Hillary Clinton's Top 5 campaign contributors

[INdemo]

Hillary Clinton Fundraising
Top Five Organizations of Hillary Clinton Donors — Lifetime (1999-Present)

Total Individuals PACs
Citigroup Inc $824,402 $816,402 $8,000

Goldman Sachs $760,740 $750,740 $10,000

DLA Piper $700,530 $673,530 $27,000

JPMorgan Chase & Co. $696,456 $693,456 $3,000

Morgan Stanley $636,564 $631,564 $5,000

*Data from the Center for Responsive Politics

Top Sectors of Hillary Clinton Donors — Lifetime (1999-Present):

Total PAC Individuals
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $34,996,285 $532,624 $34,463,661

Lawyers & Lobbyists $30,407,153 $452,999 $29,954,154

Misc. Business $22,265,967 $233,383 $22,032,584

Communications/Electronics $15,442,831 $251,798 $15,191,033
*Data from the Center for Responsive Politics

[think]

1. 2 of those banks committed felony crimes of rigging money markets. ALL have routinely broke US laws

And on top of all those donations these too big to fail banks gave Hillary Clinton over $3 million in 2013 alone for speaking engagements

5 Big Banks Expected to Plead Guilty to Felony Charges, but Punishments May Be Tempered

By BEN PROTESS and MICHAEL CORKERYMAY 13, 2015

For most people, pleading guilty to a felony means they will very likely land in prison, lose their job and forfeit their right to vote.

But when five of the world’s biggest banks plead guilty to an array of antitrust and fraud charges as soon as next week, life will go on, probably without much of a hiccup.

The Justice Department is preparing to announce that Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and the Royal Bank of Scotland will collectively pay several billion dollars and plead guilty to criminal antitrust violations for rigging the price of foreign currencies, according to people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Most if not all of the pleas are expected to come from the banks’ holding companies, the people said — a first for Wall Street giants that until now have had only subsidiaries or their biggest banking units plead guilty.

Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/business/dealbook/5-big-banks-expected-to-plead-guilty-to-felony-charges-but-punishments-may-be-tempered.html?_r=0

[Bubzer]

26. That doesn't matter though cause 9/11...

I'll add this just in case

/sarcasm

[think]

37. Thanks for laugh :) /nt

[Bubzer]

38. Anytime!

[Xipe Totec]

2. Evidently some people are allergic to data.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=27101

[OnyxCollie]

23. This is the Hillary Clinton group.

[IMG][/IMG]

[frylock]

40. You should see some of the hateful posts that one made about Hillary in 2007-08.

[stonecutter357]

3. Good looks like they have left the repukes for good.

[Hepburn]

22. No, they just added Hillary to the list

Clinton, Bush, Rubio Are Top Recipients of Big Bank Cash

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-is-putting-money-behind-these-presidential-candidates_55b143e7e4b08f57d5d414ad

[stonecutter357]

33. .

[Hepburn]

39. That's your response to Hillary being in with Rubio and Bush?

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaay...guess you don't mind her being funded by those who we work against.

[Scuba]

4. YOu make it sound like it's only banks that love her ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128074433

[Bubzer]

27. +1

[Darb]

5. Don't alert on me Bro*, but

this doesn't amount to a hill of shit.

In bernworld, are there any big companies with political interest? No? Well gee, that sounds like a nice world. Too bad it is a fucking fantasy.

Grow up!


* - Disclaimer intended to act as a trigger warning, for those that use the alert button to silence the opposition, to expect some harsh rhetoric.

[think]

7. You're the one being naive and foolish. The banks have rigged markets, defrauded their customers

and routinely violate US laws.

These banks paid Hillary Clinton over $3 million for speeches in 2013 alone. That's cold hard cash income not just donations.

What makes you think Clinton will do anything to make sure these banks don't continue to act in a criminal and unethical manner?

Obama got major donations from the big employees of these banks. What we got was Eric Holder and the results were obvious to anyone willing to notice.

Eric Holder didn't send a single banker to jail for the mortgage crisis. Is that justice?

US attorney general’s tenure has proven unhelpful to the five million victims of mortgage abuses in the US

The telling sentence in NPR’s report that US attorney general Eric Holder plans to step down once a successor is confirmed came near the end of the story.

“Friends and former colleagues say Holder has made no decisions about his next professional perch,” NPR writes, “but they say it would be no surprise if he returned to the law firm Covington & Burling, where he spent years representing corporate clients.”

A large chunk of Covington & Burling’s corporate clients are mega-banks like JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America. Lanny Breuer, who ran the criminal division for Holder’s Justice Department, already returned to work there.

In March, Covington highlighted in marketing materials their award from the trade publication American Lawyer as “Litigation Department of the Year,” touting the law firm’s work in getting clients accused of financial fraud off with slap-on-the-wrist fines.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/sep/25/eric-holder-resign-mortgage-abuses-americans

[deutsey]

16. +1

[Darb]

34. Don't alert on me Bro, but

I am no fan of big banks either. The fraud of which you speak was not just banks, big banks, it was rampant throughout the real estate, banking, mortgage, ratings agencies, appraisal, and inspection industries. What you are complaining about, and trying in vain to attach to Hillary Clinton, is a society-wide period of complete depravity. I understand that you want people held to account, but to be fair, it was probably 75% of the population that was playing along with the charade.

Your contempt is noted, albeit far, far too narrow.

[think]

36. I've never alerted on anyone here. While Hillary was raking in $3 mil for speeches from these banks

in 2013 these same banks were already being charged with violating laws, rigging markets, lying to congress, and defrauding their customers.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-07/goldman-sachs-is-under-investigation-in-currency-probe

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/eu-fines-first-us-banks-in-rate-rigging-scandal/2013/12/04/828468da-5cf6-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html


I'm not naive enough to believe all that money Hillary got doesn't matter.


Democratic Senator Carl Levin called out Goldman Sachs for lying to congress and purposely defrauding it's clients. This is what I expect from my leaders. An active attempt to stop the fraud that pervades our banking system:

Hillary knows what these banks do & did and yet she was willing to make a smalll fortune speaking to them. She has lobbyists for the banks on her staff.

You can't take millions from criminal banks and expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim you'll make sure they are held accountable. The optics are off the wall insane....

[CoffeeCat]

19. Your post makes no sense...

...but I guess that is what happens when you defend the indefensible.

[Hepburn]

32. +1

[Darb]

35. Don't alert on me Bro*, but

my post makes perfect sense. We have a system in place that allows for companies to express their support for people that are running for office and therefor will be in a position to affect those businesses. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you might need to take it up with a professor of English, or history, or........ parapsychology perhaps .

If you think people running for office do not need money to compete in this system, then you might want to consider talking to someone who might be better able than I to explain our electoral system.

I am not defending anything other than the Democratic front-runner from ridiculous complaints and accusations of skullduggery with regard to our electoral system that are completely in the imagination of certain supporters of another candidate.

So "makes no sense"? No, I don't thinks so. It makes perfect sense. Here it is plain and simple. Your complaints about who gives and accepts money in our current political system is self flagellation.


* - Disclaimer intended to act as a trigger warning, for those that use the alert button to silence the opposition, to expect some harsh rhetoric.

[CoffeeCat]

41. Your sheep-like acceptance of dirty corporate money...

...being involved in our American political system is shameful.

It makes perfect sense that you would be a Clinton apologist. You are happy as a clam--and willing to post favorable tripe--about how wonderful and acceptable it is that corporations, powerful banks, the Koch Brothers and other special interests are buying our elections.

That's just fine and dandy with you.

And as for your "Don't alert on me Bro" nonsense--I'm a woman; A wife, mother to two teenaged girls and I'm very concerned about the future of our country. I have no intention of alerting on you. I think it's important that other people see that Hillary Clinton supporters, like yourself, have now become cheerleaders for corporate money tainting and corrupting our elections.

[Blue_Adept]

6. Oh! Oh! I know!

[img][/img]

[restorefreedom]

11. that never gets old no matter how many times people post it. nt

[bigwillq]

8. She's bought and sold

NO MORE CLINTON.

[fasttense]

9. See even crooks can buy a politician except for.....Bernie. n/t

[JaneyVee]

10. Actually, her biggest donors are unions:

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/07/1409515/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-Hillary-Clinton-s-Campaign-Donors

[pinebox]

13. Politifact says Hillary's biggest donors are banks.

I'll take the actual fact checkers. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/




You can check this here to find out all the top campaign contributors for the 2016 election cycle and the amounts which they have given https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=All&id=N00000019&type=f
Here are Hillary's top campaign contributors and Bernie's.
There are some VERY stark differences between the 2 candidates and I think I'll do a new post on this.

[ismnotwasm]

14. I've read this 3 dozen times--so dull, but wait! Paragraphs! From your link!

As we noted, this data refers to their entire political careers back to the 1990s. Once the full presidential data is released, those figures may show different patterns. "That is not made clear" in the meme, said Anthony J. Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College. "Most people would assume that this is money raised so far in the 2016 presidential campaign."

Also, the "donors" listed are not the ones who gave the money, since that would be against the law. Rather, it was their PACs, employees and those employees’ families. In fact, due to how the forms are filled out, the data is less likely to capture individual donations from union members than from employers of companies. Most individual donations are listed by employer, and if, say, a union carpenter lists his affiliation as his company, the fact that he’s a union member wouldn’t be recorded.

Finally, lists such as this ignore that both candidates are collecting many small donations, too. According to the Clinton campaign, she raised roughly $50 million in contributions under $200 during her '08 campaign. Data for the 2016 cycle is not available yet.

[pinebox]

15. Dull? I didn't join DU to entertain you, sorry.

And yet what does it say about your candidate? She has a very distinct pattern and history of accepting corporate money from Wall Street. It is what it is. You always hear "but but those companies can't give money". Ya, same argument Republicans make when defending the Koch's.

I'm just saying.

[think]

18. Around 40 lobbyists are actively bundling campaign contributions for Clinton

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article27446782.html

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It's a duck....

[CoffeeCat]

20. LOL! Why does it matter WHEN she took the money?

Fact: Hillary has taken millions from the biggest banks; the banks that imploded our economy.

Who gives a rat's ass whether she took the money six months ago or six years ago?

This money has been bestowed upon her--for a long duration--many years. That's true.

So, it's ok with you that she's been engaging in this behavior for years?

I am astounded at the bullshit that fellow Democrats attempt to rationalize.

"She didn't take the money last week! We don't have that data yet! This is data from the past few years! So yes, the big banks have slipped her money for years and years and years...but what about last week?"

[George II]

30. Sanders brags that the average donation to his campaign is about $31. That is well below....

....the reportable amount so we don't even know the demographics of many of his donors, nor do we know how many of those $31 donations are repeats. A person can give 1000 "unreportable" $31 donations.

[MaggieD]

31. The intention is to mislead people

That's what they do. All day every day.

[Baitball Blogger]

12. Right in our faces, and people still don't want to look.

[George II]

17. You're misrepresenting the numbers.

Those are LIFETIME numbers! She ran for Senate twice in New York. What you're presenting is misleading - the big number for each line is for INDIVIDUALS who work in those banks and organizations!

Did you intentionally post this with headings screwed up?

Do you know how many people in New York WORK in banks? There are thousands of bank branches in New York. Each one has clerical workers, tellers, maintenance and cleaning people, etc.

In my family of eight (six siblings) five of us at one time in our lives worked for a bank in NYC, and we're far from "banksters" or 1%-ers. I'd bet most people in NYC (which has half the population of the state) either worked for banks or have family members who work for banks.

Here are the REAL numbers from "banks", etc.

otal Individuals PACs
Citigroup Inc $8,000

Goldman Sachs $10,000

DLA Piper $27,000

JPMorgan Chase & Co. $3,000

Morgan Stanley $5,000

*Data from the Center for Responsive Politics

Top Sectors of Hillary Clinton Donors — Lifetime (1999-Present):

Total PAC Individuals

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $34,996,285 $532,624 $34,463,661

Lawyers & Lobbyists $30,407,153 $452,999 $29,954,154

Misc. Business $22,265,967 $233,383 $22,032,584

Communications/Electronics $15,442,831 $251,798 $15,191,033

*Data from the Center for Responsive Politics

if you did the same search for Sanders you'd see that he has a MUCH higher %-age of contributions from PACs than Clinton.

Why not go back to your source and look at the details of the numbers they present and you posted off-kilter here.

[CoffeeCat]

21. OH ok! So, she's only been bribed by the banks for a LIFETIME...

...instead of *only* during the recent campaign season.

Are you sure you really want to make that case?

What you're saying is WORSE! These powerful banks--that nearly destroyed our economy--believe in Hillary Clinton so much, that they have given her money over the entire lifetime of her political career.

And as a result, she holds the line on repealing Glass Steagall--and has never fought to hold them to account.

Those banks pay handsomely for her silence, don't they? Unlike Elizabeth Warren who is out there on the front lines, fighting them--while Hillary sops up their money.

It's grotesque. And anyone who this "pay to play" corruption that has swallowed our democracy, is the enemy.

[AlbertCat]

29. OH ok! So, she's only been bribed by the banks for a LIFETIME...

... and WHILE they were screwing the country.

Great to know! Thanks!

[NurseJackie]

25. Oh, you! Picky, picky, picky! :-)

"Why not go back to your source and look at the details of the numbers they present and you posted off-kilter here."

I'm sure they're probably thinking: "Why let a little thing like facts and accuracy stand in the way? Bernie's campaign has stagnated... we've got to do SOMETHING!"

I think they do not yet realize that transparent and easily debunked "efforts" like this won't change or improve Bernie's faltering and stagnant ground-game. Yet they continue with the same strategy in spite of the lack of improvement. Remarkable.

[George II]

28. A listing like that shows up here every few days, but as you say, it doesn't change anything...

...in fact it only turns MORE people off.

People who understand the Federal campaign finance laws know that this is ludicrous.

Tune in on Wednesday for the next misrepresentation of donors.