WaPo factchecker: Sanders Campaign exaggerated Oil & Gas donations to HRC campaign, 3 pinnocchios

[Bill USA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/

The Sanders campaign is exaggerating the contributions that Clinton has received from the oil and gas industry. In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant. It’s especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money “given” by the fossil-fuel industry.

Three Pinocchios

[silvershadow]

1. Oh well. Without the Wall St transcripts, I can only assume the worst, so he gets a pass.

Besides, it is WaPo, which has seriously declined as a serious news source.

[questionseverything]

2. i trust greenpeace over wapo EVERY TIME

i know whose side i am on

[TM99]

3. You mean the same WaPo

that failed to fact check Jonathan Capeheart's libellous hit piece and then still keeps him on staff?

Yeah, not really trusting that they know what the fuck they are talking about on this or any topic.

[timmymoff]

5. They love this piece

but refuse to acknowledge the super pac money. I know one candidate who doesn't want super pac money to fight their battles, and one sadly does.

[MFM008]

4. Sanders takes money as well

ALL politicians take money.
ALL politicians take money.
We ALL expect things for the money we give.
If you give a dollar you expect something
If you give a million you expect something.
Lets not pretend our money is holy because its for a "good cause".
Unless your giving to UNICEF or RED CROSS or HUMANE SOCIETY you expect something.
Same with PACS and Corporations
Lets not be sanctimonious because we give it to different politicians.

[timmymoff]

7. I've never been able to attend

a seat that cost $335,000 for candidate access. But I am also sure that my candidate doesn't hold dinners such as that. I guess it's just about being with the people as opposed to loving the dirty money that can get you elected. Thus her problems.

[Armstead]

8. I'd rather a candidate who take money from....

Millions of people who are giving small amounts because they want to be paid back with good government, rather than Big Corporate and wealthy donors who are looking for specific favors.

[beedle]

12. Of course, I expect you will not find

a single Sanders support that would not agree.

That's why taking money from the people, individuals without some big lobby group, industry, special interest association, or corporate name attached to it is the only kind of money politicians should be allowed to accept, and at limits that prevent rich individuals from having overpowering influence by contributing overwhelming money.

I completely agree that if Sanders was getting benefits from a big bundle of money collected by a superPAC called "evil corp for Bernie", that everyone would be within their rights to be suspicious of what Bernie might believe he was beholden to do for such a generous contribution by the 'evil corp' ... maybe even consider doing them a favor in return.

So it's not unreasonable to look at the candidates and ask where is all their money coming from? What benefits are being given through superPACs what are not directly being funnelled through the candidates campaign? And base your decision on whom to support, at least partially on which candidate is least 'seen to be' in the pockets of these special interest groups ... at this point the answer is obvious.

[Armstead]

6. Post and deflection from real issue like stuck record needle

[Billsmile]

9. My Favorite 3 Pinocchios Video

It's an oldie but a goodie from The Young Turks.

[hobbit709]

10. About the 15th time this crap has been posted. And you can't spell Pinocchio right either.

[Nyan]

11. Did WaPo employee Capeheart "exaggerate" when he said Bernie

didn't participate in the civil rights movement? Or was Greenpeace "exaggerating" when they were going over Clinton's ties to fossil fuel industry lobbyists?