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
 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
27. Yes, by having a super-PAC for donations to flow to
Sat Feb 27, 2016, 02:49 AM
Feb 2016

She has a super-PAC and her donors can make unlimited contributions to that - such as the $350k donation today from the Wal-mart heir.

Also, most of the donations to her actual campaign hit the $2700 max limit to her in a single donation so it's a lot easier to track than several million $27 donations...

Nothing to worry about for her bankster cronies maybe. hobbit709 Feb 2016 #1
I'm sure there's plenty for her to worry about californiabernin Feb 2016 #2
Exactly. By deflecting and stalling she looks even more untrustworthy.... peacebird Feb 2016 #7
If there's nothing to worry about, why not release them? The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2016 #3
I see it a little differently. Her fans already know she works for Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street rhett o rick Feb 2016 #6
At least she follows existing campaign finance law BainsBane Feb 2016 #15
I could swear I know one of those on that list. zappaman Feb 2016 #17
I'm not BainsBane Feb 2016 #18
Yes, by having a super-PAC for donations to flow to revbones Feb 2016 #27
Some donors will also max out primary and GE donations Kittycat Feb 2016 #29
She doesn't "have" a super pac BainsBane Feb 2016 #31
tough on crime, tough on fucking hippies autonomous Feb 2016 #22
She is for the Establishment and against the 99%. nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #23
She can't turn them over because they are being audited? No ... wait ... that's Trump's tax returns Attorney in Texas Feb 2016 #4
OK...then just put them out there! TCJ70 Feb 2016 #5
Translation: "Shut up about it!" mindwalker_i Feb 2016 #8
+10 nt 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #10
What she means by "nothing to worry about" is "Don't worry about the things I said because I did not thereismore Feb 2016 #9
Classic "nothing to see here" statement. nt 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #11
How Nixonian Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #33
Glad that's settled... Fairgo Feb 2016 #12
I abosolutely abosolutely do NOT believe anything she says. onecaliberal Feb 2016 #13
HRC:"You're asking me to say I have never, I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will" nc4bo Feb 2016 #14
So easy to prove, just release them whatchamacallit Feb 2016 #16
Okey doke, Hillary. Barack_America Feb 2016 #19
heheheheheheheheheheheheheh MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #20
I only said a few things, but hey i lied to them too! autonomous Feb 2016 #21
Nothing except what the $millions$ of payola in her pocket means. n/t delrem Feb 2016 #24
It's bad enough she got so much money for them. Bernblu Feb 2016 #25
I guess that settles that then togetherforever Feb 2016 #26
If there's no "there there" Docreed2003 Feb 2016 #28
Then what in the fuck is the problem? actslikeacarrot Feb 2016 #30
If they're all that benign and flawless maybe she should demand more of a payoff for her next gig. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2016 #32
I told my wife there was 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #34
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton Promises 'Absolut...»Reply #27