Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders top donors compared

[Cheese Sandwich]

source: opensecrets.org

[polichick]

1. k&r

[appalachiablue]

2. +1. K & R

[NCTraveler]

3. Really has nothing to do with Hillary or Sanders.

Comparing apples to oranges. What it does display is the desperate need for campaign finance reform.

[still_one]

8. Exactly. The way the system is setup today unless you have money for your campaign you will face an

Uphill battle

Public financing of elections would be nice, but unfortunately they will find ways around it

[NCTraveler]

12. Somehow it needs to be gotten a hold of.

We are paying a huge price for this. Something we all pretty much agree about.

[staggerleem]

124. That all depends on who is included in your definition of "we".

If "we" means DUers, or the left in general, then of course, you're correct.

If you extend that "we" to include people who can actually DO something about campaign finance reform, then your statement holds very little water.

[arikara]

130. I saw this chart yesterday

This morning I heard on the radio that Hillary wants to reform campaign contributions.

Sure she will.

[fadedrose]

20. Reforms determined by whom tho?

They get worse if the SCOTUS gets their hands on a campaign reform case or a vote counting case (Bush/Gore/2000).

People don't need just to be more educated. What they do have to do is be more interested in who their representatives are and who they are really working for. How do you wake them up so that they realize that knowing about their state and federal politicians is not boring and election reform should not be left to "smarter" people.

Smarter people are sometimes more crooked and that's why they're so hard to catch than the average dumb crook. And these are the folks who decide what reforms they will allow.

[JDPriestly]

57. Hillary's donors -- all corporate and law firms that

represent corporations.

Bernie's donors -- labor unions.

Has nothing to do with Hillary or Sanders?

Their donors define them.

Hillary is sponsored by corporations. Sanders is sponsored by unions -- by workers.

What side are we on?

I'm with working people because I worked during my life.

[Agschmid]

62. He is a senator from VT...

She was a senator from NY... Where a whole bunch of those companies are based.

I understand why you want to make the comparison but there are some holes when you just put them side by side.

[MattSh]

84. You really think that's the reason?

[Agschmid]

85. It sure is a BIG part of it.

Trust me I feel the same way as you...

[A Simple Game]

97. You don't think most of them know she is no longer a New York Senator and is now powerless?

Funny if they are so gung-ho about supporting liberals you would think they would throw a few bucks Bernie's way.

But keep telling yourself it's only because she was a Senator if it stops you from realizing why they are really giving her all that money. And while you are at it tell yourself if she wins this time she would never think of repaying their generosity in the off chance they may contribute to her reelection campaign.

Myself... I will stick with who the unions back.

[emulatorloo]

70. Are you aware open secrets reports groups INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL DONATIONS by their employer?

when I make a contribution, I have to list my employer.

My contrib is then listed under my employer on open secrets.

My employer didn't give the money, I did.

The big numbers above are from individuals.

[Depaysement]

79. Not entirely

It includes PAC money too. And most of the non-PAC money from say, Goldman, comes from high net worth folks, not hundreds of admins writing $50 checks.

And none of that money is going to Bernie. Ever.

[emulatorloo]

83. Yep, there are two columns. Individual. PAC.

Nonetheless the big dollar amts are in the individual column.

As to income of individual donors, I don't know if there is a way to actually figure out or not. I know it is logical to think high net worth folks are giving the max they can give as individuals. On the other hand I don't think we can rule out the idea that there are liberal democrats working at Goldman Sachs who aren't high net worth who donate to Democrats.

as to Senator Sanders, if Goldman was based in Vermont I would imagine some people who work there might donate to Bernie. But I think you are absolutely right about the PAC money.

My money is going to Bernie if he decides to run.

[Depaysement]

89. Believe it or not

There are a few people at those firms who make most Manny Goldstein look like Ted Cruz. They are in the shadows. But the vast majority are third way at best.

[RoccoR5955]

78. Hillary=corporations Sanders=unions

Give me unions any day over corporations!

[rhett o rick]

120. You are so right. The apples (1%) love HRC and the oranges (99%) love Sen Sanders.

When H. Clinton met with Goldman-Sachs (and received $400,000) I doubt she told them to be nice to the American people.

We need change and HRC does not represent change.

[fadedrose]

4. Bernie has more supporters with less money

and Hillary has no supporters with less money

but there are more average Joes on Bernies list which translates into more people which means more votes.

Depends on the machines and how much time Bernie gets on TV and how many crucial endorsements he gets.



Thanks for posting.

[brooklynite]

9. Actually, Bernie has LESS supporters with less money...

...because the cost of funding a campaign in Vermont is orders of magnitude lower than funding one in NY, so he's never needed to find them. The question is: will be be able to find ENOUGH supporters with less money to fund an 18 month national campaign?

[Autumn]

17. This is why I won't withhold my funding from Bernie, I'm not a 1%er but

I will give till it hurts along with my vote and anything his campaign needs done.

[brooklynite]

22. Whether you're a 1%er or not, you can't give more that $2700 for the Primary period.

[Autumn]

27. Every little bit counts.

[salib]

46. So that is why the largest dollar contributor on those two lists is for $2700, right?

[brooklynite]

50. Read the fine print...

Those are aggregate totals over multiple elections. They also include additional contributions (same limit) for the General Election phase.

[salib]

59. It is more subtle than that.

From the source:
"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 2009-2014. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00000528&type=I


Thus, while it is an interesting comparison, it is not indicative of the organization's direct contributions. Of course, it also does not discuss all the Citizens United dark money that has been and will be a part of this Presidential election.

[BlueMTexpat]

88. Good points.

Thank you!

[CreekDog]

16. Hillary has no poor supporters?

we should avoid making things up.

[fadedrose]

26. It's a matter of what you call "poor"

and what I call "poor."

I don't think that $95,000 is middle class.

Some people on SS, SD, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, below-cost-of-living jobs, people who were wiped out by college loans or health costs, would be considered "poor" to me.

Many will vote Democratic because they trust Democrats to look after these social programs, but .....

Let me know how many of these votes she'll get AFTER she answers questions as to what to do about these social programs. And tax cuts for the rich, etc. There's a lot of Wall Street contributing on that list. Will she lose their support if she supports these programs, and if not, will it be because they know she's winking at them with a not-to-worry expression about agreements made beforehand.

No proof, just a bit of speculating, which is not the same as making things up. What else do you want to talk about?

[CreekDog]

31. You're speculating that Hillary has NO LOW INCOME supporters?

no wonder you don't have proof. because what you've said is ridiculous.

she has overwhelming support among Democrats, and that includes a lot of lower income people.

sheesh.

if you really want to beat her, you better step up your game because this kind of nonsense is not gonna cut it.

[fadedrose]

33. I'm not running and it's not up to me to "beat" her

And my mind goes the way it wants to. Even when I talk myself into or out of something, feelings are not something one can control. I have a nagging discomfort and I'm not enjoying the game, and I have no idea of what you mean by my thinking the way I do is not going to cut it.

Cut what? If she wins, I don't get my way. So what? The sun will still rise, birds will sing, flowers will bloom. It won't be the first time I didn't get my way. Not to worry about me, CreekDog, and I love dogs, even muddy from the creek.

Maybe I'm not 100% pleased with your thinking either, but am not asking you to change. Your mind is your own and you can think or say what you want. I expect the same courtesy in return because, frankly, I can't change even if I wanted to

[CreekDog]

37. So now you're running away from your statement that Hillary has no low income supporters?

I'm asking you to be right when you say something.

If you're suggesting taking the party down a different direction, your statements should be correct or why bother listening to you?

[fadedrose]

39. Sorry, I am never "Right"

Don't listen to me. Nobody said you had to reply to my posts.

You are FREEEEE to stop answering.

Okay I am a liar, have it your way. But if I am a liar, how could you even believe me when I say I am a liar....

See ya....you are taking me much farther from Mrs. Clinton than I was when I posted about the contributors. Is that a lie? hmmm.

You are a human lie detecter. Hanging around with the wrong crowd? Ooops, I didn't say that, I didn't mean it.. Am I lying ?

This is fun.

[rhett o rick]

121. H. Clinton represents the 1% banksters no matter how you try to twist it.

The big money owns the Corp-Media that spouts their propaganda.

[freshwest]

142. Most of the poor will be devastated - no, decimated, actually - by a GOP president.

Count me among her 'poor' supporters along with almost everyone else I know.

Not adding for you, as I'm sure you know this, but anyone who misses the gravity of that verb:

*decimate

: to destroy a large number of (plants, animals, people, etc.)

: to severely damage or destroy a large part of (something)

*Full definition: DECIMATE transitive verb

1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of

2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier — John Dryden>

3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population>

b: to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession>

Raise that to 47% of us, as Mittens did; or even more, as Cruz and his father said. Most of us know the plans the GOP has for us. They don't hide it now, emboldened by 2010 & 2014.

They want us dead.

Not even to mention what their intentions are for women and all minorities who don't want to live under plantation conditions.

[staggerleem]

126. Bernie's said that he'll base his decision whether or not to declare himself a candidate ...

... partly on how much money it looks like he'll be able to raise.

Given that Hillary's "average" donor seems to be contributing a factor of 10 more than the average Bernie donor, prospects don't look bright. Can Bernie attract 10x more donors than Hillary, to even the score? I guess we'll see.

[mmonk]

5. How come I'm not on Bernie's list?

Because my funds are limited but have contributed. I like the company I keep though.

[Maedhros]

6. In effect, these lists show who we're REALLY voting for

when we cast our ballot for Hillary or Bernie.

For my own part, I will not cast a ballot for Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, or JPMorgan Chase.

I'd gladly cast a ballot for the Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union, Teamsters Union, United Auto Workers and the National Education Association.

[hifiguy]

45. Eeyup. You have it in one.

Truth.

Capital versus the workers. Not a hard choice. Go, Bernie!!

[JEB]

104. That's the choice I've been looking for. Go, Bernie!!

[840high]

67. ... yep

[L0oniX]

109. Souls are being sold to the highest bidding banksters.

[staggerleem]

128. In this part of the campaign, we vote with our wallets.

As I stated above, I've heard Bernie say at least a dozen times that he won't run if he can't raise the cash to put up a competitive campaign.

So, pry 'em open, friends - give what you can, as often as you can, because based on the above Senator Sanders will need 10x more donors than Ms. Clinton.

[Maedhros]

132. If a small number of bigots can raise $800K in a week for a discriminatory pizza restaurant,

I think committed liberals can raise some money for Bernie.

And, while I'm certain there were shenanigans involved, don't forget that Obama was able to raise significant funds from Internet contributions: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/15/exclusive-obamas-2012-digital-fundraising-outperformed-2008/

[Autumn]

7. The first four comparison tells you all you need to know and I didn't need

to go any further. Very eye opening. That's why I will vote for Bernie.

[MissDeeds]

21. I will vote for Bernie too

I just hope he decides to run.

[Autumn]

25. When you consider this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026507043

Running or not, he has my vote. He's the one hammering it home, he's the one who has been speaking truth while Hillary has been silent, playing coy and safe knowing all the while she was going to run for President

[MissDeeds]

28. Same here

I'll write his name in if I have to. Never again will I hold my nose and vote for someone whose only virtue is "the lesser of two evils". Bernie has earned my respect and my vote.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. I do see a trend

[KittyWampus]

11. these are individuals lumped by where they work?

[emulatorloo]

73. Yes

You gotta list your employer when you make a donation. Then individual donations are reported on opensecrets under the name of your employer.

Which is why this OP doesn't prove what the poster thinks it proves

[treestar]

90. So it's just the people who work for the unions?

[Depaysement]

77. Not exactly

Some of it could be company PAC money too. All of the Wall Street companies on Hillary's list have PACs that gave to her.

[bunnies]

13. Whats good for Goldman is good for me!

amirite?!

[whatchamacallit]

14. It should be clear by now that such considerations

are, unfortunately, of no interest to this site. Thanks for keeping it real.

[LittleBlue]

15. Hillary's donors are a who's who of corporations responsible for the financial collapse

Gross

[kelly1mm]

18. Well THAT tell me a WHOLE lot. 1 (maybe 2 if you count U. CA) out of the top 20

funders for HRC are liberal leaning. As to U. CA, why are they one of the top contributors to a NY Senate race at all?

I will bookmark and remember this list anytime anyone chimes in with how liberal/progressive HRC is.

[truebrit71]

19. Says it all really...

....

[arcane1]

34. I just noticed your avatar

[truebrit71]

68. Thanks!

[MisterP]

23. see? the numbers don't lie: Hillary is on the side of workers, and the so-called lefty Sanders

gets all his money from Wall Street!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. I remember this every time --

I remember this every time Hillary tries to repaint herself as an economic populist.

[sadoldgirl]

29. This should be a headline article

in the MSM, and include all the donors for Bush as well.

Sigh, sometimes I just need to dream a bit.

[WillyT]

30. K & R !!!

[NYC_SKP]

32. Recommended and bookmarked. nt

[William769]

35. I'm not on the list!

[bvar22]

36. No doubt about who Hillary works for.

Also no doubt about who Bernie represents.

No brainier for me, and should be a No Brainer for every American who Works for a Living.

[theaocp]

38. Don't forget to

compare the donors of the actual election when it comes. Should be enlightening.

[PowerToThePeople]

40. k&r!!

Go Union!

Proud to say I am an IAM member.

[proverbialwisdom]

41. MUST SEE: 4/8/15 Comedy Central panel @ 12:12

http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/94k1z4/the-nightly-show-april-8--2015---walter-scott-shooting---rand-paul-2016-season-1-ep-01038

MORE: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-make-public-higher-ed-tuition-free-reform_loans-protect-pell-grants

[flying-skeleton]

42. Crap Comparison

In today's climate, it would be impossible to get elected without massive amounts of monies, no thanks to the republican supreme court stooges. A more viable comparison would be to compare Hillary against a republican contender.

[mmonk]

43. Why?

[BrotherIvan]

117. Excellent question

[dreamnightwind]

86. Yes and no

The figures are for their Senate campaigns, not POTUS. Granted, a Vermont Senate race takes a lot less money than a New York Senate race. So you have a point, to a point.

But it's a very real difference between the two that transcends the size of their states, and anyone who knows anything about the two of them knows the truth of that. You can argue that she is more electable than Berniie, but IMHO it would be ridiculous to argue that Bernie and Hillary would have similar funding demographics for a POTUS campaign, they are two very different politicians who are far apart ideologically. The donor list looks to me like an excellent reflection of who their respective base is.

[rhett o rick]

122. You miss the point, being that big money banksters love HRC and common people support

Sen Sanders. Saying that it takes money to win an election doesn't have anything to do with who represents who. HRC represents the big money banksters.

Interesting that you ask for a comparison between HRC and Jeb for example. What I believe you'd find is that they are BOTH sponsored by the big money banksters. That's the point. If you don't want a president that is owned by Wall Street, then pick someone other than Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

[Maedhros]

127. The facts do not lie.

Equivocate all you want, but your candidate is bought and paid for.

[boston bean]

44. For sure one thing this shows is Bernie can't raise enough money

to run for president.

I'm sorry, but that is the reality of politics today. He would be run out of town on a rail, with no way to fight back against the republicans.

[salib]

47. If Bernie were to win the primary, which is certainly possible without billions

What would prevent him from raising enough after that?

[boston bean]

49. He would lose all his principled supporters of course.

[salib]

58. Why?

[boston bean]

72. Because he would then be "beholden" to the 1%.

[salib]

100. So, you are saying that he cannot raise money without being beholden to the 1%?

Seems rather defeatist.

[boston bean]

141. You're argument would be with other Bernie supporters

who feel that is the case.

[brooklynite]

52. How is it possible to win the Primary without several hundred million dollars?

I'm being serious here: I keep hearing that all he has to do is "get his message out". Once he leaves Iowa and NH (which are small enough for retail politics), the additional Primaries come quickly, in multiple numbers, and the States are much bigger. You need funds for TV, staff and volunteer expenses, etc. You can't campaign in California on a shoestring.

[salib]

61. Primaries are not THAT expensive. Please, you do the research this time.

Also, tables turn quickly in the primaries with early victories, in this case in locations and size that certainly play well to Bernie's style.

We all have seen momentum become the deciding factor.

And, yes, with momentum one can win California without "hundreds of millions", or at least make it close enough that California is a wash.

Now, back to the original question, if he wins the primary why won't he be able to raise the funds required (as the Democratic nominee)?

[Maedhros]

129. Your defeatist, self-fulfilling prophecies are uninspiring.

Either give up and go along to get along, or fight.

I know which way you've chosen. I want to fight.

[world wide wally]

48. And Republicans go unlisted?

[99Forever]

95. I never vote for Republicans. Ever.

Why would they need to be listed? We know they are sellouts.

[Maedhros]

131. Here's Mitch McConnell's Career Profile:

Mitch McConnell (R) (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00003389&type=I)

Contributor - Total:
Blackstone Group $242,700
Kindred Healthcare $221,950
Humana Inc $214,152
Peabody Energy $173,500
Elliott Management $171,700
JPMorgan Chase & Co $166,050
Citigroup Inc $161,650
Goldman Sachs $156,425
Brown-Forman Corp $150,350
General Electric $146,125
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $141,550
UST Inc $129,100
UBS AG $127,900
United Parcel Service $122,021
FMR Corp $121,350
Altria Group $120,000
Ashland Inc $118,558
Alliance Resource Partners $115,150
AT&T Inc $112,000
FedEx Corp $106,600

Over roughly the same time frame (1989 - 2014), it looks like Mitch has actually taken less money than Hillary. Some of the contributors are the same (Citigroup, Goldman Sachs), but Hillary seems to receive more money from media corporations (Time Warner, Cablevision Systems, 21st Century Fox) and Mitch gets more from health insurance and energy companies.

So - what is your point? From what I see, Hillary is much, much more beholden to Wall Street than is Mitch.

[world wide wally]

134. Then go vote Republican

But first, you might want to consider that Hillary is running in 50 states and McConnell only runs in Kentucky. Do you think that may be a factor in the amount of contributions?

[Maedhros]

136. These are career numbers from 1989-2014,

not 2016 presidential numbers.

And no, I won't vote Republican.

Unfortunately, the facts speak for themselves: Hillary is a creature of Wall Street. No amount of equivocating or obfuscating can change that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. If Bernie is going ot run in a 5 to 6 billion dollar election, he better find more donors.

[sulphurdunn]

53. Hillary's sugar daddies

are pretty much the same ones who bankrolled Mitt Romney.

[Sissyk]

110. Posted without comment.

On Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hillary's sugar daddies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6507721

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This post is just plain rude. "Hillary's sugar daddies"??.. and then add in Mitt Romney to make it seem like the post isn't sexist, to cover his tracks. Remain forever hopeful that DU recognize this poor attempt to get away with it.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 15, 2015, 10:19 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How do you, alerter, know that this poster added Mitt Romney to make it seem like the post isn't sexist? Can you read their mind? Maybe he feels they both have the SAME "sugar daddies", which is a well-known, used phrase. I DISAGREE with the member but don't think they deserve a hide over this. We would have better luck getting rid of the majority of the sexist, racist, etcs, if we started alerting on things that truly need to be alerted on.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yeah... just a little bit over the line with the sexism. No place for that on DU.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't like or agree with post. I can't vote to hide all rude post.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What the actual fuck? "Sugar daddies? Sweet Jesus that's stupid

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Babel_17]

54. Huh, my peeps are number 7

Lol, and no, I don't mean Time Warner.

[Thinkingabout]

55. Where is Bernie's lobbyists meetings listed.

[zentrum]

56. He's fabulous

…and she's a Larry Summers kind of pol.

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. Oh yeah and Bernie is SOOOOOO going to beat Jeb with those figures!

I so believe THAT!!!

[Comrade Grumpy]

63. Because it's all about who can raise the most money on Wall Street.

That's who I want to represent us.

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. and how are you going to get elected without it in the CURRENT environment?

See thats because you are an idealist not a realist.....

Jeb Bush will have a HUGE war chest of it....because he is STILL so far behind Hillary Clinton's astronomical polling numbers....and SHE is the reason he is able to raise so much money....its the opposition to HER (Sheldon Adelson I am looking at you)....Until we manage to get at least 2 branches of Govt again there is really nothing that we can do about the money in politics....that's the reality such that it is...

[JEB]

105. Why bother to have an actual election?

Whoever raises the most money can just buy the position. Damn near there now.

[VanillaRhapsody]

108. BECAUSE WE can effect that outcome...

but raising money is the lay of the land right now....you don't have to like it...it just is...You want that to change...then get a Democratic President a willing Congress and/or Senate. Its just that simple.

[JEB]

111. Catch-22.

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. No it isn't...

There are far more of us then there are Republicans....its Arithmetic.

[JEB]

114. That is why Bernie can win without the dirty money.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. No that is why Bernie cannot win without becoming a Democrat....

its still arithmetic...

Unless you want it to be an even bigger longshot!

[JEB]

116. The arithmetic tells me that Hillary will not be looking

after my interests.

[truebrit71]

69. Which one of those two has been the presumptive nominee since 2004?

And which one represents the common folk?

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. well like I said...that's Idealism.....

wishing doesn't make is to...

[cyberswede]

80. It's really sad that it's all about the money. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. Yes sad....but there is no way around it at this moment in time....if WE want to change it

we have to do more...much more than electing a Presient....that is only one leg on a three legged stool.

[Rex]

65. So that is $10 million for HRC...gee where does the extra $1,990 million come from!?

IF she is going to spend 2 billion dollars...where does the rest come from? That is only .1% so I don't think that is all the money!

Curious where all the money is going to come from.

[840high]

66. k/r if Sanders runs

he'll get my money.

[mother earth]

71. Run, Bernie, RUN!!!

[BainsBane]

138. If he gets the nomination, those same donors will back him

but then none of you will give a shit.

[mother earth]

140. If he gets elected, there will be actual change, not pre-election lip service. He's the real deal.

And THAT is precisely why he will provide a real challenge to the inevitable oligarchy candidates.

[woo me with science]

74. To the Greatest Page.

Says it all.

[L0oniX]

113. How dare Democrats sell their souls to the very ones that almost destroyed the USA in 2008.

I just don't get it. These rich 1%'s forced us to bail them out and now the Democrats push for a 1%'r for POTUS. It's fucking crazy. I'll be disappearing from this place and come back later to see the wounded under the bus after the ownership of this country becomes more clear.

[emulatorloo]

75. One column is individual donors. The other column (PAC) is what the company donated.

So you are kinda comparing apples to oranges.

If I make a personal donation, I have to list my employer. Then it is reported on open secrets under my employers name, even though it is my money.

The big numbers in your list are from individual people. It does not surprise me that Democrats work at some of these companies.

[kjones]

91. Shhhh

Stop making sense!

[mmonk]

92. Bundling.

[valerief]

76. Very telling. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

87. And to think the Republicans decided to wipe out unions to cut off the Dems money.

[LynneSin]

93. And I will support with honor and workhard for the one that wins the primary

This country is running great now and I will not enable a republican into the White House.

[delrem]

94. That's a very hard truth.

Some don't like to hear it being told.

[antigop]

96. says it all, doesn't it? nt

[warrprayer]

98. inevitable Hillary is inevitable

[davidpdx]

99. Oh for crying out loud...stop picking on poor Hillary Clinton

[ibewlu606]

101. Kicked!

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is NOT the answer. This graphic shows who would really be a "champion" for everyday Americans.

[Jester Messiah]

102. Yep, she's a true champion of the middle class.

And you know how you get to be champion... by beating the bejeezus out of everyone else.

[blackspade]

103. That is a stark difference....

[L0oniX]

106. Democrats selling souls for money to win. Got it.

[JEB]

107. Maybe we should just get Sothbey's to hold the auction.

Um, I mean election.

[paulbibeau]

118. I want everyone to read this.

The top contributor to HRC is Citigroup. Back in 2012, they gave Romney more than twice as much money as Obama.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000071&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2012

Shouldn't that bother people?

[Fearless]

119. Well that's just awkward!

[lark]

123. No doubt, this is telling.

Bernie's top supporters are all union, Hillary's are banks and Wall St. and their ilk. Glad to see there weren't a lot of MIC on her list. What I wonder is will the PTB ever allow anyone like Bernie to be president? Obama had Wall St. backing and wasn't keen on unions and still isn't, so they let him in. He is more of a faux leftist, centrist, but what would happen to a true leftie? I know the msm would dog Bernie day and night, just like they did with Carter. Only it'd be 10x worse today than what Carter experienced decades ago because of the rancid and rapid consolidation of the media.

[DirkGently]

125. KNR.

[totodeinhere]

133. And I suspect that a comparison with Senator Warren's donors would show the same thing.

We desperately need either Elizabeth or Bernie to run. This must not be a Clinton coronation as much as some people around here seem to want it to be. When then Senator Obama ran he was strengthened by a hard fought primary campaign. We need the same thing this time arund.

[Savannahmann]

135. Man you're messing up the popular fiction narrative

The fiction is that Hillary is for the people man, not for the rich and shameless. I'm going to suggest you delete this thread so we can go back to talking about how if Hillary loses, the Republicans will get a Supreme Court Justice on the bench who makes Robert Bork look liberal.

Granted, nobody believes the popular fiction narrative, but still. Facts like this are a horrible thing to do to the true believers.

[BainsBane]

137. That Sanders list certainly isn't from a major presidential campaign

All major candidates get big money behind them due to the nature of the campaign finance system. That combined with the fact Clinton is from NY so has NY business backing her, just like Franken will have money from Cargill, 3M and Medtronic, major MN companies. You want a presidential candidate to run with Sander's war chest? That means GOP victory. If you want to do something about the role of money in politics, focus on that rather than pretending it is all about Hillary Clinton. Defeating Clinton will do exactly nothing to decrease the role of big money. This is a problem far more serious than financing presidential elections. It influences elections at all levels, how representatives vote, and even the writing of elections. The best way to avoid dealing with the issue is to pretend it all hinges on defeating Clinton. She was defeated in 2008. What happened to the role of money since? It only increased, which is precisely what will continue to happen as long as you continue to make it all about stopping one person from being elected.

identifying the symptom rather than the disease is pointless and in fact it reinforces the problem. What we need is a constitutional amendment requiring public financing. Are you willing to work for that? Or is all you care about is stopping a lone woman from becoming president?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

139. Of course, there is absolutely, firmly, surely, no quid-pro-quo expected.

Those banksters and corporate bosses are giving it to her due to their love of democracy.