It turns out Bernie does raise money from the financial sector

[BainsBane]

In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.

The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.
. . .
A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.

"At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html

Lots more at the link

[BainsBane]

1. More

In 2006, when Sanders ran for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into his race and included him in fundraising efforts for the party's Senate candidates.

The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party -- which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.

Among the DSCC's top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.

During that 2006 campaign, Sanders attended a fundraiser at the Cambridge, Massachusetts home of Abby Rockefeller -- a member of the same family whose wealth he had one proposed confiscating.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html

[Bubzer]

74. Thanks for pointing out that Bernie is almost unrivaled in supporting other dems!!!

"raised more money for the Senate Democrats than almost any other member of the Senate Democratic caucus" because he sees helping the party regain the majority as critical.

It is also awesome that you've pointed out (if indirectly) what has been stated time and again; Bernie takes no direct contributions from corporate interests! Thanks for that as well!!!

[BainsBane]

77. Ah, no one does

It's illegal.

But you've done a good job of swallowing the campaign rhetoric whole.

[Bubzer]

80. Sure! Sure! I mean, it's not like anyone has any sort of foundation or anything as a buffer for that

I mean, some might see that as a back-door to circumvent laws that are intended to keep corporate dollars out of campaigns. I bet that would be awfully damaging to one's perceived integrity... good thing no running candidates have any such set ups... oh wait...

[BainsBane]

105. If you have evidence that foundation is anything other

Than a charity, provide it and then report it to the IRS and FEC.

Of course, the Clintons could have stashed a charitable trust in the Caribbean to avoid US govt oversight, but they didn't. That was someone else.

[Bubzer]

106. Right?!? Oh, except the clinton foundation is currently under investigation!

So I guess I really don't need to contact the IRS or the FEC. Well, best of luck to the Clintons in dealing with the FBI... I hear they've several bones-of-contention with her based on past interactions... I guess that just goes to show, it pays to treat everyone with whatever kindness that can be mustered.

[Ferd Berfel]

2. Bernie was there helping bring in Money for DSCC - But How much did he take home?

more desperate BS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1151722

[BainsBane]

3. In 2006, $37,300

which included money from the very investment banking firms and big banks he rails against today.

You actually think he hosts fund raisers but refuses to take money? What would be the point of that?

[tecelote]

5. In 2006, $37,300???

That's all you've got?

[BainsBane]

8. Read the article

Just read it.

Clinton's donations are $2700 a piece, and we're told that corrupts her. Yet $35k isn't a problem?

[retrowire]

18. 200,000 that is 100% from the financial sector is what corrupts her...

Where the money is purely from, corrupts her.

Whom she defends, corrupts her.

And to respond to your OP...

25% of the donors at this event were from the financial sector. All donors gave their money to the DSCC, which then cut Bernie some as well as other Democrats...

You're trying to spin it as "LOOK! BERNIE TOOK MONEY FROM THE BANKS!!!" But really it's, "Look, the Democratic Senatorial Committee raised money from a bunch of donors, 25% of which are from the financial sector and distributed the fundings to all Democrats that needed it throughout the party."

This is kinda desperate...

This is like accusing ME of taking money from the financial sector, simply because all money comes from a bank at one point in time lmao.

[BainsBane]

42. $200? What is your source for that?

You don't care that a politician has been telling for a month on end that he doesn't take money from Wall Street, only it turns out he does. Not once, but year after year.

Bernie hosted those fund raises. Attends them, raises money from the very people that he describes in this election as unacceptable to relate with.

Hillary hasn't been selling the public a story about her being above a system. Instead, she has made clear she obeys the law as it exists but seeks to change it. Bernie instead pretends to be above it all. He has not been truthful. You don't care. That is hardly unexpected. I have seen enough issues thrown overboard to know that the only thing that matters is some attachment to him as a man, even when it is shown that he has been purposefully misleading his supporters.

His whole spiel on campaign finance is empty rhetoric. He depends on the ignorance of the voting public when he repeats thousands of times over that he doesn't "have" super pacs, while benefiting from the single greatest super pac and dark money expenditure in the entire election.

http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-receives-outside-money-support-despite-hitting-clinton-over-super-pacs-2294847

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bernie-sanders-gets-some-outside-help-he-didnt-ask-for/

http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-receives-outside-money-support-despite-hitting-clinton-over-super-pacs-2294847

[retrowire]

46. yawn

Bernie doesn't directly correlate with the Super PACs helping him against his will like Hillary does.

Also, he wasn't the only one to host the thing, you act like he threw a party and took money from the financial sector. He didn't.

He helped host a democratic function, 25% of the donors happened to be from the financial sector. Whoop dee doo..

That's not parallel to Hillary directly speaking for a financial sector host and recieving 100% of the funds from that financial sector.

Sorry, $225,000 is the real number, I shouldn't have rounded it out like that I guess. But she's received an average of $225,000 per speech to Goldman Sachs, that's open knowledge as apparent as the sky is blue these days so I'm not sure why you want a source but here?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/04/hillary_clinton_i_took_675000_in_speaking_fees_from_wall_street_because_i_didnt_know_i_would_run_for_president.html

So again, Bernie helping to be one of the hosts of a Democratic fundraiser, while 25% of the donors happened to be from the financial sector, does not make him a hypocrite or corrupt.

25% of the funding that was cut between many politicians does not automatically make them "beholden" to the financial sector like Hillary is.

100% of the funding from $225,000 speeches straight from the financial sector DOES make them "beholden" to the financial sector like Hillary is.

Bernie didn't do that. This meme didn't work, just try again tomorrow. No worries.

[BainsBane]

59. Hillary does not directly coordinate with super pacs

That is illegal.

Then note your singular concern with campaign finance depends not on how much money the super pacs pump into the campaign and corrupt the process, but on a state of mind, a state of mind it turns out is not what he claims. Bernie says he doesn't have Super Pacs, even as one of his top campaign aids runs a pac and a former one runs a Super Pac.

Your complaint is that Clinton earned money from speeches. Those are not campaign donations. That is income she earned. You assert, with NO EVIDENCE, that it makes her beholden, but your principal complaint is that she earned money, money that apparently is okay when it goes to Bernie's campaign. Bernie helped raise hundreds of thousands a year. That is more than $200k and it is campaign contributions.

Your point is clear enough. Clinton shouldn't earn money. Bernie can raise money from Wall Street or whoever he wants because he's Bernie. You don't care cuz Bernie. Clinton is corrupt cuz Hillary.

As for beholden, I'd say votes giving immunity to gun corporations and $800 billion plus to Lockheed-Martin demonstrate just the sort of thing you claim to fear results from being paid for speeches, yet somehow none of that concerns you cuz Bernie.

Nice to see there is absolutely no principle or issue you aren't willing to throw under the bus because Bernie is just special.

I myself don't like when politicians pretend to be revolutionaries. In fact, I resent the language of social revolution being appropriated as a campaign slogan. I don't like it when they promise the world knowing full well they will never deliver on it. I don't like it when they reduce complex issues to bumper sticker slogans. I prefer it when they deal with the complexities of policy rather than playing to the ignorance of the voting public. Bernie deals with the world and policy in one dimensional, simplistic terms. We are gradually finding out that his own self-promotional hype doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[retrowire]

66. cough* David Brock

No evidence?

When anyone gives you that much money, they are making an investment. They want something in return. That's logic.

Immunity to gun corporations? cool by me, they only make the device, they didn't instruct people to commit atrocious acts.

Lockheed Martin needed to build jets somewhere, Vermont needed jobs. Good job Senator Bernie.

lmao your spin to make that negative is so funny. Sorry I'm not "concerned" for those good decisions.

Don't mock my revolution. You do yourself no credit in doing so.

[Ed Suspicious]

102. .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

[Squinch]

54. His source is places.

And really, really serious places. That really matter.

Chew on that, missy!

[uponit7771]

51. so sanders took money that originated from financial sector? tia

[retrowire]

53. As did you!

The very money in your wallet has also come from the financial sector.... GASP

ALL OF IT DID OMGGGGG

lmao

[uponit7771]

57. red herring, I do not have any money in my wallet and I don't take money from wall street...

... or its affliates after directly lobbying for it to a live crowd

I'll ask again, so does this mean Sanders has taken money from the financial sector in the form of donations that he has pockted himself?

tia

[retrowire]

60. That question can either be answered with

Yes. Which would be wrong.

or

No. Which would be wrong.

So here's the better question... What defines a corrupt hand dealing with Wall St?

Is it the one who does business directly within Wall St and receives 100% funding from an event directly from them?

OR

Is it the one who helped host a Democratic event, in which only 25% of the donors involved were from Wall St, the other 75% from many other things, and the money was distributed to many recipients rather than one?

Because Bernie is the ladder and Hillary is the former.

Would you say that Bernie, is now beholden to Wall St's agenda because he received money from an event in which there were many donors and 25% of them happened to be apart of Wall St?

Because if THAT makes Bernie beholden to Wall St, then I must be beholden to the ketchup packets on my tray moreso than the burger, fries and soft drink that also came included. lol

[uponit7771]

64. No, there's only one right answer relative to Sanders purity test.... its hell no... cause he's

...demonizing everyone else who've take 1/240th of their net worth from wall street.

Sanders hands better be damn clean since everyone else is a sell out...


Based on your answers it doesn't look like that's the case

[retrowire]

67. he demonized them for that?

when and where?

[uponit7771]

72. Yes, the recent debate where he intimated that Clintons speaking fees from the financial sector

... means she'll sell out.

On this issues Sanders has 3 fingers pointing back at him.... it aint lookin good so far

#SandersSoPure

[retrowire]

75. oh that lol

they didn't pay her a quarter million per speech and expect nothing in return.

why does she laugh about the transcripts?

[uponit7771]

79. They didn't pay Sanders 100 dollars in donations and expect nothing back either...

... again, Sanders better have some damn clean hands since everyone else is a sell out of even talking to a wall street janitor.

Also, I want to see the transcripts also...

I'm talking about Sanders transcripts too...

See, when you point 1 finger at someone there are 3 pointing back at you

[retrowire]

83. lol

they didn't pay Bernie.

they paid the dscc and he along with many others received funding.

Hillary on the other hand received all that other funding for herself.

see how that works?

[greiner3]

96. "See, when you point 1 finger at someone there are 3 pointing back at you"

Holy crap, I haven't heard that one in decades.

Debate captain

[Duckhunter935]

35. quarter of a million dollars

That is the corruption.

[basselope]

6. And he was railing against them then as well.

[uponit7771]

52. so was hillary

[basselope]

95. On what planet??!?! Certain not earth, or at least THIS earth.

[SidDithers]

4. DU rec...nt

Sid

[retrowire]

22. Read post 18. See the whole picture. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. LOL. Sid wouldn't know the whole picture from Shinola, even if he was IN it.

[Dawson Leery]

7. k/r

[retrowire]

23. Read post 18. See the whole picture. nt

[99th_Monkey]

9. If Bernie had NOT gone to this, you'd be screaming "Bernie's not a REAL Democrat, SEE??

he doesn't even care enough to help raise funds to re-elect Democrats!!!" <-at the top of your lungs.

I wish you guys would come up with some new material, this is getting boring. This "story"
was debunked several months ago, and I notice just "updated" by CNN to try to glue new legs
on the story. Pathetic.

[zeemike]

91. I am glad someone pointed that out.

Because i was going to if no one had.

It seems they can change narratives and never notice the conflict.

[cali]

10. Yeah, he raised money for other dems.

[Jefferson23]

11. lol

The OP's today are hilarious.

[TransitJohn]

40. Fucking A they are.

It's comical. "Bernie bad for raising money to elect me Dems to the Senate!"

[Jefferson23]

47. I know, you see the amounts and who they went to must mean Sanders

is establishment politics. lol

I guess he is just like Clinton now on WS and we should ignore Goldman Sachs
recent declaration that Bernie is dangerous..their word, not mine.

lol I have laughed a lot today as they try and spin Bernie as a WS tool.

[litlbilly]

84. They really are. I thought this was Andy Borowitz for a second:)

[whatchamacallit]

12. Neutralize Clinton's conflicts of interest by implicating Sanders in the same. Classically Rovian!

[Bluenorthwest]

13. So today he's bad for raising funds for the Party while on other days the complaint

is that he's only a Democrat on some days and refuses to raise money for a Party that he hates. It gets hard to keep up with the trope of the day when they are so frequently utterly contradictory.

At some point y'all need to pick a singular line of attack because this scattershot stuff just looks sillier by the minute. Attack him for raising funds for the Party, attack him for not doing so but doing both just makes me wonder what the actual motive might be.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Yeah they need to coordinate their smears although this manufactured outrage is hillaryous.

[HooptieWagon]

28. Their wheels must be falling off...

...they're pointed in every which direction. What a laugh!

[treestar]

63. Twisted the point

of the OP. Bernie is not sure pure as stated. Why is it OK now? Because Bernie is doing it. Double standards. People railing on that Hillary must be corrupt because of raising funds now are confronted with the fact they shouldn't have done that after all. St. Bernie does it too. Dodging that question gets you nowhere.

[MoonRiver]

87. Yes the point is pretty damned simple.

I hope CNN starts loudly and persistently pointing out our man Bernie's hypocrisy. Maybe I will even gain a little respect for that "news" organization in the process.

[uponit7771]

76. Looks like he did a lil more than just "raise money for others"...looks like he put a lil of that...

... walls street money in his own caufers

It's about a tah get real

[warrprayer]

14. Is this yours?

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Ya...but Bernie is so different, so new, so fresh.

It's OK if he does it.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Would you like links to all the threads complaining that he does not raise money for the Party

because if you read those and then read this the nickname 'Weathervane' does in fact seem fitting. It just does. 'Bad for not raising funds, worse for raising funds' Yawn-o-Rama.

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Cool story, bro

You can look for the threads.

Knock yourself out.

[retrowire]

25. Read post 18. See the whole picture. nt

[uponit7771]

50. +1

[earthside]

16. So, now Bernie is raising money for other Democrats ...

... and has been a participant in Democratic Party activities in the past.

Are you criticizing him or praising him?

This is why the 'Camp Weathervane' label is so appropriate for the Hillarians.

[BainsBane]

39. He is discovered to have been raising money from Wall Street donors and lobbyists

despite endless statements to the contrary, and that doesn't concern you. Instead, the horror is that Clinton supporters read and post a news story. And we're "camp weathervane"? Is there anything that matters in this election besides Bernie? I've systematically seen one issue after another dismissed until we are now left with nothing.

[last1standing]

17. Jan: "Bernie doesn't help the party! He's Evil!!!!" Feb: Bernie helps the party! He's Evil!!!!"

Let's not worry about consistency. Let's just twist facts until they support her Highness, NoHope Hillary.


(Heading the "YOU CALLED HER 'HIGHNESS' SO YOUR SEXIST!!!!!!!111!!!11" claim with a preemptive "I don't give a fuck whether you think I'm sexist or not. Until you've successfully eliminated gender based words from the English language, it's "Her Highness".)

[mcar]

19. K&R

[retrowire]

26. Read post 18. See the whole picture. nt

[beam me up scottie]

24. BREAKING: BERNIE RAISED MONEY FOR DEMOCRATS

DU poutrage level at all time high!

Tonight at 6: Bernie pets kitten, proves he hates puppies!

[uponit7771]

69. sup BMUS!! Nah, read the article... looks like not only did he raise money from the financial sector

... but he took some himself.. I mean like a dollar or something cause anyone who takes funds from these bastards are evil and shit right?

lol...

#SandersSoPure

[beam me up scottie]

70. Keep it up, every time you guys put on this show we're laughing it up.

#hillarysupporterssodesperate

[uponit7771]

73. Oh, the show looks like its going to get bigga... or uh... bigger cause it looks like Sanders

... financial sector hands aren't clean.

Sounds like he panders to the same people Clinton does...

#SandersA_LittleDirty

[beam me up scottie]

78. You think this makes Bernie dirty and you're supporting Hillary?

The woman you personally said was paid millions for her influence by Wall Street?

See THAT is what's so hillaryous!

[uponit7771]

82. No, I don't.. but Sanders does seeing that every chance he gets he intimates Clinton is a sellout

... for talking to a wall street janitor but it looks like Sanders takes from the same till Clinton does...

This is getting interesting

Judge, lest ye be judged right?

tia

[beam me up scottie]

85. You just said Bernie was "dirty", what's next calling him "shifty"?

How far are you willing to go with the smears?

[uponit7771]

86. Nah, I'll just call him a hypocrit for taking from the same till Clinton does...

... then calling everyone else "establishment"

[beam me up scottie]

88. I'd suggest using spell check before trying to start a trend.

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. Wow. Looks like you guys all got the email at the same time.

[BainsBane]

33. CNN

I don't know about you, but I don't need to receive an email to tell me to read the news.

Interesting how Wall Street donors suddenly aren't a concern anymore. Funny how that works.

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. It's also funny how not raising money for Democrats becomes raising money for Democrats...

and becomes a BAD thing.

You guys were lying when you posted all those threads about how Bernie Sanders didn't help the Party...

I'll tell you what. Admit that you and your cohorts were lying (or admit you were just parroting someone ELSE'S lie) when you posted all that shit about Bernie Sanders not helping the party, and I'll call him a hypocrite.

[BainsBane]

48. A lie is a willful distortion

I don't know what others said, but I never claimed he had never raised money for the party, but I will say the information surprises me, particularly given all the negative things he has said about the Democratic Party. I said he isn't raising money in this current election for other Democratic races, as Clinton does through her Clinton Victory Fund. As far as I know, that is correct. I also said that Clinton has instructed her staff to support an Iowa candidate who had endorsed Sanders because she wanted to get more Democrats elected. I thought the point important because legislative agenda depends on a massive turn-over in congress, something he doesn't seem to be working toward.

Back to the definition of lie:

an intentionally false statement.

I did not lie. I stated the facts as I knew them to be, and as far as I know they are still accurate. If I had known these facts at the time, I would have been more careful to stipulate I was speaking exclusively about the current year. I, however, knew none of this until today.

I am not, nor can I be, responsible for what anyone else says. Nor am I particularly familiar with it since I read quite little of DU these days.

Now an intentional misrepresentation would be claiming "I don't take money from Wall Street," while at least in the past he has done just that.

Given the deluge of blatantly false claims made about Clinton on this site, I'm not interested in lectures from people here about lying.

Now that has been clarified, why don't you explain how Bernie's raising money from the financial sector is okay because he's Bernie?

Naturally the truthfulness of a candidate about the core issue in his candidacy for the presidency concerns you less than possible inaccuracies in what anonymous people online right. Because I and a handful of other complete strangers on a message board are so much more important than a candidate for president of the United States. I find your priorities troubling but not at all surprising.

[safeinOhio]

44. Context matters

for both

[ericson00]

30. KNR

LOVE

[retrowire]

36. Read post 18. See the whole picture. nt

[BainsBane]

97. "Whole picture"

It's okay cuz: Bernie.

[retrowire]

98. ;) It's cool. Take care. nt

[Gothmog]

31. WOW this is surprising

[retrowire]

37. Read post 18. See the whole picture. nt

[Fumesucker]

34. BREAKING: HILLARY POSTPONES FUNDRAISER WITH BAIN CAPITAL

Bain, Bain, I've heard that name before somewhere.

Oh well, maybe it will come to me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511134307

NEW YORK -- Hillary Clinton has postponed another fundraiser with financial services executives amid heavy criticism from rival Bernie Sanders that she is too close to Wall Street.

Clinton will no longer attend an event in Boston scheduled for Friday that was to be hosted by Jonathan Lavine, managing director of Bain Capital affiliate Sankaty Advisors, sources close to the matter said.

The event has not been canceled but will now be held sometime after the New Hampshire primary, which takes place Feb. 9. It is the second such postponement in the last two weeks. The Clinton campaign last week said a New York City event that was set for Thursday with executives from investment management firm BlackRock would now be held Feb. 16th.

The postponements come after Vermont senator Sanders ripped Clinton last week for leaving Iowa to attend a fundraiser in Philadelphia with financial services executives that featured a live performance with Bon Jovi.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-postpones-fundraiser-financial-services-218708#ixzz3zAA1rv16

[LittleBlue]

41. Are her advisors worried? This is some desperate, Hail Mary shit

What's next, child molester? Sex with animals? I mean damn

[BainsBane]

43. In other words

You don't care. The issue is irrelevant, facts are irrelevant, cuz the Bern.

[safeinOhio]

45. See post 34

Context matters

[uponit7771]

49. Another stain on the white robe

[notadmblnd]

55. For Senate Democrats. Not himself

I guess that meme that he does not raise money for the Democratic party just got blown out of the water. Huh?

[Live and Learn]

56. Yep, I know a bank teller that donated to him.

[november3rd]

58. He Wasn't A Democrat

I find it unlikely that he was included as a host in a DSCC event, since he wasn't a member of the DSCC.

This story doesn't pass the smell test.

[catnhatnh]

61. 36K....what a coincidence!

I believe that is Hillary's "Saying hello" fee.

[George II]

62. Say it ain't so!

[BlueCaliDem]

65. Noooooo! That can't be true! Bernie so PURE!

[MisterP]

68. yo, BB!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511134307

[Hiraeth]

71. is this where the free checking meme comes from? rhetorical. don't answer. trash thread.

[Thinkingabout]

81. By Sanders description he is a part of the establishment as he described it

In the debate. Having a hard time talking about progressive and establishment. Maybe next time we will get another answer.

[DesertRat]

89. k&r

[ucrdem]

90. He also gets help from RW SuperPacs, but likes to say he's the only candidate who doesn't.

Well, he's wrong:

[BainsBane]

108. Another point that highlights how the problems are due to the system

rather than financial purity, particularly when those claims don't hold up to scrutiny.

[blackspade]

92. Under the Clinton bus goes the DSCC....

This is such a transparently disingenuous angle to work for the Clinton campaign.
Really? Sanders hosted one event per year for five years to help out the DSCC get Democrats elected and you guys try to connect that to Wall Street? Lame.
And here I thought you all didn't even think he supported Democrats.

Fucking pathetic.

[AlbertCat]

93. the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust"

B-b-but I thought Bernie "wasn't a Democrat".

[davidthegnome]

94. I also heard that he picks his nose and eats it.

[NurseJackie]

99. Figures.

[Iliyah]

100. Man speaks with fork tongue

[itsrobert]

101. I just wonder how much Gun Lobby money Sanders get?

He can't be voting against common sense gun control bills for free?

[kydo]

104. Well you know, as a "progressive" he probably did it for free yes?

[Gothmog]

103. Thanks for posting

[ucrdem]

107. Another meme built on sand that will nevertheless live forever in the twittersphere. nt