2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLobbyists for Monsanto, ExxonMobil Raise Money for Hillary Clinton
Jul 17, 2015 10:50 AM CEST
Registered lobbyists brought in more than $2 million in fundraising for the Clinton campaign, recent filings show.
When Barack Obama was running for the presidency in 2008and later for reelection in 2012he promised he wouldn't take money from registered lobbyists, not even as bundlers. In the race to succeed him, Hillary Clinton is not following in his footsteps.
The former secretary of state raised more than $2 million from 40 "bundlers"fundraisers who get their contacts to give to campaignswho were also lobbyists, according to financial forms released Wednesday by the Federal Election Commission. In all, the Clinton campaign raised $46.7 million between the beginning of April and the end of June.
Bundlers, who are often wealthy or well-connected individuals, do more than donate to campaigns. They put their social networks to work for favorite candidates, persuading (often equally wealthy and well-connected) family members, friends, colleagues, and other contacts to donate as well, effectively bringing in far more money than they could under the current legal donation limits. Individuals can contribute $2,700 to candidate committees (as opposed to super PACS) for the primary election and the same amount for the general election, for a total of $5,400 in a campaign cycle. Campaigns don't have to disclose their bundlersunless those bundlers are also lobbyists.
Clinton's bundlers include some familiar names: Jerry Crawford, an outside lobbyist to Monsanto and Iowa kingmaker, put together another $35,000 or so. Tony Podesta, a mega-lobbyist who co-founded the Podesta Group and is the brother of Clinton's campaign chair John, bundled almost $75,000.
Other bundlers lobby for big companies including Microsoft (Fred Humphries) and Exxon Mobil (Theresa Fariello) or industry groups including the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (Daphna Peled). Another group includes former staffers for prominent Democratic politicians (including President Clinton) and politicians themselves, including former South Carolina Governor Jim Hodges. Lobbyist bundlers don't have to disclose their employers, but the names appear on both Clinton's disclosures and 2015 lobbyist registrations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-17/lobbyists-for-monsanto-exxon-mobile-raise-money-for-hillary-clinton
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Her campaign filings reveal that 40 lobbyists are fundraising for her presidential bid.
he bulk of Clinton's campaign funds came from an elite, wealthy class of donorsthose who can afford to give the maximum donation. In 2014, roughly 0.04 percent of Americans made the maximum donation for a primary campaign of $2,600 (adjusted to $2,700 in this election cycle). Bush's campaign raised more than 80 percent of its cash from this upper-crust of donors, and Clinton raised 64 percent. Clinton may well have had 250,000 donorsbut just 11,400 of them accounted for almost two-thirds of her total fundraising.
Clinton also got a big boost from her bundlerssupporters who tap their personal and professional networks to amass donations for the campaign. Candidates are only required to list the names of registered lobbyists who have bundled for them, and Clinton did go above and beyond that by releasing on her website the names of 122 people who had raised $100,000 or more for her campaign. With much less fanfare, she also disclosed to the Federal Election Commission the names of 40 registered lobbyists who bundled just over $2 million for her campaign.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-fundraising-bundlers-lobbyists
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Lancero
(3,003 posts)It's a bit surprising that a good number of them are Hillary supporters.
The fight against GMO's isn't going to be won by putting into office a candiate pushed for so heavily by the number 1 GMO producing company.
I guess fighting against GMO's isn't as important as people say it is.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)...Hillary is the real true progressive liberal!!!!!!!!!!!! Reeeeeeeeeally!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*wink wink*
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)The People vs. Goldman Sachs
A Senate committee has laid out the evidence. Now the Justice Department should bring criminal charges
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511#ixzz3g9rRDpsx
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
The latest evil from Goldman Sachs
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/21/1346544/-The-latest-evil-from-Goldman-Sachs
LWolf
(46,179 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Farkin derrrrrrr.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)There is only one instance in which the banksters didn't get their chosen candidate elected.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Carter?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)So I guess they have that in common. I never thought I'd see the day when the party I belong to is pushing for an oligarchy backed candidate.
Darb
(2,807 posts)If they sense that Sanders has enough Joementum, they will back him too.
ybbor
(1,554 posts)Market.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Nothing wrong with GMOs. Try feeding the world on just organics.
I'm glad Monsanto, a progressive ag company, has donated to Hillary.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)And that they are laughing and making this face
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Probably most of the food
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)about 25 women and about 5 guys. We were I believe mostly Democrat with the exception of about 3 who were rabid tea partiers. Oh the fun times. But anyway, the women were solid HRC and the guys were split. The day after the general election I asked around if the polls they went to were full and how big the line. I was the only one who voted. I wondered why they lost their enthusiasm after the primaries.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)or something.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Cue the outrage...3, 2, 1...Action!