Debunking the "Hillary is owned by bankers" meme, all in one OP.

[DanTex]

This seems to be one of the most common anti-Hillary memes around, and I've posted debunkings of it in GD-P, but if you'll forgive my indulgence, I'm reposting here, because I think it's a good idea for all Hillary supporters to know about this one and how thoroughly false it is.

The meme stems from an opensecrets.org chart that lists top donors by employer.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019&type=I

The top "contributor" is Citigroup, followed by Goldman, which leads to the meme "Hillary's top donors are banks". This is false for a number of reasons.

• The money shown there comes from employees of those corporations, not the corporations themselves.


• There is a limit of $2700 for individual contributions, so these donations come from a lot of employees, not just one big contribution from the CEO.


• Hillary's home state is New York, and Citigroup (along with other big banks) is one of the largest private employers in her state.


• The finance industry as a whole only accounts for 3.4% of overall donations to Clinton. This can be verified by clicking on the "summary" tab at opensecrets (which Hillary-bashers never post links to)
  https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019&type=I


• As the summary page shows, the finance industry is not Hillary's top source of donations. The largest source is lawyers. Finance is third, after retirees. Yes, retired people donated more to HRC than bankers.

The reason that individual banks show up at the top of charts aggregated by employer is that individual banks are very large and employ a lot of people. A firm with 20 employees, all of whom max out for Hillary, would not show up on that chart. Even though people at law firms contributed a lot more than bankers, law firms are much smaller than banks, which is why banks end up at the top. And retirees, who also outcontributed bankers, don't work for any firm at all, so they don't even show up on the chart of by-employer totals.

[HassleCat]

1. I'm so relieved!

I was afraid Clinton was beholden to bankers, a proven untrustworthy group of people. You have set my mind at ease. I'm much calmer now that I know her top contributing group is lawyers. Who doesn't love lawyers?

[OKNancy]

8. I love lawyers.. my whole family.. a bunch of lawyers

My father was defending marijuana smokers back from the 1970s until he died.

[OKNancy]

9. Oh and this is the Hillary Group.

So expect the expected.

[busterbrown]

17. Republican’s hate lawyers..You Know..

the ones who litigate for those injured or mistreated by the oligarchs...

[rock]

31. I was going to post this directly to the OP

But here might be a better place. There are so many people that don't get subtleties or nuances which this OP has.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Oh ...

I suspect they "get it" ... they just don't care about the inconvenient facts.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Another talking point in which those who continue to give this talking point can not back.

Why does these talking points continue? Obliviously the grasping for straws and mostly because Hillary is experienced and strong and no one has entered which can show more qualifications for the office of president.

[George II]

3. But they HAVE to be.....

.....retired banksters!!!



Tens of thousands of them, probably all sending in their checks from the Cayman Islands!

[Starry Messenger]

4. She will be adding AFT to her donors now too.

Other unions to follow soon, I'm willing to bet.

[Iliyah]

12. Anyone or any group that supports HRC is the enemy!

[Starry Messenger]

14. Oh well! :)

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. But ... But ...

my bartender's sister's cousin is a teacher and he said didn't get a call, nor was he polled; so, that PROVES that the AFT is an "undemocratic" top down organization that runs roughshod over its membership ... that's why Weingarten has won re-election by consistently wide margins since her initial appointment in 1998.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Weingarten

[Starry Messenger]

38. I know right?

Actually most of the vitriol is coming from a faction of UFT that has hated Randi for years.

They all link to each other's blogs and back each other up on social media. I recognize familiar names. It's too complicated to get into in GDP, since UFT's politics are difficult to explain even in a calm environment, but suffice to say, I question their claim to represent the broad rank & file.

Also, I myself took the initial policy survey and was driven nuts enough by this present debate that I took a screencap of the email thanking me for my input, lol. So if anyone needs "proof proof11!!" I went back and dug through 5 months worth of AFT email.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. I don't know the tenor of UFT's politics; but, the pattern is familiar ...

a minority of the population, claiming to be the majority ... despite evidence to the contrary ... don't get what they want; so they cry foul (every thing is a conspiracy to deny them, personally, of their "right" to dominate the actions/policies of the larger group, followed by accusations of "no real {group member} ...", then, a demand that the larger group conform to their will.

Does that sound the least bit familiar?

[Starry Messenger]

50. Oh absolutely.

We're on the same page there.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Hell! We're on the same site! n/t

[Starry Messenger]

53. Haha! Nt.

[George II]

5. More analysis...

...if the $14M contributed by retirees (of which I am one) each gave the MAXIMUM (of which I'm NOT one!), that would be more than 5200 individual. On the other hand, if the average contribution was $100, more realistic, that would be about 140,000 individuals.

Her top competitor is from Vermont and has never run for elective office outside of Vermont. Not many major banks, with hundreds or thousands of employees, are in Vermont. The same it true for large law firms or securities and investment firms.

Note the fifth highest category - WOMEN'S ISSUES!

[William769]

6. Thank's Dan

Unfortunately it won't stop the meme from being used but we can point out how stupid people can be for using it.

[freshwest]

7. Thank you very much, I love that website. For those who think that BS and HRC don't have similiar vi

views on things of importance, she put his Senate race as one of the high priorities of funding from HILLPAC. She gave the maximum that was passed out to him, $10,000.00.

So the 'they are so different' meme is also a false one that should be dropped. I'm certain whoever gets the nomination, will endorse the other one. Just as HRC did Obama and went on the stump for him with Bill after she lost the nomination in 2008.

We don't need to be fighting each other, save it for the GOP! They are the common enemy of HRC, BS and the American people. Well, many of them, anyway.

Those who say they won't vote or don't care if the GOP takes over in 2016 are clearly not in the same boat as the majority of Americans. They can sail off in their yachts and I don't need their opinion on the election.

[George II]

10. There is just so much detailed information on that site...here's another glaring (in my mind)...

...detail that contradicts the claim of some:

88% of Clinton's contributions came from individuals
84% of Sanders' contributions came from individuals

[Iliyah]

11. K & R and thank you DanTex

As you can see the continued invading of the safe haven means nada to them. Unfortunately, conspiracies and pure venom is going to dominate the DU boards against one candidate while praising the other.

Facts means nada.

Also, what the RWers are putting out there as talking points, i.e. 1) she's a 1%er; 2) she has trust issues; 3) in the with bankers, et al.,

[RoBear]

13. Thank you!

DU has become very much an anti-Hillary site, so as a result I come here less often. I DO have a couple of reservations about Sanders that I'd like to share, but know this isn't the place. Sufficient to say, none of the things they're throwing around about Hillary have made an impression on me; they only make me more pro-HRC. I will remain with her millions of supporters!

[William769]

15. One of the meme's used here is that she is now pandering to the LGBT Community

And that she really doesn't care about us.

The LGBT Community as a whose is smarter than the average bear.

And way smarter than...

[shenmue]

26. Correct.

[ismnotwasm]

16. Thank you for posting this

The 'owned by banks" or worse, "corporate masters" bullshit is constantly repeated despite it being wholly ridiculous. The visceral hatred toward Clinton that exists on the left and on the right is never reasonable, never researched (unless you buy into woo woo land conspiracy theories) and never thought out. It's usually ignorant. It's always reactive. When the reasonable is eliminated, what's left is the psychological. What psychological thinking patterns do Hillary haters share?

So far, there sexism, heterosexism, racism, a sort of mind meld group think (admittedly all human beings fall prey to this), an adolescent level need to belong, and a near magical-type thinking about what the government does and doesn't do (although this last could fall under "ignorance&quot

So we are left with ugly memes from types and followers (many of the same types who hate Obama) types who often have problems with the term "White privledge" who are threatened by women in power-although they'd never admit it--who are frightened by the changing landscape of politics because they simply don't understand it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. This here ...

So we are left with ugly memes from types and followers (many of the same types who hate Obama) types who often have problems with the term "White privledge" who are threatened by women in power-although they'd never admit it--who are frightened by the changing landscape of politics because they simply don't understand it.

But will go a step (or ten) farther ... I'm starting to believe it is more than that; it is a deliberate effort to "re-establish" the working class white male into his "rightful place" in the pecking order, where he answered to wealthy white males (and willingly so, because once he becomes wealthy ...); but (until then), ruled (read: kept in place) all others.

[ismnotwasm]

49. I agree with those steps

And I'm quite serious, the Hillary AND Obama hate has psychological rather than ideological roots, as you say the majority of haters are white middle-class --and I would say working class--males, with a good dollop of white women. We know they have been feeling threatened since way before the civil rights act. That internalized fear (of the black male especially --that old racist trope painted over in a shiny new camouflage ) Is projected out as irrational hate and conspiracy theory politics. Those who won't examine the most cursory of facts simply parrot what others say, out of that juvenile need to belong.

The practical result of the victory of this hate would be that those human beings who are "othered" (and who in history has been "othered" more than women, and who in the history of the U.S. have been "othered" more that Black people?) are left standing alone, concerns tossed in a bucket named "economics" any political power gained negated by the reestablishment of politics as white, male territory.

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. And, frankly ...

I'm not seeing a whole lot of space between, Webb's comment:

I think that (Democrats) have kind of unwittingly used this group, white working males, as a whipping post for a lot of their policies ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/jim-webb-and-the-democrats-white-man-problem/

... positioning himself as the Democratic candidate breaking from the sort of identity politics around race, gender and ethnicity that have, in Webb's telling, excluded working-class white men.

And Bernie's:

In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters

And ... hold your breath now ... the often cited to, damning, HRC comment:

... that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/08/clinton-obama-not-winning_n_100763.html

I really don't.

All three are stating specifically who they believe they will (in HRC's case, would) need big turn-out from to win ... and they weren't talking about that coalition that put President Obama in the White House ... twice.

(ETA: And ... "Kiss the babies for me ... Tell them I loved them ... Tell them about me, when I'm gone."

[ismnotwasm]

56. Well, put that way there really isn't much difference between them, true.

So we are left with intentions. Apparently AND unfortunetly-- to say the least-- manipulative appeal to white voters for the win is part of current political strategy. I both hope and believe that in Hillary's case (awkward emotions when together) given her global work with women--she is not only aware, but willing to address specific social and economic problems not only with her candidacy, but with her leadership. Seeing her reach out to PoC caucus's and focus groups outlining plans to address concerns will be helpful. There are certainly there to be appealed to, on a number of levels. Admitting past mistakes is also helpful (she doesn't seem to have a problem with that) --turning those mistakes into corrective actions even more so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. I agree. n/t

[Android3.14]

18. Removed because of forum location

Last edited Tue Jul 14, 2015, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)

I did not realize this was the Clinton group.

[DanTex]

19. How is that possible. With 3.4% of her funding is from bankers?

I don't think any of the people bashing Hillary for banker ties would have ever imagined that the number was that low.

Be honest. Before you saw the numbers, what would you have guessed the percentage to be?

[Android3.14]

27. Not responding

I just realized this was not a forum for debate. I'll approach the topic some other time. My apologies.

[DanTex]

21. Not to mention the campsters and the bakesters and the cardiovascular researchsters!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251444022

[OKNancy]

23. You posted in the Hillary Group. A group for Hillary supporters only

Would you like to delete your post? The inference made in your post is clear.

[skepticscott]

22. Ok, so still not clear why

those donations are classified under "Citigroup" if they're coming from private individuals, and if the donations have nothing whatsoever to do with the company that the donors work for. I've made plenty of political donations, and never had to supply information about my workplace.

[DanTex]

24. If you donate to a national campaign, above a certain amount, you have to list your employer.

I'm not sure why you didn't have to. This information becomes public and opensecrets aggregates it in different ways.

[skepticscott]

29. Well, I've written checks without having to supply that

But regardless, why is it meaningful to classify these donations by employer if every one of them is from a private citizen? Simply because you can is no answer. Why does it matter in this case?

[DanTex]

30. I don't know why. It gives a sense of the kind of people who are donating, I guess.

I don't think it matters very much, that's my point. The "Hillary is funded by banks" meme has taken off and people don't realize it's bank employees not banks themselves who are donating. And they also don't realize that bank employees only account for 3.4% of her donations.

If the corporations themselves were donating, that would be a whole different thing. But they aren't -- that would be illegal, in fact.

[flor-de-jasmim]

33. That's my question, as well...

It reminds me of the stories my dad used to tell me about his employers in the 60s going around and practically insisting that each employee contribute to a particular candidate.

Otherwise, why would the names even be grouped by employer? Perhaps by industry...

[OKNancy]

25. You have to.

You must list your employer when you make a donation to a candidate.

[yallerdawg]

41. These are organization PACS that give the funds direct to Hillary campaign..

Total individual contributions are capped, so each contributor has to be identified so no one can go over the limit through multiple sources. Your contributions are tracked.

[George II]

60. Mentioned above already, and I've mentioned it five or six times already in the last two days.....

....it is a requirement that anyone contributing more than $200 has to give their occupation and employer. They're classified under "Citigroup" because the employer of the individual is Citigroup.

Here in Connecticut, state law requires occupation for contributions over $50 and additionally employer for contributions over $100.

I've been a treasurer for seven campaign committees and have required occupation and employer for every contribution and have not met any resistance. Better safe than sorry.

[Gamecock Lefty]

28. I Have to Tell You . . .

I don’t much care if corporations or lawyers are Hillary’s top two givers. Not do I care if it’s union folks or members of Greenpeace.

It’s a Presidential election and no one is going to win by spending $100. And as much as I don’t want to wallow in the mud like the Republicans, I’ll be damned if I’m going to let them spend money telling lies about the Democratic Party and those in it running for President! That includes Hillary (whom I support) or Bernie or Martin or Jim or Lincoln. I’ll wallow in the mud just to take down the Republicans and I’ll do it gladly!

Next year means another four years in the White House and that means more Supreme Court nominees. It is imperative we move the Court to the left. I like Obama’s choices, but so far, we are replacing moderates with lefties. We need to get rid of the likes of Thomas and Scalia. That’s why it is imperative to keep winning the While House!!!

Long live the lefties!

[retrowire]

32. sorry but im still skeptical...

why must the majority of "private citizens" just happen to work at citigroup? either way, those "private citizens" are representative of that corporation, much like every other top contributor on that list.

fox entertainment? I thought fox supported Republicans.

still seems suspect.

but I do thank you for trying to clarify something. I am a little more enlightened because of this.

[DanTex]

34. It's not the "majority". It's a plurality.

The reason is because Citi is a huge employer in New York State. And private citizens are private citizens, they do not represent their employers when they make political donations. Unless like Mitt Romney you think that there's no distinction between corporations and the people who work for them.

If you look at all contributions from bankers, they total 3.4% of her contributions, a negligible fraction. Less than retirees. Basically the whole meme is a lie.

[retrowire]

39. disregard the separation of employer and company

disregard that for a moment and it's still questionable when compared to Bernie's top contributions.

you say Citibank makes sense as the top contributor for Hillary because she's a new york senator and that's a new york company.

okay, so proximity is why right?

then why is Bernie's top contributor an international union? they've got no proximity to Vermont, I'm sure.

then you say that Citibank is a huge employer of new York citizens.

so proximity isn't really enough reason to debunk this. its still peculiar that many of these "private citizens" that back Hillary just happen to belong to big banks.

This just isn't enough to debunk this meme.

I want to believe this proves that there's nothing to be concerned over because if Hillary wins, I want to be happier about it.

but facts are facts, her top contributor just happens to be a bunch of employees at a major bank. I'm still suspect of that. it could be any company, but why is the majority on that list a group of big banks? this doesn't worry anyone?

[DanTex]

45. Again, bankers are 3.4% of all her contributions. It's a tiny fraction.

Hillary is hugely popular, she raises tons of money from all kinds of people. 3.4% of it comes from bankers. The reason Citi shows up as the top employer is because it is a huge company. And, again, these are contributions from private citizens, not from corporations. The whole thing adds up to nothing.

Bernie doesn't have the same broad appeal as Hillary, and he doesn't have the same fundraising capacity. This is one of the things that makes Hillary a better candidate.

[skepticscott]

54. Not sure why you call them "bankers"

Is everyone who works for Citigroup a "banker"? Are their IT and HR people "bankers"?

[DanTex]

55. Good point. I should say, employees working for financial firms.

They're not all bankers.

[George II]

37. I just noticed something else about that site when considering a comparison....

....between Clinton and Sanders.

The data for Clinton is current (pretty much, maybe a month or two old), the data for Sanders is only through 2014 - months before he began accepting contributions for his Presidential campaign.

[retrowire]

40. it clearly counts through 1989 - 2016 for Bernie.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00000528&cycle=Career

[George II]

44. I mistakenly chose the "elections" option.

[McCamy Taylor]

42. The irony is that once the primary is over, the same folks

will be calling her a socialist who wants to abolish the banking system.

[paulkienitz]

46. Hillary opposes reinstating Glass-Steagal.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247700-adviser-clinton-wont-push-glass-steagall-bank-bill

[DanTex]

48. Interesting non-sequitur. Joe Stiglitz seems to think her economic plan is great, but what does he

know. Still, I'm curious what this all has to do with the 3.4% of her donations that came from employees at banks.

[hrmjustin]

59. Looks like you hit a nerve.

Thank you.

[William769]

61. More like the central nervous system.