Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AM
Number of posts: 28,872
Number of posts: 28,872
- 2016 (186)
- 2015 (170)
- 2014 (278)
- 2013 (713)
- 2012 (534)
- 2011 (56)
- December (56)
- Older Archives
keyword: Mossack Fonseca law firm
Democracy Now reports...
Exhaustive Study Finds Global Elite Hiding Up to $32 Trillion in Offshore Accountshttp://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/31/exhaustive_study_finds_global_elite_hiding
A new report reveals how wealthy individuals and their families have between $21 and $32 trillion of hidden financial assets around the world in what are known as offshore accounts or tax havens. The actual sums could be higher because the study only deals with financial wealth deposited in bank and investment accounts, and not other assets such as property and yachts. The inquiry was commissioned by the Tax Justice Network and is being touted as the most comprehensive report ever on the "offshore economy." It also finds that private banks are deeply involved in running offshore havens, with UBS, Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs handling the most assets. We’re joined by the report’s author, James Henry, a lawyer and former chief economist at McKinsey & Company.
Super-Rich Hold Up To $32 Trillion In Offshore Havens: Report
07/22/2012 05:00 am ET | Updated Sep 20, 2012
LONDON, July 22 (Reuters) - Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.
The study estimating the extent of global private financial wealth held in offshore accounts - excluding non-financial assets such as real estate, gold, yachts and racehorses - puts the sum at between $21 and $32 trillion.
The research was carried out for pressure group Tax Justice Network, which campaigns against tax havens, by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co.
He used data from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations and central banks.
The report also highlights the impact on the balance sheets of 139 developing countries of money held in tax havens by private elites, putting wealth beyond the reach of local tax authorities...
Posted by kristopher | Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:30 AM (25 replies)
There seems to be some pushback against using the word /bribe/ to describe what is happening in US politics today. I'd like to address that.
Jimmy Carter: US campaign funding 'legal bribery'
3 February 2016 Last updated at 08:52 GMT
Former US president Jimmy Carter has told the Today programme that the way politics is now funded in the US opens the door to "legal bribery".
Speaking to John Humphrys, who first interviewed Carter when he was running for the Democratic nomination in 1976, he said almost all candidates now relied on "massive infusions of money".
President Carter suggested he would not have become US president if he were competing under the current conditions.
grease someone's palm
persuade (someone) to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement:
Example sentence of my own making:
Rich fucks are bribing our politicians to (1) pass laws protecting the interests of the 1%, and (2) ignore any requests from the 99% for legislation that protects the 99% from the 1%.
This has been made legal in the US by providing clear avenues for the lawful transfer of funds to effect said favored treatment.
Sept 2014 Journal "Perspectives on Politics"
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The last paragraph of their findings:
Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
Posted by kristopher | Tue Apr 5, 2016, 01:16 AM (3 replies)
Hillary, self serving soul that she is - who never even supported`the campaign, will now take credit.
Posted by kristopher | Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:22 AM (0 replies)
Hillary Clinton’s Connections to the Oil and Gas Industry
by Jesse Coleman
Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry.
Last updated April 1, 2016.
For questions or media inquiries about this research, please contact Perry Wheeler, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been backed by the fossil fuel industry in a number of ways.
First, there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of March 21, 2016; source: Center for Responsive Politics) from such donors.
Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,465,610 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number.
Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign.
All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.
Number of oil, gas and coal industry lobbyists that have made direct contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign: 58
58 registered oil, coal and gas lobbyists have personally given $138,400 to the Clinton campaign.
Of those 58, 11 are bundlers.
11 lobbyists have bundled $1,327,210 in contributions to the Clinton campaign.
43 lobbyists have contributed the maximum allowed ($2,700).
Lobbyists who have reported lobbying for the oil and gas industry – both in-house company lobbyists and hired lobbyists from “K-Street firms.”
This does not include:
Industry executives who are not registered as lobbyists.
Other employees of the oil and gas industry.
Corporate PAC contributions.
Contributions by major investors.
Donations to Super PACS or non-profit groups.
Contributions made by trade associations to Super PACs.
As of March 21, Clinton has taken more from lobbyists in general than any other candidate besides Jeb Bush — a total of $919,477.
Total amount bundled from oil and gas lobbyists: $1,327,210
- Three Enbridge lobbyists contributed to Clinton’s campaign. While she was Secretary of State, Clinton signed off on the Enbridge pipeline (the alternative to the Keystone XL pipeline).
- Ben Klein (Heather Podesta and Associates) lobbied on behalf of Oxbow Carbon on petcoke and other issues. Petcoke is a byproduct of refining. Communities in Detroit and Chicago have complained about piles of petcoke blowing into the community. Bill Koch (the estranged brother of Charles and David) owns controlling interest of Oxbow. Klein also lobbied on restrictions of ivory imports for Oxbow.
- Fracking company and gas industry trade association lobbyists have also contributed to Clinton’s campaign, including Former Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX), who lobbied for the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, and Martin Durbin of the American Natural Gas Association (now merged and part of the American Petroleum Institute – API), the nephew of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). Another donor is Elizabeth Gore, a lobbyist for WPX energy (fracking). A lobbyist for FTI Consulting, creator of an industry front group called Energy In Depth, also contributed to Clinton;s campaign. Although Clinton has said she would require FERC to consider climate change before granting any new gas pipeline permits, she recently told activists she would not ban fracking as president, and has a pro-fracking track record which has been well-documented by numerous groups, including pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record.
- Mary Streett, a lobbyist for BP, gave Clinton’s campaign the maximum allowable amount ($2700). Her sister, Stephanie S. Streett, is the Executive Director of the William J. Clinton Foundation and former executive director of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, 990 report 2013). The Podesta Group (Tony Podesta) also lobbied for BP, on issues including the Gulf of Mexico spill response and recovery.
- While Secretary of State, Clinton pushed fracking in countries around the world, through the department’s Global Shale Gas Initiative. According to Grist, after the Bulgarian government signed a five-year deal with Chevron, major public protests led the Bulgarian parliament to pass a fracking moratorium. Clinton traveled to Bulgaria and then dispatched her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans, which were eventually overturned.
Clinton’s State Department played a major role in negotiating a bilateral oil agreement with Mexico. Her former special envoy for international energy affairs, David Goldwyn, has donated the maximum allowable amount to the campaign ($2700). Although neither he nor his firm (Goldwyn International Strategies LLC) report lobbying during 2015-2016, since leaving the State Department Goldwyn has consulted for companies wishing to profit from Mexico’s decision to allow private oil services contractors into the country in order to expand PEMEX’s ability to produce shale oil and tap deep offshore reserves.
- David Leiter (ML Strategies lobbyist for Exxon and a Clinton bundler), the former Senate chief of staff to John Kerry, is also a lobbyist for Burisma Holdings, a private Ukrainian natural gas and uranium mining company with many connections to the Democratic Party. Biden’s son Hunter joined Burisma’s board in 2014, right before Leiter was hired to lobby members about the role of the company in Ukraine (arguing for its role in helping Ukraine be independent of Russia). Another board member, Devon Archer, is a Clinton donor (2700). FTI’s Lawrence Pacheco does communications for Burisma. Burisma is owned by a Cypriot holding firm, Brociti Investments Ltd, which is controlled by Nikolai Zlochevskyi, a former Ukrainian government minister.
- Although Clinton has said she supports an investigation into Exxon’s early concealment of what it knew about the risks of climate change and subsequent financing of climate denier front groups, her campaign has taken contributions from at least seven lobbyists working for Exxon, including one in-house lobbyist — Theresa Fariello — who has bundled and additional $21,200 for the campaign.
- Hess lobbyists from Forbes-Tate (Daniel Tate, Jeffrey Forbes, George Cooper and Rachel Miller) all gave maximum allowable contributions to Clinton’s campaign. The firm lobbied on behalf of the Hess Corporation, on crude by rail and crude exports. Hess owns rail cars that came off the tracks and caught fire after a BNSF train derailed in North Dakota in early May 2015. Hess is the third-largest oil producer in North Dakota. Lynn Helms, a former Hess executive served as ND’s top oil and gas regulator at the Department of Mineral Resources between 2005 and 2013. When Clinton came out in opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, she started talking about how fixing train tracks would create jobs. In December 2015, a couple of months after Clinton announced she opposed Keystone XL, and just over a month after Obama rejected the pipeline down, Warren Buffett — who owns BNSF — endorsed Clinton. Buffett is also a big oil investor (e.g. Phillips 66).
- Companies invested in LNG projects with lobbyists that have given to Clinton’s campaign include Freeport LNG (Elizabeth Gore – Brownstein Hyatt, $500); LNG Allies (Michael Smith – Cornerstone Gov. Affairs – 2700 and a bundler of $59,400); Dominion Resources (Tom Lawler – Lawler Strategies, 2700); Oregon LNG (Robert van Heuvelen VH Strategies – 2700). Exxon also has LNG projects. Cheniere Energy’s Ankit Desai not only gave the maximum allowed, but also bundled $140,400 for the campaign. Another donor ($2700) to Clinton’s campaign is Heather Zichal, Obama’s former energy advisor, who joined the board of Cheniere (LNG export company) after leaving the administration.
- Former Rep. Richard (“Dick”) Gephardt’s firm lobbies for Peabody Energy (coal), Prairie State (coal-fired power plant and adjacent mine), Ameren Services Co. Gephardt and his wife, son and daughter Chrissy all contributed the maximum allowed to Clinton’s campaign (Dick is the only fossil fuel lobbyist in the family). Gephardt, a Democratic Party super delegate, has pledged to support Clinton. In February, the DNC rolled back its previous commitment to not take any contributions from federally registered lobbyists. Clinton’s campaign has also received contributions from lobbyists representing big mining companies — Westmoreland Coal, Arch Coal and Rio Tinto.
Other points relevant to lobbyist contributions:
During the New Hampshire democratic debate, Clinton said donations are not evidence of favors. But in 2008, she suggested the contributions Obama took from the industry were evidence of a quid pro quo.
In April 2008, Clinton’s campaign aired a television ad portraying Obama’s support for a 2005 energy bill as a quid pro quo for campaign donations. The ad said Obama had “accepted $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies,” while criticizing him for voting “for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that that put $6 billion in the pocket of big oil.”
The clear message of this ad: Obama backed the bill as a favor to donors.
It’s worth noting that Obama didn’t take any money from lobbyists or PACs in 2008 and pledged to not take contributions from lobbyists in 2012, too, and gave some donations back.
While mostly true, critics did point out after the 2012 campaign that Obama did take some K Street money.
Other oil and gas industry contributions:
Total direct contributions to the Clinton campaign from industry employees and executives: $307,561
For more information:
Fossil Fuel Funding of 2016 Presidential Candidates (research by Jesse Coleman).
Fossil Fuel Lobbyists’ Contributions to the Clinton Campaign (research by Charlie Cray).
By Jesse Coleman
Jesse Coleman is a researcher with the Greenpeace Investigations team. His focus is on front groups, fracking, and the oil and gas industry. Jesse's work has been featured in The Guardian, The New York Times, The Colbert Report, Al-Jazeera, MSNBC, and NPR.
Posted by kristopher | Sun Apr 3, 2016, 08:11 PM (18 replies)
WHY ARE CAMPAIGN ETHICS IMPORTANT?
The ethical principles that apply generally to public life-rules about conflicts of interest, access to government, integrity, etc.-also apply to campaigns for political office. Why, then, treat campaign ethics as a separate topic? In practice, political campaigns represent one of the circumstances most likely to bring out the worst in people. Many candidates seem to subscribe to the theory that almost anything is allowable in order to get elected, because once in office, they will be outstanding public servants. Others, confronted with bad behavior on the part of their opponents, feel they must also cut moral corners just to compete.
So before we look at the specifics of campaign ethics, it's worth exploring why ethical campaigns are important. For this, we have to start by asking the purpose of a political campaign. Ideally, a campaign clearly outlines the positions and character of the candidates so that voters can make informed decisions about whom they wish to see elected. Any tactic that interferes with this clarity-deception, financial influence, etc.-would then be unethical, even if used by a candidate with the best interests of his or her electorate at heart.
An "ends justifies the means" rationale for unethical campaigning ignores the fact that the means become part of the end. Unethical practices such as lying are rarely confined to campaigns. As philosopher Sissela Bok has written,
The failure to look at an entire practice rather than at their own isolated case often blinds liars to cumulative harm and expanding deceptive activities. Those who begin with white lies can come to resort to more frequent and more serious ones....The aggregate harm from a large number of marginally harmful instances may, therefore, be highly undesirable in the end-for liars, those deceived, and honesty and trust more generally.
Unethical campaigns reinforce cynicism and negative feelings about government that can stymie officials once they are elected.
Campaigns, therefore, do not confer any special immunity from principles just because they are particularly challenging arenas in which to behave well...
More at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/government-ethics/resources/what-is-government-ethics/campaign-ethics/
Posted by kristopher | Sun Apr 3, 2016, 03:27 PM (3 replies)
Are we stupid?
Why are we spending all of our time bumping HRC followers' posts about Bernie while letting nearly all posts on Clinton's negatives drop like a rock?
That is mindless, reactive behavior.
Posted by kristopher | Sun Apr 3, 2016, 09:39 AM (2 replies)
Hillary Clinton campaign totals 13 fundraisers in foreign countries
by Drew Doggett
MARCH 17, 2016, 11:32 A.M.
As the 2016 election rolls toward November, candidates are travelling far and wide to raise money to fill their campaign coffers. At Political Party Time, we previously mapped and detailed Hillary Clinton’s fundraising tour de force in the states. While Clinton benefits from many fundraisers outside of the Beltway, she’s also cashing in on at least 13 events outside of the country, according to an analysis of Party Time's fundraising data.
Clinton's campaign has held eight total fundraisers in London, including two in March. And her offshore fundraising operation has so far reached Munich with one fundraiser; Durban, South Africa with one fundraiser; and Mexico City with two fundraisers. It is worth noting, that to the best of our knowledge Clinton herself, won't be attending any of these fundraising parties.
Donors at these events presumably are U.S. citizens who currently live in the countries where the events are held. However, it is also worth nothing that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) permits U.S. permanent residents (as well as U.S. citizens) to donate to presidential campaigns.
According to the FEC, “Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that ‘green card’ holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute.”
These “foreign nationals” include foreign governments, political parties, corporations, associations, partnerships, persons with foreign citizenship and non-permanent resident immigrants.
Overseas fundraisers are relatively common for leading presidential candidates, but hosting over a dozen events before spring illustrates the vast reach of Clinton’s fundraising machine. By comparison, according to Party Time, no other presidential candidate has any official overseas fundraisers to his/her name.
Used under Creative Commons License from The Sunlight Foundation
Posted by kristopher | Sun Apr 3, 2016, 09:08 AM (2 replies)
Reposted from The Sunlight Foundation under Creative Commons license
Behind the Clinton campaign: Mapping the pro-Hillary super PACs
by Melissa Yeager and Libby Watson
DEC. 1, 2015, 11:33 A.M.
Hillary Clinton. (Photo credit: Keith Kissel/Flickr)
We’re going to dive into the web of financing for all of the presidential candidates, but as we have looked into several Republican candidates already — like Ted Cruz’s plethora of super PACs and Right to Rise’s pro-Jeb Bush advertising — we’re going to start this exercise over on the Democratic Party side with Hillary Clinton.1
We've also delved even deeper into the Clinton money network, covering her campaign's web of dark money allies. But for now, let’s get started!
Players you should know
To start with, here are the names you need to know and how they fit under our current campaign finance system.2
Ready for Hillary PAC (hybrid super PAC)
Ready PAC (hybrid super PAC, formerly Ready for Hillary)
Hillary for America (candidate PAC)
Priorities USA Action (super PAC)
Correct the Record (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century (super PAC)
American Bridge 21st Century Foundation (501(c)(4))
American Independent Institute (501(c)(4))
Media Matters (501(c)(3))
The Bonner Group
Now that you know who is involved, here’s the story we know right now of the money backing Hillary. It's rather lengthy so in this post we'll cover Ready for Hillary, Ready PAC, and Priorities USA Action. We'll be looking at the rest later in the week.
Ready for Hillary
First of all, it’s important to point out that the Hillary Clinton political fundraising machine started a full two years before she declared she was running for president. (At least, the one actually associated with her name did.)
On Jan. 25, 2013, Ready for Hillary formally organized by filing paperwork with the FEC. Clinton was directly involved with the super PAC at that point — you may remember the “Ready for Hillary” bus? Clinton was promoting her new book “Hard Choices” at that time (much like Ben Carson is promoting his book "Gifted Hands" now) and doing speaking events around the country.
While most of Ready for Hillary's spending was what you would expect, one did catch our eye: $359 for Camp Bow Wow in Las Vegas. Guess somebody’s pet needed some boarding!
Between January 2013 and when Clinton announced her intention to run for president in April 2015, Ready for Hillary raised about $12.9 million and spent $12.1 million. It ended the year in 2014 with $748,469 cash on hand.
Some notable donors during that time include billionaire Warren Buffett ($25,000) and Patricia Hoppey, the founder of direct mail marketing company Pivot ($60,000).
On its website, 270 Strategies documents its involvement in Ready for Hillary and offers it as case study in “tapping into organic grassroots energy around a potential Hillary Clinton presidential run.” It notes various steps taken during the 2014 campaign to “get out the vote” and to recruit volunteers to create “a movement nearly 4 million strong.”
On April 12, 2015, Hillary Clinton announced her intention to run for president, and Ready for Hillary evolved into its next iteration — Ready PAC — which we'll discuss further below.
Hillary for America
After her announcement, funds poured into her candidate committee, Hillary for America. In fact, since her announcement, her PAC has raised more than $77 million dollars from 84,741 different transactions. So far, it has spent $44 million of that, including $4 million in online ads with the firm Bully Pulpit Interactive as well as $3.3 million in media buys and $5 million in direct marketing.
The Washington Post did a fine job recently of breaking down the complexities and the money involved in the Bill and Hillary campaign fundraising efforts. So for this part of our post, we’ll refer you to their excellent and extensive work.
The day after Hillary announced her intention to run for President, Ready for Hillary officially changed its name to Ready PAC. Under FEC rules, super PACs are not allowed to coordinate with the candidate or the candidate’s committee, nor are they allowed to use the candidate’s name. Ready for Hillary had to change its name to keep operating.
Ergo: Ready PAC.
In the first half of 2015, Ready PAC had raised $3.1 million and spent $3.5 million. It currently lists $66,000 cash on hand.
Some notable donors to Ready PAC include:
Amy Goldman Fowler, author and gardener, $250,000
Barbara Lee, philanthropist, $189,000
George Soros, philanthropist, $25,000
Jon Corzine, former governor of New Jersey, $25,000
There are also two notable receipts from other super PACs: Priorities USA Action ($150,000) and American Bridge 21st Century ($150,000), both super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton's 2016 run. This is where things start to get interesting.
Clinton's a blockbuster in Hollywood: Steven Spielberg, right, and Jeffrey Katzenberg, left, both gave big for Hillary. (Photo credit: Getty Images)
Priorities USA Action
Priorities USA Action filed paperwork with the FEC on April 28, 2011. You may remember this group as the super PAC supporting Obama's 2012 run; it has now evolved to support Clinton in 2016. So far in this election cycle, its independent expenditures have focused primarily on supporting Clinton and opposing pretty much the entire Republican field. The super PAC has raised $15,654,457 so far in 2015.
Some notable names on this list:
Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners Management and liberal megadonor, $1 million
Herbert Sandler, retired CEO of Global West Financial, $1 million
Steven Spielberg, $1 million
Haim and Cheyl Saban, Saban Entertainment (creators of shows such as Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers), $2 million total
Jeffery Katzenberg, CEO of DreamWorks Animation, $1 million
George Soros, philanthropist, $1 million
The group also received $1 million from Fair Share Action, another super PAC which was founded in 2012. FEC records reflect that Fair Share Action has received just two contributions from two 527 organizations: Fair Share, Inc ($300,000) and Environment America, Inc. ($800,000). These organizations do not have to disclose their donors, so we don't know who is funding them.
Dig into campaign cash with Sunlight tools
Check out Sunlight's Real-Time Federal Campaign Finance tracker to follow the money throughout the 2016 cycle.
According to its website, Fair Share is a nonpartisan, nonprofit group advocating "for an America where everyone gets their fair share, does their fair share and pays their fair share; and where everyone plays by their own rules." The group currently has a campaign advocating to rid politics of "big corporate money," however, we could not find that the group disclosed its own donors on its website.
We also could not find donors listed on the website for Environmental America, Inc., a group advocating for conservation. For both organizations, we had to look under the disclosure on their donation page to make sure we had the right organizations. However, at least with both of these organizations we are aware of the causes they are championing.
Aside from the $1 million it bequeathed to Priorities USA Action, Fair Share Action has only made one other disbursement: $5,000 to Ready PAC. In the 2014 cycle, Fair Share Action's independent expenditures were primarily supporting Rep. Gwen Graham, D-Fla., and former Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., in his failed bid for re-election against his Republican challenger, Sen. Cory Gardner.
Meanwhile, even though super PACs are not supposed to coordinate with the candidate or candidate committee, The New York Times reported this week that Bill Clinton will be making an appearance for the super PAC.
There's more to the story
So that's the basic structure of the Clinton campaign finance structure — but there is much more to explore. Read our next post on Hillary's dark money network, where we cover how organizations like American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record play into the Clinton campaign strategy.
1 One caveat as we take on this endeavor: There’s an inherent problem with following the money before the election being that some of the public records needed to piece everything together aren’t available until years after the election is complete. There may be other groups that operate on the candidate’s behalf, but we’re only going to document the ones where we can find documented proof of money changing hands or interconnections between staff members. Of course, we’ll continue to post on our blog as we discover interesting things about the money being spent this cycle. (Return to top)
2 Super PACs fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Election Commission, while 501(c)(4)s fall under the jurisdiction of the IRS. Also, “hybrid super PAC” means the PAC has two separate accounts: one account for coordinated expenses with the campaign and a separate account for independent expenditures made uncoordinated with any campaign or campaign committee. (Return to top)
Posted by kristopher | Sun Apr 3, 2016, 09:00 AM (4 replies)
Documentation and details:
(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
Posted by kristopher | Sun Apr 3, 2016, 08:36 AM (82 replies)
Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America.
By Michelle AlexanderFEBRUARY 10, 2016
Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillary—or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with “courting the black vote,” a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.
Hillary is looking to gain momentum on the campaign trail as the primaries move out of Iowa and New Hampshire and into states like South Carolina, where large pockets of black voters can be found. According to some polls, she leads Bernie Sanders by as much as 60 percent among African Americans. It seems that we—black people—are her winning card, one that Hillary is eager to play.
And it seems we’re eager to get played. Again.
The love affair between black folks and the Clintons has been going on for a long time. It began back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for president. He threw on some shades and played the saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show. It seems silly in retrospect, but many of us fell for that. At a time when a popular slogan was “It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand,” Bill Clinton seemed to get us. When Toni Morrison dubbed him our first black president, we nodded our heads. We had our boy in the White House. Or at least we thought we did.
Black voters have been remarkably loyal to the Clintons for more than 25 years. It’s true that we eventually lined up behind Barack Obama in 2008, but it’s a measure of the Clinton allure that Hillary led Obama among black voters until he started winning caucuses and primaries. Now Hillary is running again. This time she’s facing a democratic socialist who promises a political revolution that will bring universal healthcare, a living wage, an end to rampant Wall Street greed, and the dismantling of the vast prison state—many of the same goals that Martin Luther King Jr. championed at the end of his life. Even so, black folks are sticking with the Clinton brand.
What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?
No. Quite the opposite....
Posted by kristopher | Sat Apr 2, 2016, 08:00 PM (12 replies)