHat is is about HC supporters that they seem to lack the mental acuity to resolve such things into the separate and distinct things that they are, andy why, given what this says about the quality and/or quantity of intellect or integrity that they have, do they keep jumping up on a soapbox they are almost certain to be knocked off of?

masochism?

[leftofcool]

122. First it is Stockholm Syndrome and now it is lack of mental acuity.

There ya have it, Hillary supporters all, PoC, LGBT etc............ We are all mentally deficient.

[stupidicus]

135. "If the shoe fits..." as they say

what I don't understand is why you have yet to criticize the top poster here for the same offense/s, as opposed to attacking those who at worst, merely reciprocated. It's almost like his effort is totally devoid of implications/insinuations that suggest/argue for a real or percieved deficiency on the part of BS supporters of like kind.

Is it possible that moral deficiencies like gross hypocrisy is the real problem with many HC supporters, as opposed to a mental one?

[Garrett78]

118. The individuals understand who butters their bread.

Of course the contributions come from individuals, as corporations are made up of individuals. But the interests of the individuals match the interests of the corporate entity to whom the candidate is then beholden. And the fact is that Clinton, like most politicians, gets a massive sum from Wall Street, no matter how you choose to spin it. Not only in the form of campaign contributions but also in the form of speaking fees. To suggest that doesn't then greatly influence policy is the height of naivete. Wall Street has far more influence on public policy than "we the people." In fact, pieces of federal legislation have actually been written by the likes of Citigroup. Now, when's the last time you or I got to write legislation?

Lawrence Lessig to Bill Moyers:

"I mean, we have the data to show this now. There was a Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Ben Page. The largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government. And what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter cares about.

And when they look at the economic elite, you know, as the percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. As the organized interests care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. If we can go from zero percent of the average voters caring about something to 100 percent and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. And when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line, that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. Our democracy is flat lined. Because when you can show clearly there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about, only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about, you've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore."

The US is oligarchic/plutocratic and has been for ages. Clinton is a symptom, not a cause. Far too much focus is put on individual politicians. It's the system, stupid. Clinton will likely be the next POTUS, and there's no doubt a Clinton presidency would be better than, say, a Rubio or Trump presidency. But corruption will still be the name of the game when it comes to US federal level politics.

[restorefreedom]

121. dan, i appreciate your creativity, truly.

but uh, no. not buying. hillary is owned lock, stock and barrel by 'corporations' and superpacs. bernie will be accountable to the people

BIG difference. or as trump would say, huuuuuge difference!

[Autumn]

128. As Progressives we are smart enough to know the difference between individual donations

from people who may donate a max of $2,700 per election and list the corporation that they work for and unlimited corporate donations that go to superpacs. Maybe you need to see how superpacs work and who* in this election is benefiting from them before you start pretending progressives lack understanding of how this corrupt political system works.

* hint , her initials are HRC.

[Fearless]

134. Everything you've just said is bull shit.

That is, nothing you've said has any foundation in reality. You could have literally pulled this entire statement off of Breitbart or Drudge or Fox News and pasted it here.

Please stop.

This is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

[treestar]

137. The blind hatred of "corporations" is ridiculous

The average voter is not going to buy it. Their job may be at a "corporation." Everyone is fine with the corporation they work at.

[cascadiance]

160. The blind hatred of us that hate UNCONSTITUIONAL "corporate PERSONHOOD" is more ridiculous!

Most of us don't hate corporations as an institution if they were set up as such and not having "personhood" rights, and were regulated enough to have proper reigns over control over them and more importantly to the HUMAN BEINGS that run them and control them that have screwed us so much. It is the people that are in control of these corporations and use them as proxies to help steal more rights, wealth, and control over our country that we hate. And if you don't hate those problems, then I question your sanity, or if you are really one of the wealthy that has time to spend talking here versus being worth a billion dollar salary that you want to defend here.

[NanceGreggs]

143. No, they don't.

And their lack of understanding that difference is evident in this thread, and many others.

[Garrett78]

150. You seem to be the one lacking an understanding.

You can pretend that 100 Goldman Sachs employees (such as Timothy Geithner before he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury) making the maximum contribution is no different than 100 John or Jane Does making contributions, but that doesn't make it so. The employees of Big Banks/Pharma/Ag/etc. know full well that the company's interests are their interests. They know who butters their bread, so to speak.

Of course the contributions come from individuals, as corporations are made up of individuals. But the interests of the individuals match the interests of the corporate entity to whom the candidate is then beholden. And the fact is that Clinton, like most politicians, gets a massive sum from Wall Street, no matter how you choose to spin it. Not only in the form of campaign contributions but also in the form of speaking fees. To suggest that doesn't then greatly influence policy is the height of naivete. Wall Street has far more influence on public policy than "we the people." In fact, pieces of federal legislation have actually been written by the likes of Citigroup. You may want to read that last sentence more than once if you don't fully grasp the extent to which the US is plutocratic. Now, when's the last time you or I were asked to write legislation?

Furthermore, there's a revolving door between industry and public office, between regulatory agencies and the regulated. For the wealthy in the US, bribery and corruption is essentially legal. And when employees of Beacon Global Strategies, for instance, are advisors to the Clinton campaign, you're a fool if you think that doesn't come with strings attached. When Corrections Corporation of America makes donations, you're a fool if you think that doesn't come with strings attached.

Lawrence Lessig to Bill Moyers:

"I mean, we have the data to show this now. There was a Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Ben Page. The largest empirical study of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government. And what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter cares about.

And when they look at the economic elite, you know, as the percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. As the organized interests care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. But as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. If we can go from zero percent of the average voters caring about something to 100 percent and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. And when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line, that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. Our democracy is flat lined. Because when you can show clearly there's no relationship between what the average voter cares about, only if it happens to coincide with what the economic elite care about, you've shown that we don't have a democracy anymore."

The US is oligarchic/plutocratic and has been for ages. Clinton is a symptom, not a cause. Far too much focus is put on individual politicians. It's the system, stupid. Clinton will likely be the next POTUS, and there's no doubt a Clinton presidency would be better than, say, a Rubio or Trump presidency. But corruption will still be the name of the game when it comes to US federal level politics.

[Autumn]

155. Hillary fans don't seem to be able to figure out what superpacs are, where the money comes from or

how they work.