HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » FACT: Hillary & her Super...

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:32 AM

FACT: Hillary & her SuperPAC have received $4.5 MILLION from OIL & GAS INDUSTRY to date

Greenpeace

Hillary Clinton’s Connection to the Oil and Gas Industry

Research compiled by Greenpeace USA

Contact: Perry Wheeler, perry.wheeler@greenpeace.org

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been backed by the fossil fuel industry in a number of ways.



Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry.

First there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of 3/21/16; 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 Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,259,280 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number.

Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign.
All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.

Number of oil, gas and coal industry lobbyists that have made direct contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign: 57

57 registered oil, coal and gas lobbyists have personally given $126,200 to the Hillary campaign
Of those 57, 11 are bundlers.
11 lobbyists have bundled $1,140,930 in contributions to the Hillary campaign
43 lobbyists have contributed the maximum allowed ($2700).

This includes:

Lobbyists who have reported lobbying for the oil and gas industry – both in-house company lobbyists and hired lobbyists from “K-Street firms.”

This does not include:

Industry executives
Other employees of the oil and gas industry
Board members
Corporate PAC contributions
Contributions by major investors
Donations to Super PACS or non-profit groups
Contributions made by trade associations to Super PACs

Hillary takes more from lobbyists in general than any other candidate

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php

*********

Total Amount bundled from oil and gas lobbyists: $1,140,930


Examples:

*3 Enbridge lobbyists contributed to HRC’s campaign. While she was Secretary of State, Clinton signed off on the Enbridge pipeline (the alternative to KXL).

*Ben Klein (Heather Podesta and Associates) lobbied on behalf of Oxbow Carbon on petcoke and other issues. Petcoke is a byproduct of refining. Communities in Detroit and Chicago have complained about piles of petcoke blowing into the community. Bill Koch (the estranged brother of Charles and David) owns controlling interest of Oxbow. Klein also lobbied on restrictions of ivory imports for Oxbow.

*Fracking company and gas industry trade association lobbyists have also contributed to Clinton’s campaign, including Former Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX), who lobbied for the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, and Martin Durbin of the American Natural Gas Association (now merged and part of the American Petroleum Institute – API), the nephew of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). Another donor is Elizabeth Gore, a lobbyist for WPX energy (fracking). A lobbyist for FTI Consulting, creator of an industry front group called Energy In Depth, also contributed to Clinton;s campaign. Although Clinton has said she would require FERC to consider climate change before granting any new gas pipeline permits, she recently told activists she would not ban fracking as president, and has a pro-fracking track record which has been well-documented by numerous groups, including pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record.

*Marty Streett, a lobbyist for BP, gave Clinton’s campaign the maximum allowable amount ($2700). Her sister, Stephanie S. Streett, is the Executive Director of the William J. Clinton Foundation and former ED of the Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, 990 report 2013). The Podesta Group (Tony Podesta) also lobbied for BP, on issues including the Gulf of Mexico spill response and recovery.


*While Secretary of State, Clinton pushed fracking in countries around the world, through the department’s Global Shale Gas Initiative. According to Grist, after the Bulgarian government signed a five-year deal with Chevron, major public protests led the Bulgarian parliament to pass a fracking moratorium. Clinton traveled to Bulgaria and then dispatched her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans, which were eventually overturned.

*Clinton’s State Department played a major role in negotiating a bilateral oil agreement with Mexico. Her former special envoy for international energy affairs, David Goldwyn, has donated the maximum allowable amount to the campaign ($2700). Since leaving State, Goldwyn has consulted for companies wishing to profit from Mexico’s decision to allow private oil services contractors into the country in order to expand PEMEX’s ability to produce shale oil and tap deep offshore reserves.

*David Leiter (ML Strategies lobbyist for Exxon and a HRC bundler), the former Senate chief of staff to John Kerry, is also a lobbyist for Burisma Holdings, a private Ukrainian natural gas and uranium mining company with many connections to the Democratic Party. Biden’s son Hunter joined Burisma’s board in 2014, right before Leiter was hired to lobby members about the role of the company in Ukraine (arguing for its role in helping Ukraine be independent of Russia). Another board member, Devon Archer, is a HRC donor (2700) and Democratic bundler (I don’t see any record of him bundling for HRC). FTI’s Lawrence Pacheco does communications for Burisma. Burisma is owned by a Cypriot holding firm, Brociti Investments Ltd, which is controlled by Nikolai Zlochevskyi, a former Ukrainian gov. minister.

*Although Clinton has said she supports an investigation into Exxon’s early concealment of what it knew about the risks of climate change and subsequent financing of climate denier front groups, her campaign has taken contributions from at least 7 lobbyists working for Exxon, including one in-house lobbyist – Theresa Fariello – who has bundled and additional $21,200 for the campaign.

*Hess lobbyists from Forbes-Tate (Daniel Tate, Jeffrey Forbes, George Cooper and Rachel Miller) all gave maximum allowable contributions to HRC’s campaign. The firm lobbied on behalf of the Hess Corporation, on crude by rail and crude exports. Hess owns rail cars that came off the tracks and caught fire after a BNSF train derailed in North Dakota in early May, 2015. Hess is the third largest oil producer in North Dakota. Lynn Helms, a former Hess executive served as ND’s top oil and gas regulator at the Department of Mineral Resources between 2005 and 2013. When Clinton came out in opposition to KXL she started talking about how fixing train tracks would create jobs. In December 2015, a couple of months after Clinton announced she opposed KXL, and just over a month after Obama turned KXL down, Warren Buffett — who owns BNSF — endorsed Clinton. Buffett is also a big oil investor (e.g. Phillips 66).

*Companies invested in LNG projects with lobbyists that have given to HRC’s campaign include Freeport LNG (Elizabeth Gore – Brownstein Hyatt, $500); LNG Allies (Michael Smith – Cornerstone Gov. Affairs – 2700 and a bundler of $59,400); Dominion Resources (Tom Lawler – Lawler Strategies, 2700); Oregon LNG (Robert van Heuvelen VH Strategies – 2700). Exxon also has LNG projects. Cheniere Energy’s Ankit Desai not only gave the maximum allowed, but also bundled $ 139,300 for the campaign. Another donor ($2700) to Clinton’s campaign is Heather Zichal, Obama’s former energy advisor, who joined the board of Cheniere (LNG export company) after leaving the administration.

*Former Rep. Richard (“Dick”) Gephardt’s firm lobbies for Peabody Energy (coal), Prairie State (coal-fired power plant and adjacent mine), Ameren Services Co. Gephardt and his wife, son and daughter Chrissy all contributed the maximum allowed to Clinton’s campaign (Dick is the only fossil fuel lobbyist in the family). Gephardt, a Democratic Party super delegate, has pledged to support Clinton. In February, the DNC rolled back its previous commitment to not take any contributions from federally registered lobbyists. Clinton’s campaign has also received contributions from lobbyists representing big mining companies — Westmoreland Coal, Arch Coal and Rio Tinto.

*************

Other points relevant to lobbyist contributions:

During the NH debate Clinton said donations are not evidence of favors, but in 2008 Clinton suggested the contributions Obama took from the industry were evidence of a quid pro quo.

“But in April 2008, Clinton’s campaign aired a television ad portraying Obama’s support for a 2005 energy bill as a quid pro quo for campaign donations. The ad said Obama had “accepted $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies,” while criticizing him for voting “for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that that put $6 billion in the pocket of big oil.” The clear message: Obama backed the bill as a favor to donors.”

It’s worth noting that Obama didn’t take any $ from lobbyists or PACs in 2008 and pledged to not take contributions from lobbyists in 2012, too, and gave some donations back.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

69 replies, 3377 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply FACT: Hillary & her SuperPAC have received $4.5 MILLION from OIL & GAS INDUSTRY to date (Original post)
RiverLover Apr 2016 OP
daleanime Apr 2016 #1
amborin Apr 2016 #2
RiverLover Apr 2016 #5
jillan Apr 2016 #3
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #6
daleanime Apr 2016 #11
EndElectoral Apr 2016 #7
Jitter65 Apr 2016 #8
daleanime Apr 2016 #9
Recursion Apr 2016 #14
jeff47 Apr 2016 #59
think Apr 2016 #4
Dragonfli Apr 2016 #10
amborin Apr 2016 #12
RiverLover Apr 2016 #13
suffragette Apr 2016 #15
mmonk Apr 2016 #16
Octafish Apr 2016 #17
RiverLover Apr 2016 #26
Octafish Apr 2016 #37
RiverLover Apr 2016 #39
DanTex Apr 2016 #18
think Apr 2016 #20
DanTex Apr 2016 #22
kristopher Apr 2016 #25
DanTex Apr 2016 #28
kristopher Apr 2016 #38
Dem2 Apr 2016 #49
RiverLover Apr 2016 #21
DanTex Apr 2016 #23
RiverLover Apr 2016 #29
marmar Apr 2016 #30
RiverLover Apr 2016 #34
DanTex Apr 2016 #32
RiverLover Apr 2016 #33
DanTex Apr 2016 #35
RiverLover Apr 2016 #41
marmar Apr 2016 #40
amborin Apr 2016 #56
questionseverything Apr 2016 #54
RiverLover Apr 2016 #63
kristopher Apr 2016 #42
azmom Apr 2016 #19
kristopher Apr 2016 #24
RiverLover Apr 2016 #27
salinsky Apr 2016 #31
revbones Apr 2016 #51
salinsky Apr 2016 #52
randome Apr 2016 #36
RiverLover Apr 2016 #44
Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #43
RiverLover Apr 2016 #45
Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #47
Marr Apr 2016 #46
felix_numinous Apr 2016 #48
loyalsister Apr 2016 #50
PonyUp Apr 2016 #53
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #55
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #57
AzDar Apr 2016 #58
colsohlibgal Apr 2016 #60
amborin Apr 2016 #61
joeybee12 Apr 2016 #62
randr Apr 2016 #64
Octafish Apr 2016 #65
amborin Apr 2016 #66
amborin Apr 2016 #67
PonyUp Apr 2016 #68
Octafish Apr 2016 #69

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:38 AM

1. It's not like there's a planet wide crisis.....

or anything like that going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:40 AM

2. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleanime (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:45 AM

5. Seriously. And NYC is projected to be underwater in less than a century

acc to a new report.

You would think that would be a concern if thinking about all life on the planet being unsustainable in the future is too big a concept to grasp.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?_r=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:41 AM

3. But...but..... they didn't donate DIRECTLY to her campaign!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:52 AM

6. Thanks to Donkees for sharing this earlier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:58 AM

11. Too true....

to be funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:52 AM

7. and..and..didn't cor-ordinate...Citizens United decision did real damage to this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:55 AM

8. And they didn't. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:55 AM

9. The two steppin' going on in her campaign.....

is completely nuts. If you don't have photos and witnesses of the money being placed directly in her hand....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:11 PM

14. So, "The entire premise of the OP is false, but I'm still supporting it"?



The industry donated precisely zero money to Clinton's campaign. This is such a stupid line of attack...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 09:08 PM

59. So you just skipped over the "& her SuperPAC" part? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:41 AM

4. Thank you for posting. /nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:58 AM

10. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:02 PM

12. more here:

Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of money from fossil fuel executives and lobbyists acting as bundlers (fundraisers who collect donations) who represent fossil fuel companies. (She also has lobbyist bundlers who represent other environmentally challenged corporations like Monsanto.)

Here’s just a partial list of the fossil fuel–friendly bundlers who raised money for Clinton from April through June:

ExxonMobil executive Theresa Mary Fariello raised $21,200. ExxonMobil is the world’s largest oil and gas company, and it has a particularly ugly history of funding climate change denial. It is also eager to exploit oil reserves in delicate regions such as the Arctic, despite its responsibility for the most devastating Arctic oil spill in history.

Brian Wolff, executive vice president at the Edison Electric Institute, a utility company trade association, came up with $26,600. EEI opposes and lobbies against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, the centerpiece of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. The power-plant regulations are essential for the U.S. to meet its emission-reduction targets under the Copenhagen Accord and to live up to the promises it is laying out in advance of U.N. negotiations in Paris this December. Clinton has pledged to protect the Clean Power Plan regulations.

Heather Podesta and Tony Podesta have raised $31,150 and $74,575, respectively. The power ex-couple are big-shot Democratic lobbyists. Tony’s brother John is Clinton’s campaign chair and former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton. Even though John Podesta is considered a climate hawk, Tony and his ex-wife Heather represent fossil fuel companies. Heather’s recent past clients include Marathon Oil and Bill Koch’s Oxbow Carbon, a coal giant, and from 2004 to 2006 she lobbied for Koch Industries. Tony lobbied for BP in the wake of its disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, and through last year he represented Golden Pass, a company co-owned by ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum that wants to export liquefied natural gas. To be fair, they also work on behalf of renewable fuel companies — Tony represents SolarReserve, a solar power company, and Heather lobbies for the ethanol industry. You might call the Podestas the very embodiment of the Obama/Clinton “all of the above” energy policy.

Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists for Chevron, bundled $24,700 and $29,700 for Clinton, respectively. Their work includes opposing the Clean Power Plan controls that Clinton supports, and protecting the tax breaks for oil companies that Clinton has previously called for eliminating.

One of Hillary’s top fundraisers, Gordon Giffin, is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company pushing to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

That’s just a sampling. As the Huffington Post reports, “Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.”

Advertisement – Article continues below

In its most recent print issue, The Nation magazine called on all presidential candidates to pledge not to take contributions from fossil fuel companies. Clinton’s two main Democratic opponents, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, both climate hawks, took the pledge. Clinton didn’t respond.


http://grist.org/climate-energy/hillary-clinton-rakes-in-money-from-fossil-fuel-interests/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:07 PM

13. Thanks for posting. More proof she's a player -trying- to play US.

We're smarter than we used to be & not so easily fooled. Someone should tell the establishment elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:14 PM

15. Enbridge. That speaks to foreign policy as well as U.S. and what it says

Is not good. Foreign policy decisions are about issues such as extracting and transporting oil, gas and coal as well about security and conflicts. Oil spills can cross borders easily, especially in areas such as British Columbia and Washington State.

Posted previously about Enbridge here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5832689

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5837820

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:18 PM

16. Thanks. I couldn't link from my current device to post.

I'm glad you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:19 PM

17. Gosh. That would explain the, um, er, lack of action.

Explains the lack of a plan, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:34 PM

26. Its really sad.

I went through a period, after it really sunk in, where I would silently apologize to every baby, beautiful tree, seagull, heron, sunflower, eagle, dog, cat, etc for the upcoming end of their species existence.

I can't internalize it like that anymore. It must be how doctors manage to interact with terminal patients. Its a detached compassion that I have now.

But I still have the strong drive to try to change things. While I myself as a citizen or "average voter" am powerless to change things on a fundamental scale, I still can refuse to vote for those who would be in power while being paid off by the people killing our planet.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:57 PM

37. What the late, great DUer JackpineRadical said...



The blue heron is one of my totem creatures. They have appeared at many times and brought comfort in my life crises. I can't explain their personal significance to anyone who doesn't already know about that sort of thing.

-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023676773


What keeps me going politically is Beethoven and his realization that his hearing wasn't coming back, but that he had to keep going on.

As long as there are two of us left, RiverLover, Democracy lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:00 PM

39. Octafish. What a beautiful post.



Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:20 PM

18. This is false. This is individual money, not corporate money. Corporations can't donate to campaigns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:24 PM

20. Yes. Only their employees can. But the corporation CAN give money to her super pacs. Correct?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:25 PM

22. They can but they haven't so far. The SuperPACs backing Hillary and Bernie have thus far

been funded by individuals and unions.

The money discussed in the OP, though, is not SuperPAC money, it is campaign money donated by individuals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:34 PM

25. A serious question - do you understand that ethics isn't law?

Just because a powerful group makes a set of laws that allows them to legally engage in overtly unethical behavior doesn't mean that the people in a democracy are without recourse.

We are holding the trial right now and I have to tell you, things aren't going so well for your client.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:36 PM

28. Sure but I don't see what the relevance is. Hillary has done nothing either unethical or illegal,

and she certainly hasn't taken corporate campaign money.

As far as the trial we're holding, I feel pretty good about how my client is doing. Check the delegate count...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:58 PM

38. No, of course not. $21,648,000 corporate money when she knew she was running...

...is perfectly legal here. And perfectly ethical in Bizarro World.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:23 PM

49. "Hillary has done nothing either unethical or illegal"

You know that's irrelevant, don't you?

She. Must. Be. Destroyed.










/s

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:25 PM

21. But they can & DO give to SuperPACs. Why do you think we're so against Citizens United?

How can you not stand with People? Unless you work for a Superpac or underhanded campaign, I can't see how anyone defends this. Or worse, tries to cover it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:28 PM

23. They can, but so far SuperPACs supporting Bernie and Hillary have been funded by individuals.

Also, candidates have no control over who donates to SuperPACs, nor do they have any control over what SuperPACs do. SuperPACs are independent expenditure committees.

Hillary's campaign has received no corporate money, and it will never receive any corporate money and any such suggestion is an outright lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:43 PM

29. You are triangulating. A corporation is composed of people. Those people give on behalf of the

corporation.

Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 BILLION.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:46 PM

30. "You are triangulating"


In the spirit of their favored candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:51 PM

34. Yep.

They have much in common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:46 PM

32. There's the Mitt Romney meme again. Interesting that the far left has jumped on that.

Of course people don't give "on behalf" of a corporation. They give on behalf of themselves. Individuals have the right to donate up to $2700 to any candidate they want. It's the individual's money, they can do whatever they want with it, and corporations have no say in the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:50 PM

33. Seriously, who do you think is buying this BS of yours?

Do you really think anyone believes this pathetic justification of the purchase of our political system?

You are kidding yourself if you do.

Maybe those above you are hoping otherwise, but it just makes you look like a poser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #33)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:51 PM

35. Everyone outside the Bernie bubble understands the difference between corporate money

and individual money.

And judging from the delegate counts, there are more of us than there are of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:02 PM

41. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #33)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:01 PM

40. It's indicative of how little the Clinton campaign and its fellow travelers think of voters.....


..... that they'd insult their intelligence that way. But people are figuring it out. They're tired of neoliberal con artists.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 05:49 PM

56. only the elite matter; it's part of her religion:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #33)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 03:42 PM

54. i trust greenpeace over dan

perry.wheeler@greenpeace.org.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been backed by the fossil fuel industry in a number of ways.

First, there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of March 21, 2016; source: Center for Responsive Politics) from such donors.

Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,465,610 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number.

Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign.
All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.

//////////////

i think it is important to point out if greenpeace was slandering hc as dan suggests...hc has plenty of money and manpower to sue them to make them stop

since she is not doing that i assume greenpeace has that old best defense of TRUTH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 10:38 PM

63. BOOM!

There it is. QE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:02 PM

42. $21,648,000 in corporate money when everyone knew she was running for president.

Legalized Bribery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:21 PM

19. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:30 PM

24. Jimmy Carter calls it "legalized bribery".

He suggests we not do it.

No wonder the Clintons have always hated him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:35 PM

27. Ha! Touche!

Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:46 PM

31. The entire Sanders campaign ...

... has been heavy with demagoguery and light with reality, so this line of attack is totally in character.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to salinsky (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:53 PM

51. Citing facts is definitely within the character of the Sanders campaign.

 

Sorry some have a problem with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #51)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:57 PM

52. What do you call it when ...

... someone knowingly and continuously makes accusations that are factually and demonstrably incorrect?

That is what the Sanders campaign is engaged in here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:52 PM

36. Sanders has received nearly a million dollars from Internet-related firms.

 

Why is this not worrisome to you? What is the cutoff number at which your concern kicks in? Face it, all candidates receive bundled money. Even -gasp!- Bernie Sanders!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:08 PM

44. I'd be concerned if that were true.

But it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:03 PM

43. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, RiverLover.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #43)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:09 PM

45. Thanks Joe, for R&King.

I think you've become my favorite Uncle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #45)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:23 PM

47. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:11 PM

46. Thank you. I can't believe the pretzel-logic spinning that's going on here from

 

Hillary fans today. They're literally claiming there is *zero* corporate money in politics now.

I thought the pro-fracking episode represented maximum spin velocity. Apparently not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:51 PM

50. To anyone who has ethics re: money in politics

The question is not whether Hillary (or any other candidate) followed the letter of the law. It is "has her campaign benefitted from corporate donations?" Yes technical details matter and the accusation is worded in a way that allows her groupies to protest. But any reasonable person who is concerned about corporate influence, should have reservations about the fact that they are indeed helping her even if they are not donating directly to her campaign.
If she wanted to reject that money going to support her campaign is there a way for her to tell the superpac to "cut it out"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:59 PM

53. Her outfits always remind me of Dr. Evil

 

?w=660

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 03:51 PM

55. Poor Hillary, her baggage car is overflowing again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 05:56 PM

57. since when do "progressives" support fossil fuels? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 06:29 PM

58. An Inconvenient Truth.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 09:27 PM

60. Just Another True "Smear"

As usual the Hillary work crew rebuts with vague this and that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 09:55 PM

61. Politifact confirms she receives $$$$ from fossil fuel industry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Fri Apr 1, 2016, 09:57 PM

62. Yeha, Greenpeace is reliable on this...

 

Is Bernie going to give back the money he got AFTER signing a pledge NOT to take such money...oh wait, that's DIFFERENT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sat Apr 2, 2016, 09:02 AM

64. Her reaction to the allegations are proof enough of her complicity

She wants to deny the obvious because she knows it is viewed, in this election cycle, as the wrong thing to do.
Let us hope we put an end to CU and this activity becomes a thing of the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sat Apr 2, 2016, 10:25 AM

65. Libya.

"Libya has some of the biggest and most proven oil reserves — 43.6 billion barrels — outside Saudi Arabia, and some of the best drilling prospects."

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/component/acymailing/archive/view/listid-3-alerts-precis/mailid-74-three-little-words-wikileaks-libya-oil.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:21 AM

66. kicking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:55 AM

67. her behavior us anti-environment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 08:56 AM

68. She makes me hurl.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:50 PM

69. As if approved by Cheney himself.

Servant of Satan and Big Oil.

Former US vice president Dick Cheney has praised Hillary Clinton as one of the more competent members of President Barack Obama's administration, saying it would be "interesting to speculate" on how she would perform as president.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8741148/Dick-Cheney-heaps-praise-on-Hillary-Clinton.html


It's almost weird how Rachel hasn't talked about that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread