Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 10:54 AM Feb 2016

Guess who funds the Congressional Hispanic Caucus PAC - you'll be "surprised"

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00365536

Goldman 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.
79 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Guess who funds the Congressional Hispanic Caucus PAC - you'll be "surprised" (Original Post) EdwardBernays Feb 2016 OP
It's all so disgustingly incestuous. Punkingal Feb 2016 #1
that's what corruption is EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #2
Oligarchy - dragonfly301 Feb 2016 #3
That is the NORMAL way of doing business in Washington DC and they don't want it to change. Skwmom Feb 2016 #4
Corrupt politicians come in all colors. azmom Feb 2016 #5
I noticed you left out a few: sufrommich Feb 2016 #6
What is WRONG with these Sanders people, anyways. Wilms Feb 2016 #8
We can use Hillary's 2014 speaking fees as a benchmark kristopher Feb 2016 #34
UBS, jp morgan, hsbc PaulaFarrell Feb 2016 #10
+1 Lucinda Feb 2016 #14
+1000 stonecutter357 Feb 2016 #15
Please clap. BeanMusical Feb 2016 #32
LOL NurseJackie Feb 2016 #21
Yeah Hillyarious..... Armstead Feb 2016 #24
" this posts has been hidden by a DU Jury" DanTex. stonecutter357 Feb 2016 #35
All that doesn't add up to.... jham123 Feb 2016 #25
You're right, the OP only included the BIG donors, not the tiny ones. arcane1 Feb 2016 #38
I wish they cared more about the people they claim to represent. Kittycat Feb 2016 #7
color me "surprised" tk2kewl Feb 2016 #9
It's the life's blood of politics. Octafish Feb 2016 #11
Big Banks! Wall Street! nt LexVegas Feb 2016 #12
emails and things. stonecutter357 Feb 2016 #16
Lather. Rinse. Repeat. (heavy emphasis on lather) Buzz Clik Feb 2016 #44
Let's be clear. You as a Hillary supporter, APPROVE of corporate money in politics, right? kristopher Feb 2016 #37
" this posts has been hidden by a DU Jury" DanTex. stonecutter357 Feb 2016 #45
I'll take that as a clear "Yes!" kristopher Feb 2016 #46
He stole 40 cakes JackInGreen Feb 2016 #53
Not even surprised. SoapBox Feb 2016 #13
I'm sure they've more banked endorsements to trickle out. tokenlib Feb 2016 #17
Wall Street endorses Clinton !!!! left-of-center2012 Feb 2016 #18
Seems like most of her high profile endorsements come from individuals, or groups, Zorra Feb 2016 #19
OMG UglyGreed Feb 2016 #20
Kick. nt mariawr Feb 2016 #22
No surprise here...eom TSIAS Feb 2016 #23
LOL - you know the limit is $5K per year, right? MaggieD Feb 2016 #26
It's obvious EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #29
It's obvious they go to corps for donations MaggieD Feb 2016 #36
No EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #41
That's the realitty we are working to change - eom dreamnightwind Feb 2016 #71
And here is... jham123 Feb 2016 #27
Why try to mislead? MaggieD Feb 2016 #39
Those are not donations those are expenditures. Bluenorthwest Feb 2016 #47
No limits on "where" they spend it either jham123 Feb 2016 #74
no one mislead anyone jham123 Feb 2016 #75
No.. am not lsewpershad Feb 2016 #28
Ugh. AzDar Feb 2016 #30
Business as usual in DC nadinbrzezinski Feb 2016 #31
My God, when you read their name "Congressional Hispanic jwirr Feb 2016 #33
Vulture Capitalism olddots Feb 2016 #40
Why don't you post the amounts, too? George II Feb 2016 #42
Ahhh EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #48
And another group goes under the bus. Buzz Clik Feb 2016 #43
Again EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #49
"Corruption." So, the PAC accepts money from a group you don't like, ... Buzz Clik Feb 2016 #50
You've left out the step you folks always forget. EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #61
Prove it. Prove the corruption. That's the step you always forget. Buzz Clik Feb 2016 #62
This is the thing EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #63
We need a people's court to convene to throw the lot of them in jail! Generic Other Feb 2016 #72
But, but, but . . . we can't get money out of POLITICS. It's too hard! Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #51
It's amazing EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #58
It's not amazing to me except for the fact that they consider themselves Democrats! Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #59
It is really evident that our collective voting power is the only effective tool that we have to CentralMass Feb 2016 #52
Let's never forget that. 840high Feb 2016 #55
Voting is just a more organized way of Storming the Bastille nolabels Feb 2016 #73
K&R kgnu_fan Feb 2016 #54
You have to get funding from where the money is. Period!! nt Jitter65 Feb 2016 #56
And yet EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #57
Who will be surprised? Uncle Joe Feb 2016 #60
So I guess its terrible that these companies are helping get Hispanic Democrats elected. onenote Feb 2016 #64
Trying to play the race card? Aren't you a good Clintonite. EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #65
actually a Sanders supporter. onenote Feb 2016 #66
jeez man EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #67
So anyone who accepts money from a PAC that accepts corporate money is corrupt? onenote Feb 2016 #68
PACs EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #69
Welcome to the new aristocracy Fairgo Feb 2016 #70
it's like the entire military industrial complex is represented. n/t Merryland Feb 2016 #76
And like Trump said EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #78
thanks - these primaries are so eye-opening for those who want to see. Merryland Feb 2016 #77
Fingers crossed EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #79

dragonfly301

(399 posts)
3. Oligarchy -
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 10:58 AM
Feb 2016

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)
4. That is the NORMAL way of doing business in Washington DC and they don't want it to change.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 10:59 AM
Feb 2016

They and their family members are becoming rich.

sufrommich

(22,871 posts)
6. I noticed you left out a few:
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:03 AM
Feb 2016

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)
8. What is WRONG with these Sanders people, anyways.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:10 AM
Feb 2016

They run around with this silly notion that money influences politics. BatShit, if you'll excuse my language.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
34. We can use Hillary's 2014 speaking fees as a benchmark
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:32 PM
Feb 2016
Half of Hillary Clinton’s Speaking Fees Came From Groups Also Lobbying Congress
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 Clinton’s 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....
http://time.com/3889577/hillary-clinton-paid-speeches-lobbyists-influence/

They include an informative 2014 chart that shows the amount each donor spent lobbying Congress.
 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
24. Yeah Hillyarious.....
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:05 PM
Feb 2016

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

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
38. You're right, the OP only included the BIG donors, not the tiny ones.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:37 PM
Feb 2016

Which ones do you think get the most attention?

Kittycat

(10,493 posts)
7. I wish they cared more about the people they claim to represent.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:06 AM
Feb 2016

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.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
37. Let's be clear. You as a Hillary supporter, APPROVE of corporate money in politics, right?
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:37 PM
Feb 2016

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

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."



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




tokenlib

(4,186 posts)
17. I'm sure they've more banked endorsements to trickle out.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 12:31 PM
Feb 2016

More status quo endorsements. The ones for Bernie are more impressing... they have to go against the establishment tide..

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
19. Seems like most of her high profile endorsements come from individuals, or groups,
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 12:45 PM
Feb 2016

who are either extremely wealthy, and/or are beholden to to giant multinational corporations and banks.

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
26. LOL - you know the limit is $5K per year, right?
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:07 PM
Feb 2016

What do you have against helping elect Hispanics to congress?

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
29. It's obvious
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:19 PM
Feb 2016

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)
36. It's obvious they go to corps for donations
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:37 PM
Feb 2016

Because it takes money to win elections. That's reality. Always has been. Nothing new here.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
41. No
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:45 PM
Feb 2016

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.

jham123

(278 posts)
27. And here is...
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:10 PM
Feb 2016

...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

jham123

(278 posts)
74. No limits on "where" they spend it either
Sat Feb 27, 2016, 05:37 PM
Feb 2016

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)
75. no one mislead anyone
Sat Feb 27, 2016, 05:40 PM
Feb 2016

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.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
33. My God, when you read their name "Congressional Hispanic
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:26 PM
Feb 2016

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.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
43. And another group goes under the bus.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 01:53 PM
Feb 2016

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)
49. Again
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:00 PM
Feb 2016

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)
50. "Corruption." So, the PAC accepts money from a group you don't like, ...
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:05 PM
Feb 2016

... 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)
61. You've left out the step you folks always forget.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:38 PM
Feb 2016

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.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
63. This is the thing
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:03 PM
Feb 2016

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)
72. We need a people's court to convene to throw the lot of them in jail!
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 08:43 PM
Feb 2016

If ever I saw a reason not to vote for Hilary, this post revealed it.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
58. It's amazing
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:33 PM
Feb 2016

The number of Hillary people on here that think this is just the only way to be a politician. Shill for corporate dough.

CentralMass

(15,265 posts)
52. It is really evident that our collective voting power is the only effective tool that we have to
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 03:16 PM
Feb 2016

combat this.

nolabels

(13,133 posts)
73. Voting is just a more organized way of Storming the Bastille
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 09:05 PM
Feb 2016

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.

onenote

(42,374 posts)
64. So I guess its terrible that these companies are helping get Hispanic Democrats elected.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:06 PM
Feb 2016

Wouldn't want that would we?

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
65. Trying to play the race card? Aren't you a good Clintonite.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:08 PM
Feb 2016

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)
66. actually a Sanders supporter.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:25 PM
Feb 2016

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)
67. jeez man
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:31 PM
Feb 2016

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)
68. So anyone who accepts money from a PAC that accepts corporate money is corrupt?
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:36 PM
Feb 2016

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)
69. PACs
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 04:44 PM
Feb 2016

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.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
78. And like Trump said
Sat Feb 27, 2016, 05:46 PM
Feb 2016

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)
77. thanks - these primaries are so eye-opening for those who want to see.
Sat Feb 27, 2016, 05:45 PM
Feb 2016

or maybe I'm taking it too seriously - but I don't think so

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
79. Fingers crossed
Sat Feb 27, 2016, 05:50 PM
Feb 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Guess who funds the Congr...