2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGuess who funds the Congressional Hispanic Caucus PAC - you'll be "surprised"
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00365536Goldman Sachs
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
National Community Pharmacists Assn
America's Health Insurance Plans
Boeing
Humana Inc
Merck & Co
etc
etc
etc
Just how many of those are rep'd by the lobbying firm Clinton's Campaign Chairman owns?
Weapons manufacturers, the insurance companies and big pharma lovvvve Clinton... just part of a trend.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)looking out for your friends... that pay you.
dragonfly301
(399 posts)a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)They and their family members are becoming rich.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Expose them all.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Communications Workers of America $5,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union $5,000
National Education Assn $5,000
National Restaurant Assn $5,000
Service Employees International Union $5,000
American Health Care Assn $5,000
Sheet Metal Workers Union $5,000
Credit Union National Assn $5,000
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $30,000
House Majority PAC $10,000
Democratic Party of Arizona $-2,500
Latino Victory PAC. $5000
National Assn of Letter Carriers. $5000
Carpenters Union/Southwest Region $2500
American Federation of Govt Employees $2000
National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $1500
Predictable attempt to smear anyone who doesn't support Sanders is predictable.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)They run around with this silly notion that money influences politics. BatShit, if you'll excuse my language.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Philip Elliott May 19, 2015
Democratic presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosts a small business forum with members of the business and lending communities at the Bike Tech bicycle shop on May 19, 2015 in Cedar Falls, IA.
Groups with giant lobbying budgets gave Clinton big speaking fees ahead of 2016 presidential campaign
Almost half of the money from Hillary Clintons speaking engagements came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time.
The Democratic presidential candidate earned $10.2 million in 2014, her first full calendar year after leaving the State Department. Of that, $4.6 million came from groups that also spent on lobbying Congress that year, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
In all, the corporations and trade groups that Clinton spoke to in 2014 spent $72.5 million lobbying Congress that same year.
Asked Tuesday if there were conflicts of interest in speaking to these groups, Clinton was curt with reporters in Cedar Falls, Iowa. No, she said....
They include an informative 2014 chart that shows the amount each donor spent lobbying Congress.
PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)Etc.
Seem to be a hell of a lot of health care companies...
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Big Pharma and Wall Street are just contributing to to a political organization of legislators because they REALLY CARE about social and economic justice. Not interested in influencing policy at all. Ummmmm hummmmm
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)jham123
(278 posts)~$100k
chump change
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Which ones do you think get the most attention?
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)My family is hit hard by the pharma/insurance industry, and though we had more than was needed to put down our home - we still can't refi or sell without taking a hit. Democrats were supposed to be the party for the people. Clearly they're becoming people 1%'s looking to continue stepping on the middle class to make a buck.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Makes people see the light, so to speak.
LexVegas
(6,005 posts)stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
ABSTRACT
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:
"...Americas claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
And for the Tl;DR set:
APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
stonecutter357
(12,682 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Now, what about your partner, Lex?
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)And that's terrible.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)The Elites take care of each other...screw the 99%.
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)More status quo endorsements. The ones for Bernie are more impressing... they have to go against the establishment tide..
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)who are either extremely wealthy, and/or are beholden to to giant multinational corporations and banks.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)mariawr
(348 posts)TSIAS
(14,689 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)What do you have against helping elect Hispanics to congress?
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)you have no idea how the campaign finance system works... do you think those companies just like Hispanic politicians?
The LOL is on you.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Because it takes money to win elections. That's reality. Always has been. Nothing new here.
Sanders isn't doing it. He's proof that your entire theory is completely wrong about this.
And when these same politicians start voting on legislation that affects their benefactors just what do you think happens?
Because there's AMPLE data that shows exactly what happens.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)jham123
(278 posts)...what they do with it
Top Vendors/Recipients
Rank Vendor/Recipient Total Expenditures
1 Hyatt Regency Chesapeake Bay $41,109
2 Fontainebleau Miami Beach $36,424
3 Strathdee, Amy $20,173
4 American Airlines $11,580
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)PAC donations are limited to $5k per year.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)No limits on spending!!!!
jham123
(278 posts)I'm not sure that ~$70k in luxury resorts is what the Donors meant their hard earned donations to be spent on...
jham123
(278 posts)Had you taken a moment to actually learn what it is you are attempting to talk about, you would have seen from my post and from the PAC website posted in the OP that I merely made a simple observation as to what they spent the money on.
Now, the following is a commentary not an observation
Taking all those hard earned dollars and spending them on luxury resort hotels, I'm not sure that's what the Donor wanted done with their money. I am sure they would rather the money go to something more substantial that a weekend drunken junket on Miami beach.
lsewpershad
(2,620 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)Caucus PAC" you immediately think that this is a group of leaders from the Hispanic community. This is absolutely NOT TRUE.
More dirty politics. And sickening.
olddots
(10,237 posts)creating a political monopoly .
George II
(67,782 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)You're for SMALL bribes. Good to know.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The DU Sanders crowd is consistent, I'll give them that: if you don't support all of Sanders's positions -- even the truly insane ones -- you are Third Way, sold out scum.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)You are illustrating why people don't trust Clinton or people that support her.
This has LITERALLY nothing to do with Sanders positions on anything except corruption and money in politics.
But sure thats what you have a problem with.
And why are you high fiving that a group that is funneling corporate money into politics has decided their interests are aligned to your candidate?
Because they have the word Hispanic in their title?
Really?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... and suddenly they are corrupt.
When you repeat that stuff over and again in an echo chamber like DU, you don't get called on the silliness often enough.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Corporations give to PAC. OK. Thats ok. I guess.
PAC take corporate money and fund politicians who vote on bills that affect the same corporations.
Ahhhhhh... You forgot that bit.
That's corruption. And that's exactly what every Clinton voter forgets about.
The majority of Americans don't. Or even the majority of Democrats.
But Hillary supporters.... No problem at all with corruption.
Which explains why you keep thinking you can scare Bernie voters with the Supreme Court and Donald Trump.
Very you can't.
We aren't buying it.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Our system is broken. Even your precious Hillary says money corrupts the process. Where's her proof? Or is she just lying?
Let's read her lie:
We have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans, Clinton said in a statement. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.
How dishonest, because - like you said - she can't make those charges without showing you explict evidence. How can you support someone lying like that??
Or. Just maybe.
The rich and the powerful escape punishment all the time in America. And you don't even have to be that rich to rig the system.
Hillary ROUTINELY took hundreds of grand from companies and countries, her foundation to 10s of millions, and then she signed off on deals for those countries as Secretary of State. She is ABOVE being prosecuted. There's never going to be a magic moment when she or almost anyone that's worth 100m is going to get caught, because she is the elite. EVERYONE but Hillary supporters - including Hillary - knows this.
OJ never killed anyone did he? Al Capone wasn't a gangster either was he?
There's THOUSANDS of examples - known examples - of how corrupt our system is and how money buys influence.
Here's an easy example:
Hillary was asked to decide on a deal worth 29 BILLION between Boeing and Saudi Arabia. The State Department said that Saudi Arabia was committing endless abuses against it's population and oppressing women.
Boeing gave the Clinton "Foundation" 10M
The Saudis gave it 25M
Boeing paid Bill 250K for one speech.
Oh and Hillary approved the deal. She even called it a "top priority". Giving one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet billions of weapons. Top priority. Not helping the oppressed women. No. Selling weapons. Oh and - those weapons are currently being used to commit war crimes in Yemen. Awesome result.
And guess who owns the lobbying form for both Boeing and Saudi Arabia?? Why it's Hillary's Campaign Chairman.
And look, if you were half way honest with yourself you KNOW if any republican did this you'd assume they were corrupt, heck you might even sign a petition or two demanding an investigation...
But with your precocious Hillary, you see all of that, and say "PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!"
It's wilful self delusion.
Here, let me quote a Boeing shareholder:
Boeing shareholder David Almasi recently confronted CEO James McNerney about the ethics of it.
That opens the door to charges of honest services fraud, that there was a quid pro quo between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department and Boeing, Almasi said.
But no no... nothing to see... no way that the secretary of state,and senator, the wife of an ex-President, worth over 100M, with ties to the highest levels of government and finance... there's no way that someone like that could get away with being corrupt... is there?
All this money was just for a laugh.
Every day that passes more and more people - including vast numbers of Democrats - come to distrust her. They're not wrong.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)If ever I saw a reason not to vote for Hilary, this post revealed it.
Nanjeanne
(4,878 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)The number of Hillary people on here that think this is just the only way to be a politician. Shill for corporate dough.
Nanjeanne
(4,878 posts)CentralMass
(15,265 posts)combat this.
840high
(17,196 posts)nolabels
(13,133 posts)Never let it be said, that us, the un-washed, un-fashioned and overworked were never are too un-sophisticated to understand which end of buttered bread goes up.
I also listened to dialectics that reasoned any person(s) that relied on any vote was a sure sign that they had already lost the debate.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Bernie isn't.
So. Obviously thats not true.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, EdwardBernays.
onenote
(42,374 posts)Wouldn't want that would we?
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Corporations pay the PAC. The PAC funds the politicians. The politicians vote on bills that effect the corporations.
Nothing to see here folks... well if you're a Clintonite... everyone else just throws up a little in their mouth.
onenote
(42,374 posts)but thanks for your assumption.
I just think its pretty foolish to criticize the Congressional Hispanic Caucus PAC, which donates money exclusively to Democratic candidates, for taking corporate money (they also get money from individuals as well).
Y'know, Keith Ellison has a leadership PAC and while most of its contributions come from unions, but it also gets contributions from some corporate PACs (General Mills, for instance). I don't think he should refuse their money since he turns around and gives it to Democratic candidates.
And while I think its regrettable that the CHC PAC endorsed Clinton, I'm not throwing them under the bus for doing so.
Why? Because when Bernie gets the nomination I'm going to hope that they throw some of that CHC PAC money Bernie's direction.
Maybe I'm not pure enough for some of my fellow Sanders' supporters, but I'm interested in winning elections and realistic enough to know that means getting and spending money. And if there are Democrats getting money that they want to pass along to other Democrats, whether its the CHC or Keith Ellison or whomever, I say more power to them.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)you're a Sanders supporter??
The thing is this:
All corruption involves giving money or something of value to candidates.
Dismissing giving money to candidates is dismissing pretty much all corruption.
The assumption that just because a "Democrat" is giving money to another "Democrat" there's no corruption is... hard to understand.
I want to win, but Bernie (and watch out Hillary - Trump) are both running endless national campaigns without the help of PACs.
Trump is "self-funding" but Bernie is not, as you know.
And if we EVER want to get rid of corruption we can't except it when it's attached to someone with a (D) next to their name... if that's what gets you power, then you don't really have power - you have debt.
That's why corruption is so dangerous to a us, it literally robs us of our voice.
onenote
(42,374 posts)Without regard to the voting record of the folks that money gets passed to and even if the PAC gets its funds from unions and individuals as well as from corporate entities?
Too orthodox for me, I'm afraid.
Hell, over the years, Bernie's leadership PAC has accepted money from the sugar industry. Does that mean he's part of the corruption?
I don't think so. I think labeling anyone who gets money from a PAC that gets money from corporate as well as union and individual contributors (such as the CHC or Keith Ellison's PAC or Bernie's PAC for that matter, at least a few years ago) as corrupt is assuming a lot and cutting off their nose to spite their face at the same time.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Every donation isn't corrupt, but... every one is not innocent.
You can try and parse that out in a way makes you feel better about the whole thing; I haven't been able to personally.
Bernie does have a history of pork, and while I can't address the sugar thing directly I will look into it.
Everyone - even Bernie makes compromises, but the scope of what were talking about makes anything I've seen Bernie do seem basically negligible. I wouldn't be surprised though, to find something bad about him... but not much.
Politicians that just endlessly take money from corporations are not trustworthy in my book. The government - including Dems - care a LOT more about corporations than people and that's not coming from nowhere.
I also don't believe that anyone with an (R) next to their name is corrupt and anyone with a (D) is innocent.
And I don't believe that unions don't try and influence politicians for their own ends with donations.
The American system is incredibly corrupt and broken.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)It is wonderfully diverse, just bifurcated by corporate money& standing
Merryland
(1,134 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Both parties took his money and both did what he wanted when he came calling.
That the same thing all the corporations expect and get: fealty.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)or maybe I'm taking it too seriously - but I don't think so
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)That the youth are see this all clearly and are determined to fix it when they get the shot.
There's not enough people over 40 that are willing to give a shit.