Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumDemocracy Now! (April 4): How Much Has Hillary Clinton's Campaign Taken from Fossil Fuel Companies?
Charlie Cray, research specialist fro Greenpeace, discusses the paper from Greenpeace concerning Mrs. Clinton's campaign financing from the fossil fuel industries with Amy Goodman. The research was excoriated by the establishment newspaper the Washington Post, which gave the work three "Pinocchios." My staff and I believe Mr. Cray and Greenpeace should wear the Post's critique as a badge of honor.
This is part of a larger DN segment that also included an interview with Eva Resnick-Day, the Greenpeace activist who confronted Mrs. Clinton about her ties to the fossil fuel industries last week.
[center]
[/center]
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"The research was excoriated by the establishment newspaper the Washington Post, etc." Of course!! We "Establishment" guys need to stick together. Thanks for your post, Jack Rabbit.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)He is a politician with lots of money running nothing about false campaign
adds.
phazed0
(745 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)I just don't trust Sanders:
OnlinePoker
(5,725 posts)And as far as they've seen, he hasn't. All donations, even from individuals since he signed the pledge are being returned.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)I know you're a troll but you do realize that Greenpeace has been around since 1971, correct?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
INdemo
(6,994 posts)that was paid for by GoldmanSachs and other Wall St. mafia members and then I will give you Hillary's list of speeches that gained her $millions..Sound Fair
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)You paid $53,000 for it.... It's a fact.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Sanders, Greenpeace, Hillary, and the whole fucking political establishment.
You were here the first time she tried this shit. Ooops! No You Weren't
Those single sentence assertions are awe inspiring.
Trollin trollin trollin, keep that BS rollin. Go Turdway!
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)yeah what a joke though. I said that in jest like hello Greenpeace doesnt work for Sanders and up and comes some moron with no proof saying he does. Hey there is more proof She works for Big Oil now than there is that Greenpeace works for Sanders face palm
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)by laughing at how ridiculous of an assertion that was. Speaking of face palms:
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)Got a link?
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)I am so impressed you are willing to put your reputation out like that.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)If on is from the Bizzaro World!
Of course people who work in the fossil fuel industry have probably given Bernie money. That is NOT the same as lobbyists and industry bundlers who are donating millions, so get a grip!
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I'm debating the ignore button. Haven't seen anything worth looking at.
might need to hit the mute button
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rtracey
(2,062 posts)the Sanders campaign took in $24 from Nathen Causman, a lobbyist for the LNE Group, whose clients include American Municipal Power Inc.
although this is a extremely small amount, this still qualifies for saying the campaign took in money from fossil fuels....BUT
It’s important to distinguish here between the different ways the candidates (their affiliated Super PACs aside) can accept money from fossil fuel interests, however.
Neither campaign accepts money directly from fossil fuel companies (that wouldn’t be legal).
Neither campaign takes money from fossil fuel-affiliated SuperPACs funded by individuals in the industry.
At the same time, neither campaign rejects contributions from workers in the fossil fuel industry.
And neither campaign rejects money from lobbyists who represent the industry.
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/01/bernie-sanders-took-money-from-the-fossil-fuel-lobby-too-just-not-much/
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the FF industry, you have a lot more tap dancing to do. I am curious. Do you support her positions on fracking and other environmental hazardous practices by the FF industry?
not trying to rationalize anything. My point was someone claimed the original poster of the statement was just a troll. I was pointing out that there was campaign contributions made to the sanders campaign....that is all. I dont care if either take money from oil companies or not, because we all use the oil and gas they supply....
Here is my honest opinion....I have zero opinions on any of these concerns. I know that will send shock and disparage through the DU community, but I am 58 years old, have a 23 year old looking to replace me for less money. I have 7 years until I can retire. Sorry Bernie supporters, but I want Wall Street to keep surviving. My retirement is in wall street. My saving account in a bank gives me .01% return... need to keep money in wall street... my pension, yes pension....lucky to have it is in wall street, and is surviving there too... My kids are grown, my house payments are being made..... I am sorry, but I dont care about any of this... I vote democrat ticket, because I remember what democrats stood for, but now? who knows. The rhetoric from both campaigns is horrible.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the question is not whether the lawyer IS and can be proven to be influenced by a conflict of interest, but rather whether there is the appearance of a conflict of interest that could affect the lawyer's performance in representing the client. I am saying that awkwardly, but here:
It is very difficult to prove the state of mind of a person when voting on a bill in Congress or making an appointment or decision as president. But, we can look at the donations a person has received and determine whether there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
If you were accused of a crime, say you got in a bar fight and were accused of assaulting another customer in the bar (not because you would do that but because that kind of situation happens frequently), you would probably not hire the mother of the person you were accused of assaulting as your lawyer. She might be very objective. She might know that her child hit you first. But you wouldn't hire her. She might have no actual conflict of interest, but she would have the appearance of a conflict of interest. And if the judge was aware of that appearance of conflict of interest, he/she might ask you whether you were aware of it.
Hillary has taken a fairly sizable amount of money from the fossil fuel industry directly and indirectly. That creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. She is a lawyer and knows very well that she should take the pledge not to take any more of that kind of money.
The question is not whether the candidates are in practice influenced by the fossil fuel industry donations. The question is whether there is the appearance that they may be influenced by the donations of people who work in the fossil fuel industry or lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry.
Bernie does not take donations from individuals or interests that are large enough to create the appearance of a conflict of interest.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)good luck to him....
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)money." is that I don't believe she recognizes that it's wrong. The mindset of many of the Wealthy 1% is that all is fair in business and getting money one way or the other is just business to them. The fact that the money and the corresponding favors are literally killing Americans from lack of decent food, housing, health care and death do to fighting wars for profits for the Wealthy, doesn't register with them.
It's not that they want us dead, but they want our resources, they think they have a right to our resources, and if we die as a consequence, it's not personal it's just business.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Before Bernie signed the pledge, he took money (a lot more than $24, a lot less than $1.25M your link suggests Hillary has taken) from some industry lobbyists. Since then, according to Greenpeace, he has not.
Ted Cruz is into fossil fuels for $167. You can bet that will buy a lot of global warming denial and more hot air from his administration. At least Hillary isn't a climate denier, but she has to acknowledge pollution and its sources to get my approval.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)not trying to rationalize anything. My point was someone claimed the original poster of the statement was just a troll. I was pointing out that there was campaign contributions made to the sanders campaign....that is all.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)joined the Republicons to invade Iraq, leading to close to 1,000,000 dead innocent people. Her friends made millions and are very grateful for her support. That's her legacy.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)and that's about the best thing that can be said for your post.
azureblue
(2,150 posts)do you trolls all have the same script writers? Just asking. How about some names?
phazed0
(745 posts)It's like the freaking twilight zone.
Taking money from such interests
Flip-flopping over many issues
Her actions speak more than her words
Just 5-10 years ago she would have been roasted...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That makes it easier for them to overlook, condone, or even approve her conservative positions.
glowing
(12,233 posts)Who the heck advises this lady...
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)!!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)This class war will not end with the election of the president this year. We and esp the young people are going to have to step our game. Civil disobedience is coming. The Clinton Class has disdain for the youth and actually all of the 99%. But they can only push us so far.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)According to Sidney Blumenthal, in his book, "The Clinton Wars", Hillary called in her old friend from Arkansas, Dick Morris, to help navigate the 1996 re-election campaign. He got a job as an adviser in the White House, and in turn, brought in his flunky, Mark Penn.
Maybe she's ready to pull out the big guns.
Duppers
(28,126 posts)I hope they all get to the polls.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)She was even younger, but as firm and passionate in her activism as this young lady. Smart as hell too, this young woman even resembles her a bit.
I wonder whatever happened to Eva, I last heard she was getting involved in video journalism, but that was some time ago.
Wherever you are Eva, you were a beacon of light here back when you spoke out so forcefully and truthfully and at such a young age against the Bush criminals.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts). . . she was reporting being arrested in New York during the OWS demonstrations.
I hope she is doing well.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)arrest, I also hope she is well and hope they didn't rough her up too much or break any bones.
Something tells me she is destined to share her voice on a larger scale than she did here, I would not be surprised to find her with a top rated progressive pod cast someday soon.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Duppers
(28,126 posts)Our Ava does look like Eva!
Our Ava was graduated from NYU and last I heard trying to find money for a project of hers. That was three or fours years ago. (I've not been keeping up with any of my good friends. 
)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I found her website. http://avalowrey.com/
She is now a Documentary Filmmaker! Makes me feel like a proud uncle for some reason.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I'm proud of her, too.
May she document the revolution.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)in this, as well on many other fronts.
What good does it do, in the end, to distort or deny the truth? It will always tend to come out in the end.
It is clear through this program the difference. They have both taken money from small donors in the industry. But Hillary has also taken money through SuperPacs and top executives in the industry, most likely up to the maximum permissible donation, and from "bundlers" and lobbyists as well. How could this difference be more clear?
Please, quit going on the offensive/defensive over things where ultimately it is clear what is going wrong. You appeal only to the basic laziness and lack of information in the voting public, and we get a weaker candidate in reality than the one you are presenting.
Or just wear the badge of taking money proudly.
Bernie has changed the way campaigns are financed, and it is frankly a minor miracle. Why? Because it indicates that we don't have to sellout to interests like the fossil fuel industry to run a campaign.
BTW, notice that Hillary decided not to take this same kind of money from the private prison industry, so it's not like it couldn't be an adjustment that is done.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)And it often covers the real news events that Mass Media does not.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Then I discovered Roku!
Bye bye Fox, MSHRC, and 200 bible thumper channels.
and I can still get HBO and Showtime.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Primarily, I'd love to support so much more, but it's a Bernie Sanders commitment that has my focus.
We're loosing Al Jazeera, and I'm contacting my cable company to support any station that carries DM (live streaming is great, but TV's Al Jazeera will be lost, so I'm going to lobby Verizon for it.
pnwmom
(108,991 posts)deserves them too.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Desperate times call for desperate measures, and lots of lies. What else have they got?
The campaign is hanging on by the skin-of-its-teeth ... and even these tactics appear to be backfiring and hurting only themselves.
In a way it's frustrating, but it's also amusing at the same time.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)From Greenpeace.org
Last updated Sunday, April 3
Hillary Clinton’s Connections to the Oil and Gas Industry
By Jesse Coleman
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.
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.
read more at the link
Fossil Fuel Funding of 2016 Presidential Candidates
How much money have the presidential candidates taken from the fossil fuel industry?
By Jesse Coleman
These data were provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, based on filings made available on January 31, 2016.
These totals do not include funding from the fossil fuel industry to groups that support individual candidates but are outside of the campaign committees.
Because of lax regulation of political donations — due in part to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC — it is impossible to track all of the support provided to candidates from the oil and gas and coal industries. Private foundations like Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Foundation and SuperPACS like Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise PAC have received millions of dollars from fossil fuel sources, but are not included in this list.
For more on what can be done to bring transparency and accountability to the political system and reduce the corrosive influence of money in politics, visit here.
Get more grusome details at the link.
Fossil Fuel Lobbyists’ Contributions to the Clinton Campaign
Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received $138,400 from fossil fuel lobbyists and $1,327,210 from bundlers.
By Charlie Cray
Last updated: April 4, 2016
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.
But who exactly are these lobbyists and bundlers, and who do they represent? Some of them work in-house for some of the biggest names in the fossil fuel industry (think ExxonMobil and Chevron to name a few). Others are hired hands.
Read more at the link
K&R!
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)
HeartoftheMidwest
(309 posts)...the forest.
As SoS, Ms. Clinton travelled the world shoving fracking on nations whose populations DIDN'T want fracking, but whose leaders were talked into it ( bribed or bullied or convinced it was for the best. ) In the years leading to her announced run for president, she was wholly gung-ho on the Keystone XL pipeline. She has either no deep understanding of climate science, or doesn't care about it, and is just fine with the fossil-fuel use status quo. In THAT context, her acceptance of donations from the industry, and its employees and lobbyists, is troubling.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
jalan48
(13,883 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,415 posts)Thanks for the thread, Jack Rabbit.
