Hillary Clinton’s Top Corporate Donors Are Among The Most Hated Companies in America

[Ichingcarpenter]

Corporations love to give money to politicians who look out for the interests of corporations. Hillary Clinton, for example, has accepted tons of campaign donations from some of the most hated corporations in Americans over the course of her political career.

Harris Poll, a marketing research firm, has published its annual list of the “most visible” American corporations, ranked by reputation. By sheer coincidence, the bottom half of the list happens to include a number of the same companies found on the list of Hillary Clinton’s top corporate donors over the years.





http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillary-clintons-top-corporate-donors-are-among-the-most-hated-companies-in-america/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. a Government "of the people, by the people and for the people".

[Fumesucker]

3. Corporations are people too, my friend...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. Hillary Inc is living proof of that, though her poll-tested personality is majorly lacking.

[Jack Rabbit]

68. And that's the law

. . . because a crooked shyster wrote it into a SCOTUS decision.

The law is an ass. -- Emile Zola

[father founding]

70. WTF ?

Very Bad People.

[kairos12]

82. Why do I laugh every time I hear that? Probably shouldn't.

[Octafish]

87. Do they want Campaign Finance Reform, specifically: publicly financed elections, too?

Remember when they talked about it on the tee vee? It's been a long while, since the time of the Fairness Doctrine.

[Half-Century Man]

203. Quite frankly; yes

wolf-pac.com

[HereSince1628]

4. And it's the best government some 'people' can buy!

[Rex]

11. It's as if the non-governing elite control the governing elite.

But hey, don't say that on DU...it causes problems with those that live with their head in the clouds.

[HereSince1628]

18. I suppose the only if is -if- there is such a thing as a non-governing oligarch

[Rex]

24. I prefer non-governing plutocracy. The word oligarchy give some here the vapors.

If you got the money, you too can be the next person to buy your very own politician! Step right up!

[Dustlawyer]

192. Yea, but to be a real Player you buy Republicans and Democrats! A Democrat can get you

more of what you want because the Repugs want to go along to help because the banks or whoever bought them too, so they don't oppose the Democrat you bought. The Democratic base will make excuses for what they think of as "their" politician and why that politician had to do what they did even though it screws the rest of us. For example, we have Obama and Hillary defenders that will overlook just about anything that they do and attack any Democrat who critisizes them for doing it. TPP, "well Obama's done good things too!"
Why did no Wall Street bankers get indicted and go to jail? Why does NSA spy on us and it's ok? Sure Obama has done a lot of great things for us, but that doesn't excuse selling us out even one time! Hillary will govern much like Obama.
Want to break the cycle? Back Bernie like there is no tomorrow and watch the corporate media and everyone else go apoplectic! Everyone knows our politicans are bought off, but no one seems very upset about it. I just wonder how bad will things have to get before we decide that enough is enough? Will it be after it is too late to do anything about Climate Change, dying oceans, and the social safety net?

[merrily]

174. The ones spreading the corporatist Third Way gospel or the Party uber alles gospel

ubare not the ones with their heads in the clouds. In their wallets maybe, but not in the clouds.

[merrily]

182. A lot of the governing elite were once the non-governing elite. If not, many sure made money

fast once they became members of the governing elite. If not, they will sure make it when they leave Congress and end up in lobbying positions and think tanks.

[billhicks76]

138. Honorary Member Of The Bush Family

Nuff Said

[Rex]

2. Centrist swarm attack in 3...2...1...

Hey look her biggest donors are the people that wrote the last omnibus bill!

[Populist_Prole]

33. No doubt!

Also, look at the scornful tongue lashing populists are getting from neoliberals/3rd-way-ers/corporate dems for having the nerve to push back against them ramming the TPP down our throats.

[msongs]

54. obama's apologists would prefer you not mention the TPP thanks :-) nt

[Enthusiast]

126. Well if Obama is for the TPP it's for our own good.

He can't help it we're stupid.

[cheapdate]

52. Do you believe that a person can run a serious and credible national camapaign

for the office of President of the United States without financial support from large corporate donors?

From 2102:

"But in the final weeks, Romney’s committees outspent Obama’s $292 million to $258 million, according to the reports. And Romney’s spending advantage widened to $337 million to $279 million when taking into consideration the super PACs devoted to the rivals, the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action and the pro-Romney Restore Our Future. Overall, Restore Our Future outraised Priorities $154 million to $79 million."

Note that the above is only talking about the spending in the final weeks of the election cycle. Do you believe that a serious candidate can fund a competitive and credible national campaign using only genuine grass-roots donations?

If Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren were to win the Democratic nomination, do you think they could run competitive, 50-state, campaigns without substantial campaign funds?

[99th_Monkey]

61. Bernie may be doing just that. hope hope. -nt-

[AllyCat]

62. Then what is the point of the little people participating?

These corporations don't just give money without expecting results. we must fight and shine the light of day on this practice or it will only get worse.

[cheapdate]

81. I believe it's a social truth that accepting a gift creates a bond or an obligation,

and that no matter how subtle that bond or obligation might be, it's always there. I think this is a social truth, backed by experience and study. Which is why the claims of Clarence Thomas and the other conservative justices in Citizens United v. FEC were so outrageous.

I also believe very strongly in full, public, disclosure. Which is why I am sometimes infuriated with secrecy.

I agree it's important to know where the money comes from, and I positively love the work of OpenSecrets.org.

The point of little people participating is a personal choice. I believe in participating because I care about the outcome and I'm willing to do what I can to influence it. The alternative would seem to be passivity or nihilism.

The argument is made that money, lots of money, is a requirement to run a serious, credible, competitive campaign for national office. The expenses are huge for staff, advertising, travel, expenses, etc. Until the rules of the game are changed, that's the game. A principled stand against taking campaign donations might be noble, but it's a losing strategy.

Bashing HRC for taking corporate contributions is crap. It's required of any serious and credible candidate. I'm not talking about Ralph Nadar. He was never going to win the presidency. Sanders and Warren are extreme longshots. But if somehow they win the nomination, they'll have to raise the serious money that's required for a serious shot. And that means corporate donations.

[George II]

194. If Warren Buffet contributed $10 BILLION to a candidate he still gets only one vote.

[laundry_queen]

209. Really?

You don't comprehend what a 10 billion contribution gets you? You think they give that money expecting nothing in return?

M'kay.

[A Simple Game]

89. Wow, I didn't know! So that's how Romney won. n/t

[cheapdate]

97. No, Romney obviously lost.

Romney and his allies outspent Obama by around $40 million in the final weeks. That margin is around 4% of the total spending by either campaign during the election. Their spending was roughly equal during the campaign.

Money is necessary to run a competitive national campaign. I'm not making this up. If you don't believe me, fine.

[A Simple Game]

130. No I believe you, I already knew Romney outspent Obama.

I was trying to point out that your facts answer your question, but not with the answer you seem to want. And yes I already know that President Obama took large donations.

I get the impression you are implying that you need the most money to win or at least large donors.

Do you believe that a serious candidate can fund a competitive and credible national campaign using only genuine grass-roots donations?

The fact that Romney lost should be the answer to your question.

As for this:

If Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren were to win the Democratic nomination, do you think they could run competitive, 50-state, campaigns without substantial campaign funds?

Senator Warren has already had invites to large donor functions that Hillary wasn't invited to attend.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/progressive-donors-dont-invite-hillary

[JDPriestly]

165. Warren gets lots of donations from ordinary people. The corporate dollars add up faster, but

they don't represent voter support. They can buy some voters, but a lot of us cannot be bought.

I will not be bought in 2016. And my congressman is a Democrat who does enough fundraising to get elected but not more than necessary.

[JDPriestly]

164. Why should we bother to vote if the candidates are bought by corporations before we have any

input into the mattter?


I will not be voting for Hillary no matter what. I'm in California. If she hasn't won by the time she gets here, my vote won't help her out.

Sooner or later we voters have to start voting for candidates who don't have the money of the corporations behind them. That's the only way we will be able to regain our democracy.

[Joe Turner]

96. Moot Point

If a candidate is owned by corporations why does it matter if the other party's corporate-owned candidate wins? Each get you to the same place. Endless wars, unlimited corporate welfare, more one-way trade deals which add up to a further plundering of America's middle class. I'd rather punt on both. At this point for me it's Bernie or Bust.

[cheapdate]

98. It matters to me.

Hillary Clinton won't radically change US foreign policy or national security policy, and she won't fundamentally restructure the US banking and economic system. She won't withdraw from the GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, or the IMF.

But at the same time, she won't radically change the system of environmental protections, which today's Republican party is set on dismantling. Like Obama, Hillary has conventional views on government and public policy. She believes in the conventional view of government.

Republicans of today are radically different. Look no further than Scott Walker (WI), Rick Scott (FL), or Sam Brownback (KS). A Hillary Clinton presidency probably won't radically advance a progressive agenda, but a Republican presidency could easily be catastrophic, in a very real and literal sense.

Lastly, or course, the next president will probably appoint 2, or possibly 3 justices to the supreme court, which can affect public life in the US for a generation. If the difference between Elana Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor on the one hand, and Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the other doesn't concern one, then by all means, sit 2016 out.

[Joe Turner]

116. "she won't radically change the system of environmental protections"

Yes, she will. She will just make the bitter pills seem sweeter than the in your face republicans. At the point of Hillary, you are just fighting for scraps of what if left of the democratic platform of social justice and equality. No thanks. And I don't trust her on Judges either. She will only select pre-approved "safe" Judges that will do the 1%'s bidding.

[cheapdate]

122. I couldn't disagree more.

If you don't think there's any difference between what kinds of people and policies would be put in place at the federal agencies that manage and administer public lands, habitat and species protection, and other environmental protection laws, regulations, and policies, then we have a fundamentally different conception of the political ideology and environmental ethics that separates the two parties, and a fundamentally different expectation of the practical consequences of those ideologies and ethics when put into practice by the same two parties.

Hillary will essentially maintain the status quo. She'll staff agencies, who will then set policies, with non-radical, status-quo types like herself, who, under the best of circumstances, will establish, at least occasionally, rational and reasonable policies.

The Republican party of today is radical. They would gladly carry out radical plans in line with their extreme ideology if given half a chance.

Do what you want. Hillary isn't my savior. Like Obama, her ethics and mine are worlds apart in many areas. But unlike Republicans, we at least inhabit the same universe.

[Joe Turner]

133. That's what you don't get

The status quo is killing this country. Delude yourself that Hillary would be materially different than a Jeb Bush or any other republican for that matter. When all the super-charged rhetoric and campaign slogans end and the job begins She and They work for the same people. The political image makers get paid a lot of money to make a candidate look like they are mover and shakers of political change. Sorry, the only shot at turning things around for the better is a candidate that is not reliant on corporate money. It really is that simple .

[cheapdate]

140. Who are you talking to?

"The political image makers get paid a lot of money to make a candidate look like they are mover and shakers of political change."

I clearly and specifically said that Hillary Clinton is NOT a candidate of political change.

I'll return your invitation to delude yourself into believing that the type of administration, personnel, and policies that would be set in place at, for instance, the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, the EPA Compliance and Enforcement Office, or the US Fish and Wildlife Service's office for enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, would be the same under Jeb Bush or "any other Republican" as it would be under Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat.

It wouldn't, as anyone who pays even a modest amount of attention to these things knows.

Do what you want. Just please don't complain when Jeb Bush or Chris Christie fills the next three U.S. Supreme Court vacancies with far-right ideological conservatives who run the court for the next twenty years.

[JDPriestly]

168. How about Hillary giving her campaign funds to Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders and

letting the corporations that have been trying to bribe her with their donations what they deserve -- a sort of slap in the face?

Now that would be integrity. I suppose it is too much to ask.

Elizabeth Warren would still owe them nothing, but she would have the money to run. Alternatively, Bernie Sanders would have the money but owe not debt to the corporate donors who were corrupting Hillary.

Let's assume you are right and the only way that a candidate can win is by selling his/her votes and integrity to his/her corporate donors. Doesn't that mean that our system is totally, utterly and entirely corrupt?

When we vote for a candidate like Hillary who gets so much money from large, often dishonest or shall we be kind and say less than ethical, corporations, aren't we just voting for corruption?

Isn't the problem with the fact that Hillary has taken all this money from companies some of which are corrupt, that it means that she herself is corrupt?

So why should we vote for more corruption? Why should we vote for a candidate who sells him or herself to corporations?

Why can't we have honest candidates who will really represent us?

Why are we being asked once again to vote for a candidate supported by and chosen by donors some of whom are corrupt?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

144. Do Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer serve the interests of the 1%? /NT

[Joe Turner]

154. Actually I think they do

Their vote on Kelo v. New London really showed who they work for. The idea that Hillary would appoint a justice that is diametrically opposed to her corporatist agenda is silly. All show and no go pretty much defines the Clintons. Such golden oldies as Ending Welfare as we know it and NAFTA are just a few of the sell outs we have become accustomed to with his couple. The democratic party needs to find itself again and decide who's side their on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

155. You do know the dissenters were Clarence Thomas, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and ...

You do know the dissenters were Clarence Thomas, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Sandra Day O'Connor.

It was a complex eminent domain case that the liberal justices decided the public good outweighs property rights.

[hatrack]

159. No, they decided that certain private property rights outweight other private property rights

In Kelo, the private property rights with lots and lots of money were deemed more "important" than those of homeowners.

"Liberals" on the court made it possible for the George W. Bush ("We don't want the government picking winners and losers&quot approach to condemnation on the Ballpark in Arlington to go nationwide.

Nice how that worked out, huh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

160. Actually Bush issued an executive order restricting the use of eminent domain...

Actually Bush issued an executive order restricting the use of eminent domain and it was Republicans who were all aflutter about the decision, given their fetishization of private property.

The liberal justices balanced the rights of private property owners against the public good and found that the scale tipped in favor of the public good.

When conservatives like Thomas. Rehnquist, Scalia, and to a slightly lesser extent O'Connor are on one side and liberals and moderates like John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy are on the other side one needs to question which side they're on.

The case was complex and the precedent is set was important. i don't like taking away anything from anybody but sometimes circumstances demand it.

It's amazing. Some people tilt so far to the left they end up on the right.

[JDPriestly]

167. So the best we can hope for is the status quo and we can have that only provided that we behave

ourselves and vote for and support the corporate-picked candidate.

Wow! How "Democratic." Sounds like just what our ancestors fought the revolution for.

Did somebody say "taxation without representation" but with acquiescence. I don't think that was what our country was intended to be about. I think the representation part of taxation based on democratic representation demands more than just voting for the corruption of the Democratic Party because the corruption of the Republican Party is even stupider.

I refuse to take such a lazy view of my role as a voter and as a Democratic Party activist.

Sheer laziness. Sooner or later, we have break the cycle of corporate control of our elections. The best way to do that is to vote for candidates who DON'T receive a lot of money from corporations.

[cheapdate]

198. Everyone can make their own strategic decision.

It would be "lazy" if the only thing one was to do, was to vote Democratic once every 4 years and then hope (in vain) for transformation to occur. There are other possibilities. One can be fully engaged year round in movement building or protest activities and still vote "D" in elections.

Simply preventing Republicans from gaining and consolidating power is reason enough to vote Democrat.

I believe that a Republican president in combination with the extreme views that are rampant in the Republican Party within its base and its elected leaders is a seriously dangerous prospect, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

I do not believe, even for a moment, the voices saying that Democrats and Republicans are "all the same" and it "doesn't matter". Sure, if one can't tell the difference between Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan on the one hand, and Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas on the other hand, then I suppose "they're all the same" makes sense.

I believe the political divisions in this country are real and deep. The electorate is deeply divided over church and state, crime and punishment, immigration and citizenship, environmental ethics, taxation and fairness, reproductive choice, sexuality and equal protection, and fundamental questions about the nature of self-governance.

If all that matters to a person is the candidates perspective on the banking and financial industry, then sure, both mainstream parties are closely aligned.

I believe that electing a president with a "D" beside his or her name is very important. It's not the end of my political engagement.

[JDPriestly]

210. And I believe that Democrats can and must do much better than Hillary Clinton.

If we nominate Hillary in 2016 and she is unable or unwilling to regulate Wall Street and limit profits to providers of war material and allow American jobs to be further shipped overseas, we will end up with a government that makes the Republican right wing look moderate.

We are at a turning point. The big issue, the issue that surpasses all other issues is corruption. And Hillary and Bill are not in a position to do much to end the corruption.

income and wealth disparity and corruption. All the other issues from the environment to our endless war are derived from the two primary issues of wealth disparity to the corruption. And those two issues work hand in hand to perpetuate each other.

We Democrats risk becoming entirely irrelevant if we nominate Hillary Clinton.

[cheapdate]

212. How much more irrelevant will Democrats be if Republicans win the White House?

One thing the Republicans have shown themselves to be very good at is in consolidating power. They approach the task with a single-minded, Machiavellian, almost sociopathic, intensity, divorced from any sense of ethics or fair-play. The Bush-Cheney administration stacked the federal agencies with legions of right-wing ideologues, radicals, and Liberty University graduates.

Then there is the SCOTUS. The court has been conservative for a long time, but the past 10 years has been disastrous. A look at some of the 5-4 conservative decisions over the past 10 years is almost too depressing to contemplate. The next president will likely appoint 2, and possibly 3, justices. The perspective of those justices will color the court, and have a profound effect on public life, for the next generation. A Republican president will almost unquestionably appoint hard-line conservatives, especially in today's climate. As well, there are scores of positions to be filled in the lower courts.

Regarding Republican policy, they've said very clearly, and very often, what they intend to do. There is no doubting their intentions or their resolve. Their agenda is perfectly clear. Eliminate the safety net. Repeal the ACA. Destroy unions. Eliminate environmental protections. Sell off public lands. Criminalize abortion. Codify discrimination. Elevate Christianity as a state religion. Persecute Muslims.

Republicans are crazed and dangerous. A major and credible analysis concluded that fully enacting their proposed budget for 2015 would result in a staggering decline of 9% GDP and lead to a depression.

I get who Hillary Clinton is. A friend of Wall Street. A believer in the conventional story of government and business. A supporter of free trade and globalization. Pro-business. A devoted capitalist. On the other hand, she's not a radical. She believes in the safety net. She believes in government. She's liberal on many social issues. She's a Democrat.

I share some of you assessment of the major problems with our politics and our government. Corporatism, "free trade", corruption, income and wealth disparity, an immoral and destructive banking and financial industry -- all of these are interrelated and are leading us toward a disaster of epic proportions.

But our expectations differ over your belief that "...we will end up with a government that makes the Republican right wing look moderate." I live in a red state. And I can testify these crazed Republicans are serious. Whatever they say they will do, they will do.

Hillary might keep us on a steady course toward the cliff, but the Republicans want to step on the gas.

[JDPriestly]

213. If you live in a red state, you are partly responsible for changing that red state blue.

It is not I who will claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats on economic issues so voters should decide how to vote based on their social prejudices and ignorance.

I know about this from experience. In 2008, I campaigned conservative John Boehner's district. I walked door to door. The area I was in was very Catholic and conservative on social issues, but working class and slightly more liberal on economic issues. I will never forget the elderly woman who explained that she was "undecided" because she was trying to choose between her Social Security and "the babies."

That is the basis on which many voters make their decisions. They are liberal on economic issues but conservative on social issues. They are the voters we can win to the Democratic Party if we elect a candidate who can be trusted to protect Social Security and very strongly defend the middle class on economic issues -- strongly enough that the economic issues outweigh the interest in issues like the "babies." Babies are important to all of us. But if we make the babies part of the economic issues on which we are strong and have a track record, we can win those who vote for the "babies." As we should because even abortion is to a greater extent than most realize, when a matter of choice, an economic choice. Not always. Sometimes it is a health choice or a choice based on some other factor. But for the mother of 5 who needs to get out and work but finds herself pregnant once again upon which her husband walks out, it is at least in part an economic choice.

You ASSUME that Hillary would win if she ran. I think that is incorrect. She polls well and has lots of money. But Republicans absolutely hate her. (I do not hate her. I just think we would be making a huge mistake if we nominate her.) If you live in a red state, you know that very well.

This is the year for a Democratic woman. I want Elizabeth Warren to run. She does not have the name recognition or money that Hillary has. But she has very strong positives in areas in which Hillary has damaging negatives. Elizabeth Warren owes next to nothing to Wall Street.
Elizabeth Warren just naturally explains very difficult economic concepts to ordinary people without a team of experts telling her what to say. (Either that's why she was picked to teach at Harvard Law School or she learned to explain the complex to the confused as a teacher there.) Elizabeth Warren has a warmer personality than Hillary Clinton and a better voice. She is therefore a much better speaker and crowd pleaser than Hillary. Elizabeth Warren does not have the baggage of NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, cuts to welfare, and numerous other Bill Clinton junk pulling her appeal down.

I know how loathed Hillary is by the right wing Christians because I have a sister who is one. My sister is generally kind, generous and helpful to a fault, has worked for non-profits and is far better than most Republicans, but one of the first things she sent me when we exchanged e-mails before an election a few years ago was a horrible attack e-mail against Hillary Clinton.

Hillary may be popular among Third-Way, conservative Democrats, but she is not liked by progressive Democrats and is despised by rank-and-file Republicans.

Right now, the polls suggest that Hillary would win, but I don't think that will hold. We need a candidate who will boldly and credibly demonstrate and promise to represent the middle class. I think we will lose if we elect Hillary Clinton. So, your argument that we need to win is very true, but I think that we need Elizabeth Warren to run to win. I think that in the end, Hillary cannot win.

[cheapdate]

214. +1.

[PosterChild]

139. +10 (nt)

[hatrack]

147. Do you believe a person can accept limitless corporate donations and remain a "credible" candidate?

Last edited Sun Feb 15, 2015, 01:11 AM - Edit history (1)

At least in the eyes of the vast majority of voters? I'm not saying Hillary is that candidate, but this kind of open buying and selling of candidates, parties and campaigns cannot go on much longer.

Democracy, representative government, "society" - all rest on an assumption that somewhere, some legitimacy remains, that it isn't just a gigantic Grift-Mart with valet parking for the investment bankers up front, and 600 yards of icy pavement between the rest of us and the front door.

Sooner or later the "Everybody Elses" are going to cease to give a fuck, park wherever the hell they want to and start burning down the Grift-Mart and all that it contains.

[cheapdate]

153. The problem, as Barack Obama and others have pointed out,

is that while the money in politics today is clearly a dreadful situation, unilaterally declaring ones intention not to participate in the money chase, or "unilaterally disarming" is essentially conceding defeat.

I said elsewhere that I believe it's a universal social truth that accepting a gift automatically creates an obligation. Whether one wants to admit it or not, the obligation is there.

I would welcome "everyone else" ceasing (or beginning) to give a fuck. I'm already there.

[hatrack]

157. Couldn't agree with you more on gift/obligation . . .

Let's face it, if I'm a donor on the order of $250,000 or $500,000 per campaign cycle, what kind of (gift/obligation) response am I going to get if I drop by my senator's office in DC? They'll stand up so fast they'll step on their dicks, and there will be access.

If I'm a donor on the order of $250 per campaign cycle, I might get a certificate, and a meeting with a staffer, if I'm lucky. Maybe.

Money is influence, and it buys access. It's likely always been that way, but when it gets to the point where a tiny little slice of the electorate has nearly all of the money and the influence, a certain moral and political . . . constipation sets in. As I said above, this can go on for a while, but it sure as shit can't go on forever.

[JDPriestly]

169. At the end of the Gilded Age, after the horrific corruption, the vote-selling, the cnadidate-buying,

by a stroke of luck (or the Hand of God if you are religious) or the hand of a mad killer, take your pick, we got Teddy Roosevelt. He made some progress toward establishing a civil service system and began the movement toward controlling monopolies. He tried to protect the environment by establishing national parks. He fought corruption and won, not completely, but to a great extent.

We have a history of correcting our system when the corruption just gets to be too much. We may not yet be at that point. But I for one am. I may be a little ahead of some others, but sooner or later we will get rid of this corrupt campaign finance system. The year could be 2016.

Citizens United was just too blatant a demonstration of the corruption.

Hillary may find she is the one who loses to a movement to end this corrupt campaign finance system. i cetainly hope so.

[tomp]

193. TR was a complicated figure

anti-monopoly, pro-environment, and the virtual midwife of us imperialism.

[JDPriestly]

211. Yes.

But his attacks on corruption redeemed him.

[merrily]

175. Obama outspent McCain by a lot. By the time he ran against Romney, he was a wiar time incumbent and

did not need as much.

And by the way, the guy you say spent the most lost to Obama.

So, yes, a Presidential candidate needs money, but it isn't everything.

But, as you well know, the point is that Hillary has been in bed with those corporations for a long time.

[cheapdate]

196. Hillary has been a candidate in three elections.

She was elected twice to the U.S. Senate, and she had an unsuccessful bid to become her party's nominee in the 2008 presidential election.

Hillary's views on government and business are fairly well established. It's a "conventional" view that believes heavily in free-market capitalism, "public-private partnerships", etc., with government having a significant role in regulating some aspects of the economy and in mitigating the social fallout of market fluctuations.

If Hillary becomes the Democratic Party's nominee, I will support her with full knowledge of who she is. She is someone who doesn't share my deeply held sense of environmental ethics, or my radical ideas for transforming society in ways that honor our obligation to the living world, to ourselves, and to future generations.

But she is a decent person. She is not a Republican. She may continue most present trends on their current trajectories. Republicans will accelerate them dramatically.

[merrily]

197. What does that have to do with my post #175?

And, as you know, I don't agree with your view of Hillary.

[cheapdate]

202. I'll try to be more direct.

To your point. "...by the way, the guy you say spent the most lost to Obama."

It's almost a reductio ad absurdum to interpret my comment that way. I'm not saying that the outcome of an election can be reduced to only one factor -- the simple sum of spending. I'm claiming that (1) an enormous amount of money is necessary these days to stage a credible and competitive presidential election campaign (2) money isn't everything, but there is a point at which a spending disparity becomes a real problem for a candidate and his or her chance of success.

Essentially, I said the same thing that you said.

What did my comments about HRC have to do with your post? Make of it what you want.

[merrily]

204. No one interpreted your comment. I simply made my own observation

I wasn't pulling one of those asinine, "So, you're saying money is everything" posts.

[cheapdate]

205. Seriously? No one interpreted my comment?

Not possible, assuming they were conscious and sane when they replied.

You're probably one of the few people here more argumentative than me.

[merrily]

206. I replied to your comment and made an observation of my own. If you don't believe that, oh, well.

And please don't be so modest about how argumentative you are vis a vis me. This is, what, your third post arguing about what was allegedly in my mind when I made, what, maybe a two sentence reply to the actual content of your post?

[cheapdate]

207. The fact that you replied and made an observation is not in dispute.

[merrily]

208. LOL.

[dreamnightwind]

216. I absolutely believe that

We need a strong, articulate, likable candidate to try it. The truth can counter a lot of corporate spin, people feel the truth in their bones.

The problem is, with everyone on the corporate payroll, the people never get told the real truth, they never hear the cases made for alternative visions, the corporate "centrist" beltway conventional wisdom people team up with the media conglomerates and tell slightly different versions of the same story, with the truth faced by most citizens in their daily lives either completely off the table, or the reality of the pain in people's lives is given lip service but the obvious solutions (like reduce military and "security" expenditures by at least an order of magnitude) are never represented as serious ideas.

We must be the most under-attack nation in the history of the universe, the way we spend money on "defense" and "security". The truth is no one attacks us, and on the rare cases that they do, it is almost always blow-back from our military and intelligence adventurism overseas, controlling the governments and natural resources of nations around the world.

Military and security excesses are just one example, you can look at any sector of life through a non-corporate lens and arrive at very different policies that work out much better for the vast majority of citizens but not as well for the obscenely wealthy.

Obama got about half of his money from small individual donors, and he was a slick corporate politician who gave sufficient lip-service to people's problems to give them enough hope to donate (I donated to him in 2008). An actual change candidate who doesn't have to keep corporate donors happy can speak the truths no one else can.

It won't be easy, there's a lot of cultural programming that has to be overcome, there's a huge corporate media establishment that will fight it, but people are hurting, they're not seeing anyone with solutions because those people aren't part of the "agenda", and they will respond when the right message is driven home by a transformative leader.

I think Sanders is someone who has his head heart and message in the right place. Warren a little less so, pretty good though, and she has the leadership quality I don't see in Sanders. Perhaps someone I don't even know about. But I do think it can be done, and that it HAS to be done.

Acceptance of corporate money could be used against these candidates if we had a way to use that to stigmatize the candidate in the eyes off the electorate. I'd put a lot of energy in that direction, make them ashamed to take the money, expose and ridicule them endlessly when they do it.

[cheapdate]

217. I don't disagree entirely with your arguments.

I guess after sitting and twisting my brain into knots trying to unravel the mystery of American politics and find the keys to success that will transform society and redirect it on a path that empowers everyone to lead full, rich, and meaningful lives, restores and protects the living environment for ourselves and future generations, and increases justice here and abroad, I come back to the conclusion that winning the election is a vital priority.

I gave some of my arguments for the necessity of winning in post #212, in reply to JDPriestly. I think that, at this moment in time, a victory for an imperfect Democrat is more important that a principled loss for a visionary candidate.

Thanks to the Robert's court Citizens United decision (5-4), laws that limit many kinds of political spending, or that require disclosure, have been declared unconstitutional. The price to run a credible and competitive national political campaign today is probably around $800,000,000, and there's nothing anyone can do about it for the time being. In today's environment, direct campaign contributions are only one piece of the total spending. Money isn't everything, but I think there's a limit to how much of a financial disadvantage a candidate can overcome and still remain viable. A good candidate with a good message will find his message subverted and overwhelmed by a candidate with a dramatic financial advantage. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's the sad truth.

But again, I agree with much of what you've said.

[SidDithers]

5. The Washington Free Beacon? WTF?...

I guess True Liberals don't mind using right-wing media to attack Democrats, when it serves their purpose.

Anyone else remember when this shit wasn't allowed at Democratic Underground?



Sid

[HappyMe]

10. Would this be a better source?

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019





http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

[Rex]

27. Easy now...their narrative has no support structure. So expect no answer.

Gee, the companies that caused the meltdown in 2008 are her biggest donors...but don't expect the swarm to discuss that at all. If they bring it up, once again it will be some off topic point.

[Comrade Grumpy]

35. It's his modus operandi. Attack the source, ignore the substance.

It's argument by emoticon.

[SidDithers]

41. Sources matter...

Attacking Democrats from the right is a bullshit tactic, used by all-too-many on the Fringe Left.

Similarly, giving exposure to and legitimizing racist and homophobic bigot authors also shouldn't be tolerated at a progressive website.

But again, thanks for your comments, comrade.

Sid

[glasshouses]

49. Dispute it with facts or accept as fact

Your choice

[SidDithers]

51. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[glasshouses]

102. thank you

[LittleBlue]

65. You are arguing in support of a textbook logical fallacy

We should strive to be rational thinkers before anything else. What I would like to know is, are those figures presented true or false?

[HappyMe]

45. I gave what I think is a better source.

It has the same info. Still nothing about the issue at hand, just grousing about the source.

[glasshouses]

50. Facts are hard to counter

[Broward]

14. Does anyone else remember when the Democratic Party wasn't controlled by corporatists?

[George II]

46. Google the headline and you'll see the other "news" outlets that have jumped on this...

...including Fox News, America's Freedom Fighters, etc.

Note there is no "source" given for the data - not that it isn't correct but tough to see how OTHER candidates get their money.

[Electric Monk]

64. Do you and Sid not see reply #10, with links to opensecrets.org? That's the source of the data.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026225434

[George II]

67. I did see that, later on. But the way the numbers are presented here is misleading...

....opensecrets separates out organizational (corporate) contributions from individual contributions, but includes individual contributions in the top number based on employer.

For example, although "Citibank" contributed $266K in the 2003-2008 election cycle, only $6000 of that actually came from a PAC - $260K was from individuals. And she got ZERO from Citibank itself (I believe that would be illegal)

[George II]

72. In addition, you can see the breakdown of where the contributions came from on opensecrets...

...it's interesting.

88% of Hillary Clinton's career contributions came from individuals
84% of Bernie Sanders' career contributions came from individuals

[rhett o rick]

99. What's your point? nm

[George II]

104. The point is that Hillary Clinton is being criticized for the (misleading) sources....

...of her contributions yet Bernie Sanders, the savior of the Democratic Party (even though he isn't a member) and the savior of the Republic receives a lower % of his funds from individuals and a higher % from PACs (Political ACTION Committees)

And IF (doubtful) Elizabeth Warren decides to run, she won't be able to mount a credible campaign without a similar breakdown of her contributors.

[rhett o rick]

107. I think that HRC will be influenced by corporate money more than either Sen Sanders or

Sen Warren, don't you?

[George II]

109. I really don't know.

[Rex]

115. Just look at opensecrets.org and the candidates liabilities and main donors.

Kind of an eye opener really.

Bernie has no business liabilities.

[JDPriestly]

171. Elizabeth Warren's primary donors:

EMILY's list and Move-on.
]
Then Harvard, MIT and U. of Boston, probably faculty.

Not a major corporation or a big bank in the top five.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033492

I suspect that most of her donors give relatively small amounts.

Top Five Industries.

Retired $3,469,499 $3,469,499 $0
Lawyers/Law Firms $2,219,522 $2,193,022 $26,500
Women's Issues $1,598,383 $1,577,911 $20,472
Education $1,361,358 $1,361,358 $0
Democratic/Liberal $1,326,877 $970,344 $356,533

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033492
...
Bernie Sanders' Top Five Donors:

Communications Workers of America $16,000 $0 $16,000
UNITE HERE $15,000 $0 $15,000
National Education Assn $11,400 $400 $11,000
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $11,000 $0 $11,000
Service Employees International Union $11,000 $3,000 $8,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000528

Compare these donor sources to those of Hillary. Warren and Sanders represent and are supported by real people in organizations that represent real people, not the billionaires. Warren and Sanders are for real. Hillary is not.

Lots more information to compare on Open Secrets.org.

Hillary has a problem here.

[peacebird]

186. ^^^this!^^^

[George II]

191. Do you think either can finance a national campaign for president?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

135. Jamie Dimon is an individual. So is Bernie Madoff.

Every corporation is run by individuals, every executive is an individual. And let's face it, it's individuals who send money to PACs to use.

So really, I actually don't find the breakdowns of 'individual vs PAC' all that interesting.

[JDPriestly]

170. Actually, I think I mentioned it here a couple of weeks ago.

Hillary has a problem: her donor list is not consistent with her claim that she wants to do something about income and wealth disparity. How in the world can a person who takes money from the corrupt avoid the taint of their corruption? Hillary may be forced on us as a candidate. And people who don't follow the news or politics may vote for her. But the corruption, the stink of the corruption will corrupt her administration and the administration of anyone whose support comes not from the American people but from those who harm the American people with their greed and corruption.

I'm going to support Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders if they run. I will not vote for Hillary.

[L0oniX]

118. Who will you be voting for?

[SidDithers]

124. I welcome their xenophobia...nt

Sid

[shenmue]

148. I remember when flamebait was frowned upon

[merrily]

177. Yep, meta, too. sic transit gloria Canada.

[merrily]

176. It's names and numbers, ffs, not commentary. Disprove the info, if you think it's wrong.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

199. Sid is the media decider. Iteration 2.

[SidDithers]

200. You're OK with using conservative sources to attack Democrats at DU?...

Really?

Sid

[GeorgeGist]

6. I don't see Comcast.

[merrily]

178. Wait.

[jwirr]

7. I counted maybe 4 donors that I think I could trust. We are in big trouble.

[99Forever]

8. Golly! What a surprise.

Not.

Which is why I will NEVER vote for or support The Inevitable One. Ever.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

90. I'm torn-votin 4 a warmonging corporatist just doesn't appeal. Wud hate 2 have that on my conscience.

[hifiguy]

94. This!

I will not sit home and I will vote for every other Democrat on the ticket but I will under no circumstances ever vote for that woman. Ever.

[Enthusiast]

127. Me too. Fool me once, shame on you...........

[wildbilln864]

9. k & fucking r! n/t

[Egnever]

12. Couple of issues I see with this

First the amounts are almost entirely from individual donations or employees of the companies not the actual companies themselves so right away I find this questionable as a measurement.

Second companies throughout history have donated to who they thought would be in power. She is looking more and more formidable as we get closer to the elections so if these companies didn't get on board it would be much more surprising than if they did.

Hillary would not be my first choice for president but I don't doubt she would be a competent president unlike the clown car offerings from the right. Right now she appears to be the most likely candidate, I am certainly open to competition for her though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Stop being nuanced, you are supposed to be outraged, just kidding.

If she wins she will get there no differently than the forty four gentlemen and not so gentlemen that preceded her.

[Egnever]

23. Sorry

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. She will get there by taking...

She will get there by taking money from folks we don't particularly like, trimming her positions to attract a plurality or majority of voters without which no politician can achieve anything, and when she does these things she won't be any different than the forty four gentlemen and not so gentlemen who preceded her.

This is the world we occupy.

[former9thward]

103. Of course it is from individuals.

Corporate donations to federal campaigns have been illegal since 1912. Employees are not dumb. They know who the company wants so they give donations to that person.

[sharp_stick]

13. Nice, the free beacon

maybe you can add a little newsmax and Brietbart to mix it up next time. Throw in a few quotes from the good people at the American Family Association and it'll really round out your brilliant arguement...Well Done

[SidDithers]

16. Exactly. The Right hates Clinton.. The Fringe Left hates Clinton...

Any port in a storm, I guess.

The Editor in chief of the Free Beacon is Bill Kristol's son-in-law for fuck's sake.

But all of this is perfectly acceptable to the Fringe Left these days, as long as they can get their hate-on for Hillary.



Sid

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Reminds me of when Stalin wouldn't let the Communists in Germany work with the Socialists...

Reminds me of when Stalin wouldn't let the Communists in Germany work with the Socialists to stop Hitler.

[freshwest]

125. And with predictable results, but some didn't learn...

Or do they really want that in the end? Not Hitler, but a RW GOP president? Do they truly believe a Leftist revolution is on the way? Letting things get worse was demanded here:

Glenn Greenwald advocates letting Republicans destroy the country

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/15/1262880/-Glenn-Greenwald-advocates-letting-Republicans-destroy-the-country

The ones planning for a revolution are on the Hard Right. They've armed and isolated themselves from the hated 'Demon-rats' as they call us. They have their own culture to take care of them and are moving on.

Bernie Sanders sure doesn't want that:

“No matter what I do, I will not be a spoiler,” Sanders said. “I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.”

http://inthesetimes.com/article/17572/bernie_sanders_president

The perpetual media drive to divide Dems fits right there:

“I will not play that role in helping to elect some right-wing Republican as President of the United States.”

Who will play that role, in addition to the GOP?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. It's called "maximizing the contradictions" or the "worse the better"

Last edited Sat Feb 14, 2015, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)

There was a survey of DU members. Of course there were exceptions but DU is older, more educated, more female, and wealthier than the general population.

This isn't a parlor game and we have constituencies who depend us on for their medical care, for their retirement income, and some for their very survival. My allegiance is to them and not to some salon notion of ideological purity.

Notions of a revolution are far fetched but if revolution comes to America It "will come wrapped in a flag." Actually the whole notion of a left wing revolution is far fetched. i take the Metro In Los Angles. There was a gentleman handing out a newspaper put out by what I believe is the Socialist Workers Party. He's a part time professor at Valley College or Pierce College. I don't remember now. Any way we were talking about "socialism" and he was telling me how most of the people he's giving the flyers to run from the term and most of them are working people of color.

In essence, it ain't happening.

I am recovering from a broken elbow. If not for the Affordable Care Act I would not have been able to have it set and get the subsequent rehabilitation.

Don't ever tell me politics, even small bore politics, can't change people's lives.

[freshwest]

146. Thanks so much for saying that better than I could! Saving that.

[rhett o rick]

100. You mean the Left wants a candidate that will represent the people and not the Big Banks.

So what does the "fringe left" desire that you don't? Fair and Free elections. No corporatist Trade Agreements? Freedom from NSA/CIA spying? Fair wages? The end to the continuous MIC wars?

[SidDithers]

101. It's all predetermined by the Oligarch Rulers anyway, right rick?...

Sid

[rhett o rick]

105. Yes the fringey Left believes that money has too much influence in politics.

The New Democrats are A-Ok with that.

[Enthusiast]

129. +1 an entire shit load.

[hedda_foil]

162. There is no "fringe left." Hasn't been one since the Rosenbergs.

What you demean as fringe is mainstream, FDR/JFK liberal democrats. Polls show those lib principles are shared by 60-80% of this country's population.

Centrism, on the other hand, boils down to a handful of poll-tested but hollow slogans that virtually no one believes or supports. It is not the center of anything much.

[merrily]

184. Even more than that, FDR, Truman and JFK were plain ole Democrats, not even liberal Democrats.

They didn'dt hate liberals, that's for sure. They graciously and gratefully accepted the nominations of the Liberal Party. However, they were plain ole Democrats. If they hadn't been, they would not have been nominated (by either the PTB or Democratic voters) or elected. Liberal Democrats of the day were checking out Communist Party meetings. Not necessarily joining, but listening.

As you know, corporatists from both of the nation's largest political parties keep trying to pretend that mainstream Democrats from the past were liberal to fringe left so that the center right looks mainstream. I agree with you about that. But I would move the marker further.

[merrily]

183. The Right wants to help the rich. The left wants to help the 99%.

Oh, wait. You are attempting the falsest of false equivalencies. Good luck convincing anyone with at least two brain cells.

BTW, how's single payer working for conservative Canadians who are not rich?

ETA: Almost forgot:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I like the extra large tight lens GIF of Hillary Clinton laughing

It has just the appropriate touch of sexism and ageism.

[fbc]

22. It's taken directly from opensecrets.org

Do you have a problem with the truth?

Do you not think this will be used against her in a general election?

Maybe you are looking forward to an election narrative where it's the republican candidate vs. Wall Street, but I am not.

A Hillary Clinton candidacy will turn the republicans into populists and set back the Democratic party for years.

[Rex]

25. That's not the point. Notice they never actually talk about the point of the OP.

That HRC gets money from the companies that caused the financial collapse in 2008. It is an old tactic, but must still work if they are deploying it.

[Egnever]

29. Everyone takes money from them

I think that is the counter point being made.

Never mind the fact that these numbers are almost exclusively from employees not the actual companies themselves.

Meanwhile

The conservative Koch brothers' political network plans to spend $889 million during the 2016 election cycle, according to media reports out of the network's donor meeting being held early this week in California.

So our candidate is going to need every dollar they can get no matter who it comes from. Those numbers are from her whole career also not from this election cycle. Pretty disingenuous post IMHO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Emily's List was close to the top.

If the denizens of this board want Hillary to raise more "good" money they should donate more to Emily's List.

[Enthusiast]

131. That's why I unsubscribed from Emily's list.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

141. Wow./NT

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

93. Yes, everybody does it, so I guess that makes it right.

[NYC Liberal]

75. The OP is a flat-out lie, since those companies did not give the money

but rather employees of those companies did.

[Rex]

91. Take it up with www.opensecrets.org. since that is where the data came from.

The companies that support her are responsible for the 2008 crisis, sorry if you don't know that fact or it hurts your feelings in some way. The truth hurts sometimes.

[NYC Liberal]

112. Yes that is where I'm looking. And opensource.org clearly distingushes

between individuals and companies.

It's the OP that is misleading by lying about the data that is very clear if you go to the website.

[Rex]

113. Well individuals are not corporate donors and the poll is lifted right from the harris pdf.

The Freebeacon looks like shit rag, I agree with you there. To make the harris poll argument, I would use opensecrets.org if it was me.

[sharp_stick]

69. No I have a problem

with people linking to a piece of shit site like the free beacon.

[Maedhros]

95. The information is valid.

Your opinion of the source doesn't make the facts go away.

Your posts are the equivalent of plugging your ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

[sharp_stick]

108. Sure the stuff in there might be valid

but using a source like that is lazy at best and malignant at worst.

If you can't find a source without linking to a site filled with hateful RW bullshit you aren't working hard enough.

[Maedhros]

121. Carping over the source as a means to derail discussion is always malignant. [n/t]

[sharp_stick]

145. If you can't be bothered

to check your source before posting you have no right to complain when called on it. If the OP pulled his numbers from open secrets and posted them fine, but no they copied and pasted from a piece of shit site so either they were lazy or they enjoy reading messages from that site. Lazy is bad, reading that site regularly is malignant.

[Maedhros]

152. If you had anything that rebutted the OP you would have already posted it.

But you don't, so you engage in the cheapest, oldest trick on the Internet - make the argument about something else, so as to keep people from discussing the facts that are damaging to your hero.

Bye, now.

[TheNutcracker]

17. There is not enough money to defend this nationwide, along with the Epstein crapola.

will the next candidate step forward please.....


Hi Bernie!

[fbc]

21. Who does Hillary Clinton work for?

Not you or me.

[GummyBearz]

28. Doh...

I some how have a connection to almost half of that list... even my freakin (alumni) university is on the list... arg. I feel like I need to take a shower

[OKNancy]

30. Well isn't this a nice piece of Republican garbage... surprised they didn't list labor unions

since they hate labor. OTOH, the purpose of this is not to get Republicans to dislike Hillary.
The purpose is to stir up shit against Hillary from the left.

FYI: Labor loves the Clintons.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees -$5.3 million
Service Employees International Union and Communications Workers of America account for $3.8 million and $3.6 million, respectively.

I won't list all of them. The article left out donations from Emily's list, NARAL, N.O.W., and many more.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Dec. 2011 Hillary gave a speech " Gay rights are Human Rights"

[JaneyVee]

34. Exactly. Those corp's aren't hated by the rightwing.

Amazing how easily divide and conquer works on the left.

[SidDithers]

37. It's from the Washington Free Beacon...

where they quote Ronald Reagan on their About Us page.

The site is run by William Kristol's son-in-law.

But any Hillary hate is good Hillary hate, according to DU's True Liberals.

Sid

[L0oniX]

119. No facts to counter the poll? Ok ...got it.

[JaneyVee]

31. And when GOP throws a hat in the ring....

Those numbers will be quadrupled for the opposition. And why are you reading freebeacon?

[FiveGoodMen]

36. That OUGHT to make her one of the most hated candidates among Democratic voters

[Scuba]

38. Are you kidding? She's the most progressive candidate EVAH. Read it right here.

[L0oniX]

120. LOL

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/20/obama.goldman.donations/

I still think very highly of him...

As long as the other side is going to raise tons of dough i want my side to have tons of dough. Only a fool or a masochist goes into battle unarmed.

[wyldwolf]

39. Elizabeth Warren Endorses ‘Free Money’ for Wall Street

The Democratic Party’s great populist hero on Friday came out in support of federal subsidies for some of the country’s largest corporations.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), fresh off a speech to tone-deaf (literally) left-wing activists at the Netroots Nation conference, endorsed the U.S. Export-Import Bank amid calls to wind the bank down, Bloomberg reported.

Ex-Im finances the purchases of U.S. exports by foreign governments and corporations. It has come under withering criticism from conservatives who claim it is a wasteful means of subsidizing large corporations.

President Barack Obama himself called the bank “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”

http://freebeacon.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-endorses-free-money-for-wall-street/

[RiverLover]

83. Warren refused to speak at a Koch Foundation (Heritage) event for phasing out Ex-Im bank

She refused to enable Koch Brothers.

Then all the wing nuts, much like your post, started screaming hypocrite.

So you think it'd have been good for her to speak at a Koch event? Really?

Heritage Action (the activist arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation) invited Senator Elizabeth Warren to speak at an event dedicated to phasing out the Export-Import Bank. The Ex-Im, as it’s known inside the Beltway, has become a favorite target of populist forces on right.

The Ex-Im gives U.S. taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to the foreign customers of giant U.S. corporations that don’t need the help. It socializes the risk while privatizing the profits. Basically, it’s free money for big businesses like GE, Caterpillar, and particularly Boeing (hence the outfit’s nickname, “the Bank of Boeing”). Even Barack Obama, shortly before he became president, derided Ex-Im as “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”

Ex-Im is up for reauthorization in September. Not surprisingly, both the people who get free money and the people who enjoy giving out money that doesn’t belong to them would like to continue doing so.
Since Warren is the dashboard saint of left-wing populism these days, denouncing big business and Wall Street at every turn, the puckish policy pixies at Heritage Action thought they could enlist her in their cause. As first reported by Bloomberg News, Heritage sent Warren a letter asking her to speak against Ex-Im “and the political favoritism it engenders.”

“We, like you, are frustrated with a political economy that benefits well-connected elites at the expense of all Americans,” Michael Needham, the head of Heritage Action, wrote. “Your presence will send a clear signal that you are going to fight the most pressing example of corporate welfare and cronyism pending before Congress right now.”

Warren didn’t take the bait. Her spokeswoman told Bloomberg, “Senator Warren believes that the Export-Import Bank helps create American jobs and spur economic growth, but recognizes that there is room for improvement in the bank’s operations.”

Warren’s decision to turn down the invitation sparked numerous charges of hypocrisy from Ex-Im opponents. As one writer for Reason magazine put it, “That’s right: The woman best known for demonizing big businesses nevertheless wants to maintain an outlandishly generous subsidy package for them.”....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/23/big_business_lapdog_of_the_left_123426.html

[George II]

42. Those contributions/contributors go back to 1989 (!!!), 26 years. How about current numbers only...

....and the actual source of those numbers?

I'd be curious to see the breakdown of other major candidates.

[George II]

43. The Washington Free Beacon...............

......is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from a conservative perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Free_Beacon

This "story" was also published on Fox News' website!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. The right is trying to undermine HRC from the left.

Nothing to see here...


Reminds me of 00 when Republicans were donating to Nader to siphon votes from Al Gore.

[SidDithers]

47. +1...nt

Sid

[George II]

48. And some who consider themselves "the left" or "progressive" lap it up like crazy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. It is what it is

A lot of narcissism of small differences and a fetish for ideological purity.

Do these people realize we lost the House, the Senate, the majority of state legislatures and governorships ? We are one election away from irrelevance and total defeat.

I am sure there are a handful of posters here who depend on the government but to most this is just a parlor game. We have constituencies that literally depend on us to survive. We can't help them if we are shut out from every level of power.

I will support the most electable and most liberal candidate with the emphasis on electable.

[Octafish]

53. A lot of those companies got US taxpayer bailouts in the Great Looting of 2008.

Nevertheless, as president she would represent ALL of America:

The rich.

The very rich.

The very, very rich.

The very, very, very rich.

The very, very, very, very rich.

The very, very, very, very, very rich.

The rest of us, yeah, she'll get right to us.

[whereisjustice]

56. You have posted the standing membership of the US Central Committee, The US is an industry run state

things will get much worse for us over the next few years. Excluding the Hillary class citizen, of course. They'll do very well.

[ybbor]

57. Why are you dissing our next president like this?

The former first lad, er Sen, er Sec, you know Mrs. Bill Clinton is just doing whatever it takes to get into the Oval Office. She only has her, I mean the country's best interest at heart.



And not all of the donors are so bad. There is UC, and National Amusements. I mean I like universities (with the exception of the schools in Columbus and East Lansing), and roller coasters. So they're not all bad.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. As long as the other side is raising tons of dough don't you think it's incumbent on us to raise...

As long as the other side is raising tons of dough don't you think it's incumbent on us to raise tons of dough ourselves.


One wouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight.

[ybbor]

66. Yes I agree with you on that

But if Smith and Wesson are donating to both sides, we are gonna get shot either way.

I just wish we could get money from less "dangerous" sources.

[Sienna86]

59. A "woman of the people"...

Not quite like Obama's grassroots support.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. If I have a bug up my ass it's people who don't judge other people by the same standards, ergo:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

[father founding]

71. More of the same shit

Its about time the country gets over the bush's and the Clinton's, they are just not into you.

[NYC Liberal]

73. Misleading tripe. Those companies did not contribute; People WORKING FOR those companies did.

The companies themselves gave only a very small amount.

[SidDithers]

76. Exactly...

The spin is the kind of misleading horseshit you'd expect from a right-wing site like the Washington Free Beacon.

And the Hillary-hating Fringe Left are only to happy to run with the attack.

Sid

[NYC Liberal]

161. Some of the stuff that gets posted here these days is disgusting.

Posting crap from right-wing sites like the one in the OP is sadly par for the course these days.

And then there's all the conspiracy lunacy and anti-vax/anti-science shit copied directly from some really vile recesses of the Internet -- very often from Holocaust denial and racist sites. Can't tell you how many times I've seen it. And sadly it's allowed to stay.

It's sad to see DU being used to peddle that garbage.

[freshwest]

156. Yep, some haters can't see a few inches ahead of their noses. Makes me want to vote HRC now...

[NorthCarolina]

189. Yes, I'm sure it was only the poorest of the poor at those companies too

right? Not the multi-millionaires dropping large donations, but rather just the janitors, the cafeteria staff, the car elevator operators, etc. You know, the "regular" Joes just like the 99% that work for those companies.

[AgingAmerican]

74. Looks like the same companies that contributed to Obama

nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. Res ipsa loquitur

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

[AgingAmerican]

84. *Shudder*

Die if we do, die if we don't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. "Don't hate the playa, hate the game."/NT

[merrily]

181. "It's not either/or."

At the moment, we can do a lot more about this particular playa than we can about a game that's been played in this country for a few hundred years.

For that matter, no one forced her to play the game the way she's played it. She didn't launch her political career out of the blue (no pun intended). She was winding down 8 years as First Lady when dead broke Hills bought a mansion in NY so she could run for the NY Senate. She could easily have gone another way and still won.

[Rex]

117. It is but I notice a big difference. Obama doesn't really have any big liabilities.

Whereas HRC has one to the company that just wrote the last omnibus bill in Congress.

[Drunken Irishman]

173. In 2008, yes. Not in 2012.

They bailed on Obama.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638

[SidDithers]

77. Better Believe It!!...nt

Sid

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. The selective outrage would be comical if the stakes weren't so high./NT

[Cryptoad]

80. you should see what those companies

gave to the conservatives!

[Pakid]

85. The bottom line is this

everyone who runs for office is going to take money from someone you don't like. It is a fact of life. Hillary may not be my first choice but I will take her any day over Scott Walker or any of the other right-wing nuts who want the job. I would love to see Bernie Sanders as President. I don't see it happening. Sometimes in life you just have to settle for some things you are not crazy about as the alternative is a whole lot worse!

[BeanMusical]

88. I'm surprized that Monsanto is not in that list.

[hifiguy]

92. Everyone who is surprised by this stand on your head...

[Enthusiast]

132. Sockpuppets for Hillary stand up!

[BootinUp]

106. The conclusion one draws will indicate more about their effort to understand than about Hillary

These companies play in politics period. They will fund politicians in places of power to TRY and get the politicians to support their causes. A more meaningful post with regard to Hillary, would be one that criticizes her past votes or current positions.

[Thinkingabout]

110. Warren admitted she has taken Wall Street Money, she understands financing a campaign.

She said she spent $42m on her campaign for Senator, she knows and understands whoever runs for president will need lots of bucks to run a national campaign. It is multiplying $42m tines fifty states, she also knows the 90% does not have the funds to supply the amount needed. We need to get past this will notion if someone says WALL STREET does not make them unable to do the work necessary for political offices. If the fight continues and the refusal to "vote for anyone with a Wall Street connection" then the Republicans will easily get their candidates elected, BTW, they don't care about poor folks, the 47%, just sign them up for the death panels.

[reddread]

111. re

[blkmusclmachine]

114. The best candidate corrupt money can buy...

[NanceGreggs]

123. I guess it's time to tell ...

... individuals who are employed by "most hated companies" that they are not allowed to contribute to the candidate of their choice.

And given that the corporate contributions were given over the course of Hillary's rather lengthy political career, their numbers seem quite paltry in the great scheme of things.

Of course, we all know that if Warren or Sanders ran, they would check the source of every contribution and refuse to accept any and all donations from employees of corporations they don't like.

[workinclasszero]

128. Of course they would.....

It's going to be real interesting here on DU if/when Hillary gets the nomination.

[NanceGreggs]

136. Interesting, yes ...

... but in many ways totally predictable.

Looks like Hill will be the nominee - and we'll be treated to a million or so reasons why she won't win, along with lots of cool stories, bro, about how Warren and/or Sanders would easily win in a landslide.

Hill's win will then lead to four/eight years of DU poutrage, and an endless barrage of posts about how Warren and/or Sanders would have instituted universal healthcare, saved the environment, gotten money out of politics, prosecuted Bush/Cheney et al for war crimes, sent all banksters to prison, and brought about world peace within forty-eight hours of being sworn-in.

[Egnever]

151. If the past is any indication of the future

I would say that is a pretty good prediction.

[freshwest]

158. So, we are talking the Herbert Hoover section? Would they put a chicken in every pot, too?

[DeSwiss]

188. ''Among the most hated companies.''

Not the most hated. They could theoretically work for non-hated company and still contribute to Hills.

- Just not likely....

[LiberalLovinLug]

134. This is how America is run

I am the first to criticize Hillary for her hawkish statements, her silence on the issues that Warren is unafraid to speak about, but people...this is how the show is performed. Would you really rather have the Democratic hopeful refuse all large donations and be so woefully outspent that he/she wouldn't have a chance?

All this hollow outrage reminds me of right wingers that attack pipeline or oil sands protesters because they drive to a protest or they use items and wear clothing that is derived from oil. One can still fight for a better future with more reliance on new alternative energy sources, with the understanding that for now one has to get by in the world that is, not in the one that you wish was here.

What I am waiting for is for a Democratic President, with a majority in the Congress and Senate, (Obama had a small window) hopefully one day....once in office will shock their big donors and will pass legislation to ban ALL private donations whether union or corporate. Use one or two dollars from every taxpayer and put it towards a fund for parties to advertise. Then give them some set free airtime on the supposedly "public airwaves" including debates.

This would eliminate most corruption from the get go. Reps would no longer feel the need to pay back their donors at the expense of the greater good. There would always still be some illegal kickbacks, but at least the legal bribery would be out of the picture. And it would free up representatives to actually spend time solving constituents problems as opposed to the endless campaign fund-raising.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

137. OK, I see some banks...but how are other companies HATED?

Maybe I'm behind the times, but this looks like a standard donor list.

University of California is Hated? By Who? For what?

[davidthegnome]

142. This stuff makes me sick.

Her ties to Monsanto and Walmart also make me more than a little skeptical of her candidacy. I think this is a strong sign that she would be very corporate friendly, which I really don't want our next President to be. The one (possible) option that leaves me with is Bernie Sanders... really hoping he runs. If Hilary wins the nomination though.... much as I don't want to, I'll hold my nose and vote for her. I strongly doubt that there will be a viable third party candidate, and the Koch brothers couldn't pay me enough to vote republican.

What this indicates most strongly to me though, is that we desperately need campaign finance reform. Elections funded by the public. Period. Get rid of these damn Super PACS, inform the corporations that our government is not for sale - if someone like Sanders wins, it might even be possible to get moving on that.

[Beacool]

149. Of all the hypocritical nonsense!!!!!

Here's Obama's list of top donors.

University of California $1,799,460
Goldman Sachs $1,034,615
Harvard University $900,909
Microsoft Corp $854,717
JPMorgan Chase & Co $847,895
Google Inc $817,855
Citigroup Inc $755,057
US Government $638,335
Time Warner $617,844
Sidley Austin LLP $606,260
Stanford University $603,866
National Amusements Inc $579,098
Columbia University $570,839
Skadden, Arps et al $554,439
WilmerHale Llp $554,373
US Dept of Justice $540,636
IBM Corp $534,470
UBS AG $534,166
General Electric $532,031
Morgan Stanley $528,182

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

How do you all think that campaigns are financed or do you prefer that the Republicans out raise our Democratic candidates?

[Drunken Irishman]

172. Obama received a lot in '08 but hardly any support from Wall Street in 2012.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638

[merrily]

179. Wall Street probably did prefer Romney. Also, Obama didn't need as much in 2012 as in 2008.

No war time incumbent has ever lost the US presidency in all of US history and by 2012, Obama was a war time incumbent.

[Drunken Irishman]

187. I think his rhetoric turned Wall Street off too.

[merrily]

190. Dunno. First term rhetoric was very different from post 2014 mid term rhetoric.

But it's moot now, anyway.

[LWolf]

215. I didn't support Obama

any more than I do HRC...for the same reasons. That's not hypocrisy.

[MyNameGoesHere]

150. That list looks familiar

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

[JDPriestly]

163. K&R.

[calimary]

166. I'd be interested to know the date of this report.

They refer to her as "Senator Hillary Clinton." She hasn't been a Senator for years. Since 2009.

[merrily]

180. The beginning of the OP says over the course of her political career.

[stonecutter357]

185. .

[woo me with science]

195. K&R

[CountAllVotes]

201. Another Wall Street shill

and we really do not need another one of these!

& recommend!!!