HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RiverLover » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 38 Next »

RiverLover

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2011, 12:59 PM
Number of posts: 7,830

About Me

FDR Populist Progressive who believes the environment trumps all. We\'re sinking the only ship we\'ve got, and govt leaders are ignoring it.

Journal Archives

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/

Well, that will help the workers in IN, who lost their jobs to Mexicans earning 10%. TEN PERCENT

of what was paid to them, Americans, for the same job.

They want to turn us all into SERFS eventually.

Waiting for trickle down. The Clintons may speak ag trickle down, but its just part of their con. Their actions belie the words.

Last month, the air conditioner manufacturer Carrier told 1,400 workers in Indianapolis that their middle-class jobs were being offshored to Mexico. Carrier would slash its labor costs since its new workers would earn only about 10 percent of what the United Steelworkers earned in Indiana.

This is the real face of free trade deals. Workers that could afford to own their own homes and send their kids to college have had their economic security sacrificed on the altar of free trade.

Since the 1990s, the big business wings of the Democratic and Republican parties have united to push corporate trade deals that cost millions of jobs and contribute to America’s growing economic inequality. There was agreement among the Washington elites that these trade agreements — written by and for the worlds biggest corporations — were good for everyone. But really they were only good for everyone they met at the best cocktail parties.

......

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/31/changing-politics-free-trade-politicians-are-finally-listening


The Clinton are Super-Politicians.

No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.

Let's Face It, Our Presidential Candidates Are Hucksters

By Eric Zuesse / AlterNet
March 28, 2016

Let's Face It, Our Presidential Candidates Are Hucksters

Here is Bill Clinton, the U.S. President who served Wall Street by removing all regulations on derivatives-trading and by ending FDR’s Glass-Steagall Act separation of investment-banking from consumer-banking, now telling an audience, that his successor George W. Bush had done this, and that Bush’s successor Barack Obama has unfortunately continued it. He said this on March 21st when explaining why everyone should vote for his wife to undo the ”awful” and “trickle-down” legacy of George W. Bush and Barack Obama:

"If you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that when we were practicing trickle-down economics and no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her because she’s the only person who basically had good ideas, will tell you how she’s going to pay for them, can be commander in chief, and is a proven change maker with Republicans and Democrats and independents alike.”

...The truth is that just before Bill Clinton ended his Presidency he gave Wall Street exactly what it wanted: the ability to gamble with FDIC-insured money, so that Wall Street would be bailed out by taxpayers if their gamblers stopped gambling (‘investing’) and the financial system consequently froze up — which happened in 2008. George W. Bush didn’t make that change, Clinton did. ...snip...

Here is Donald Trump, pandering to the far-right, ethnocentric-Jewish, AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), who hate Palestinians and Iran, telling these racist ethnocentric Jews why they should support Trump for President — and opening by telling his suckers that he’s not going to “pander to” them...

Read in full~
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/lets-face-it-our-presidential-candidates-are-hucksters


This article should be titled "Let's Face It, Our Presidential FRONTRUNNERS Are Hucksters" because it only discusses Trump & Clinton.

Bernie is so popular because his progressive stances supporting the People are genuine. This article unfortunately doesn't cover that.


Hope you have a strong stomach, but here's the thread~

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1576747

Its the worst exchange of insane & divisive bullsh*t I've ever read.

Life is too short for this dark, nasty, manipulative place. Bad energy.

"Hillary Clinton's Ghosts: A Legacy of Pushing the Democratic Party to the Right"

New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats.

......enormous snip.....didn't want to....

......More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray herself as a crusader for family values when she introduced legislation to ban violent video games and flag burning in 2005. She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.

The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."

However, the DLC's influence eventually waned. A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine. "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."

The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability. And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council shuttered its doors.

When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members.
In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power. Amazingly, O'Malley provided a favorable blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic success today."

The 2016 Election and New Democrats

The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016 primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently told the Guardian.

Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an interview with Politico.

His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.

Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's board of trustees is almost entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests have more influence over the political process than ever before.

"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.



So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House.

The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff. And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election.


...........snip.......

PLEASE read in full. We as a Party need to WAKE UP~
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right




....& FYI, anonymous corporate donors give the Third Way think tank $9 billion A YEAR to work their republican magic on the Democratic Party.

Please see~
The Democratic think tank Third Way relies on money from corporate interests, lobbyists and Republican donors.
http://www.thenation.com/article/gop-donors-and-k-street-fuel-third-ways-advice-democratic-party/

Why would you trust someone who's been a republican her whole life

D
I
N
O

And then, with her powerfully charismatic and equally deceptive husband, has led the party into becoming a mere corporate shell shadowing the GOP.

???

What would FDR think?



Maybe close to Elizabeth Warren as she is genuinely, today,



Bernie Sanders Is Currently Winning the Democratic Primary Race, and I’ll Prove It to You

by Seth Abramson
Assistant Professor of English at University of New Hampshire

Bernie Sanders Is Currently Winning the Democratic Primary Race, and I’ll Prove It to You
03/23/2016 09:33 am ET

Nobody cares how well a politician does at the ballot box when he or she is running for an office unopposed. What matters is how a politician performs in contested primaries and general elections, as when it really matters — like it will, for instance, this November — you can be certain of a contested election.

With that said, let’s make an important observation: Bernie Sanders has tied or beaten Hillary Clinton in a majority of the actively contested votes this election season.




You doubt it? Okay, let me explain.


Bernie Sanders has terrible name recognition in states where he hasn’t advertised or campaigned yet; meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has universal name recognition everywhere. Realizing this, the Clinton camp pushed hard to rack up the early vote in every state where early voting was an option. They did this not primarily for the reason we’ve been told — because Clinton performs well among older voters, and older voters are more likely to vote early than other age demographics — but rather because they knew that early votes are almost always cast before the election season actually begins in a given state.

That’s right — in each state, most of the early primary voting occurs before the candidates have aired any commercials or held any campaign events. For Bernie Sanders, this means that early voting happens, pretty much everywhere, before anyone knows who he is. Certainly, early voting occurs in each state before voters have developed a sufficient level of familiarity and comfort with Sanders to vote for him.

But on Election Day — among voters who’ve been present and attentive for each candidate’s commercials, local news coverage, and live events — Sanders tends to tie or beat Clinton.

In fact, that’s the real reason Sanders does well in caucuses.

It’s not because caucuses “require a real time investment,” as the media likes to euphemistically say, but because caucuses require that you vote on Election Day rather than well before it.

Consider: in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton only won Election Day voting 52% to 48%. Given the shenanigans in evidence during the live voting there — thousands of college students were turned away from the polls due to insufficient identification under a new voter-suppression statute in the state — it wouldn’t be unfair to call that 4-point race more like a 2-point one (51% to 49% for Clinton).

Consider: on Super Tuesday 3, because early voting is always reported first, Clinton’s margins of victory were originally believed to be 25 points in Missouri, 30 points in Illinois, and 30 points in Ohio. Missouri, which doesn’t have conventional early voting, ended up a tie. Illinois ended up with a 1.8% margin for Clinton (after being a 42-point race in Clinton’s favor just a week earlier) and Ohio a 13.8% margin.

Any one of us could do the math there. And yet the media never did.

Consider: in Arizona yesterday, the election was called almost immediately by the media, with Clinton appearing to “win” the state by a margin of 61.5% to 36.1%. Of course, this was all early voting. CNN even wrongly reported that these early votes constituted the live vote in 41% of all Arizona precincts........

Read the rest, there is MUCH more covered to prove the point~
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/sanders-currently-winning-democratic-primary-race-ill-prove-to-you_b_9528076.html


********

.......editing to add an important point~

........The Hillary camp, and Hillary supporters, are justly excited about how their candidate is performing in the delegate horse-race. The problem is that that excitement is quickly becoming the sort of arrogance that will in fact endanger Hillary’s candidacy for President. Both she and her team — including all her millions of supporters — should consider the fact that Hillary does not, outside the deep-red Deep South, do particularly well among voters when they’re given any other reasonable alternative.

The fact that early voting statutes and media reporting of elections in America favors the maintenance of the illusion that Hillary remains popular when voters become familiar with other credible options does not excuse ignorance of the reality; certainly, it won’t help Democrats in November............

I don't know, Cajun. When you push me aside as "very liberal" & "13%", does that mean believing

in regulating industry to protect people is very liberal? Like Banks and fossil fuel cos?

Believing in fighting for the right to form unions so workers aren't abused is too liberal?

Believing prisons for profit is astoundingly immoral, too liberal?

Wanting Made in the USA to not be a thing of the past, liberal?

Wanting Moneyed Interests to not run our govt "representatives" and considering this outright corruption? Too liberal?

Wanting public schools to have the support & the funds to educate children effectively? Not wanting people to profit off of that?

Wanting college to be affordable like it was when I put myself through?

Not wanting corps like GE & Verizon to go YEARS without paying taxes?

Not wanting endless war so that corps can profit & thousands of good innocent people die? Too liberal?

Wanting fracking to be regulated with oversight to ensure safety & to fight for ending the unDemocratic banning of local fracking bans which people voted on?

Not wanting water privatized? This is liberal?

13% far left? Really?

These are Democratic principles. They aren't that far left. And having the most corrupt candidate (the most purchased politician) in my lifetime run & having the entire party elite go to striking pains to ensure her nomination completely stinks to me. Is that too liberal? Wanting the corrupt purchase of our party to not pay off by leaving us with a corrupt republican DINO in office?

To want the Democratic Party to BE Democratic is too liberal? Too far left?

Then maybe the party has left me.



If only FDR's Democratic Party hadn't been taken over by those w republican principles,

then voting for the Democrat would actually mean voting for Progressive Principles & not the conservative deregulating food stamp cutting fracking off shoring corporate welfare crap we have now.



Clearly, with centrist corporate-bought Hillary's anointment, we can see we're losing this struggle to the Third Way "Democrats"~

Third Way in struggle for the Democratic Party’s soul
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/10/06/struggle-for-soul-democratic-party-pits-wall-street-backed-think-tank-against-elizabeth-warren/pYk3SXRnZDmpi7C7N4ZpXN/story.html

^^^ This, the entire article, should be required reading for everyone who genuinely considers themselves Democratic. $9 billion annually donated by undisclosed corporations. Hillary is their candidate. Think about it.

But Clinton2 will be just as republican as Clinton1 was, so how is this helping your family?

Just the title of Democrat doesn't mean they'll be Democratic in office. And with another Clinton, its a guarantee they won't.

15 Ways Bill Clinton’s White House Failed America and the World

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-ways-bill-clintons-white-house-failed-america-and-world

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=8899



Third Way in struggle for the Democratic Party’s soul
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/10/06/struggle-for-soul-democratic-party-pits-wall-street-backed-think-tank-against-elizabeth-warren/pYk3SXRnZDmpi7C7N4ZpXN/story.html
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 38 Next »