2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPolitifact: Hillary Did Get Money From the Fossil Fuel Industry
Super PACs supporting Clinton have directly given an additional $25,701. Sanders does not have a super PAC.
But in Clintons case, that doesn't include "bundlers," a fancy name for fundraisers who collect money from individual donors and bundle the money together for a campaign.
The Huffington Post article from July 17, 2015, cited by Sanders found that "nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clintons campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry." It links to 40 registered lobbyists but only offers details on some donors who still work for the industry.
However, the Greenpeace report says that when you add in the bundlers donations (lobbyists with some alleged tie to the fossil fuel industry), Clinton's total rises to nearly $1.8 million.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/
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.)
Heres just a partial list of the fossil fuelfriendly bundlers who raised money for Clinton from April through June:
ExxonMobil executive Theresa Mary Fariello raised $21,200. ExxonMobil is the worlds 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 EPAs Clean Power Plan to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, the centerpiece of President Obamas 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. Tonys brother John is Clintons 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. Heathers recent past clients include Marathon Oil and Bill Kochs 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 Hillarys top fundraisers, Gordon Giffin, is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company pushing to build the Keystone XL pipeline.
Thats just a sampling. As the Huffington Post reports, Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clintons campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/hillary-clinton-rakes-in-money-from-fossil-fuel-interests/
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)They will ignore the superPAC and lobbyists and laserbeam on the individual employees.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)AFTER he signed a pledge not to take such money...the hypocrisy is astounding.
elias7
(4,021 posts)300K for her, 50K for him...not the millions that the liars want you to believe
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He received $24 from a lobbyist, is that what you meant?
TM99
(8,352 posts)The issue is about industry lobbyist funneling big funds through SuperPAC's to the Clinton campaign in a quid pro quo fashion. It is not about 'individual contributors' who just happen to work in those industries.
This would be like saying that since I am a psychologist and have contributed to the Sanders campaign that ALL psychologists are supporting Sanders. The APA and other professional organizations are doing so just because I did, and I am a member of those organizations.
For those of lesser intelligence the fallacies are convincing. That is why it is called rhetoric, and that is why her campaign officials are using it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The same thing with the millions she received from Wall Street, how are we supposed to believe her when she says she'll take them on?
TM99
(8,352 posts)exactly what she told big banking. Cut it out!!!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Money doesn't mean influence, she was probably taking about gender equality in the workplace, and my personal favourite: it's sexist to want her to take less for her speeches!!!
amborin
(16,631 posts)Billsmile
(404 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Additionally, Greenpeace found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, the main Super PAC backing Clintons campaign.
amborin
(16,631 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)It is astounding that I read a claim that Bernie received $50k in contributions, so he is hypoctitical to criticize Hillary's commitment to Leaving All Carbon Energy Sources In The Ground.
I hate to be a "Bernie Purist", but the fossil fuel industry may have already destroyed the planet beyond repair for human existence. The only question is not IF mankind will survive, but whether HOW MANY DECADES we have until the extinction of homosapiens.
Hillary's prior enthusiasm for global fracking, in addition to massive financial support from the fossil fuel criminal cartel make it impossible for me to consider giving her my vote.
Pardon my lack of enthusiasm for Hillary's feminist bona fides, but the millennials may be the final generation that grows old enough to make the decision about whether to give birth.
The bulk of the Democratic Party is guilty of sacrificing our global ecology to massive fossil fuel profits, in exchange for campaign contributions ever since Reagan removed the solar panels that Jimmy Carter installed on the White House.
How can Hillary Clinton, or any of her supporters (or surrogates), even to pretend there is a good faith question about her massive meltdown in response to the "Greenpeace" questioner?
I am genuinely baffled that any "environmentalist democrat" can support Hillary Clinton.