"People in the fossil fuel industry have contributed $203,885 to Sanders’s campaign,

[ucrdem]

according to OpenSecrets.org." So quoth the Intercept which I believe is very friendly to Bernie:

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/01/bernie-sanders-took-money-from-the-fossil-fuel-lobby-too-just-not-much/

I suppose we could say that Bernie's "future to believe in" looks a lot like Hillary's, only smaller.

[beam me up scottie]

1. LMAO! Read the entire article.

A GREENPEACE ACTIVIST confronted Hillary Clinton during a campaign stop Thursday: “Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject fossil fuel money in the future from your campaign?”

Clinton replied angrily: “I have money from people who have worked for fossil fuel companies. I have never … I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I am sick of it.”


The Clinton camp later issued an explanatory statement, concluding that the “simple truth is that this campaign has not taken a dollar from oil and gas industry PACs or corporations.”

The Bernie Sanders campaign countered by pointing to a Greenpeace tally that says she has collected “$1,259,280 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry.”

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 Clinton’s campaign.

Sanders, by contrast, has signed a pledge to reject fossil fuel dollars.

But Sanders, too, is apparently accepting money from the fossil fuel lobby. According to an Intercept examination of online records of lobbyist disclosure of political contributions, the Sanders campaign took in $24 from Nathen Causman, a lobbyist for the LNE Group, whose clients include American Municipal Power Inc.

[ucrdem]

3. Evidently Mr. Causman has a lot of company.

[beam me up scottie]

5. Yes all of his fellow lobbyists donated to Clinton. Millions of dollars to his $24.

[ucrdem]

7. A quarter mil isn't chump change. nt

[beam me up scottie]

8. The lobbyist donated $24, not "a quarter mil".

[ucrdem]

9. And his fossil fuel industry friends contributed another $203,861.00. nt

[beam me up scottie]

10. Employees aren't lobbyists. $24 vs $1,259,280. You're not an it-getter, are you?

[ucrdem]

12. Who said they were? And the fact remains that Clinton has not taken a dollar from any fossil fuel

industry PAC or corporation. So you can put the pitchfork back in the barn.

[beam me up scottie]

13. You did when you compared donations from employees to those from lobbyists.

And stop spinning, no one is buying that "argument":

The central dispute between the two camps, then, appears to be about the volume of money Clinton gets from or through fossil fuel lobbyists.

...

The Clinton camp later issued an explanatory statement, concluding that the “simple truth is that this campaign has not taken a dollar from oil and gas industry PACs or corporations.”

The Bernie Sanders campaign countered by pointing to a Greenpeace tally that says she has collected “$1,259,280 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry.”

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 Clinton’s campaign. [/dog]

[ucrdem]

14. No, I simply pointed out that Bernie gets considerable $$ from people in the fossil fuel industry.

Does that bother you?

[beam me up scottie]

15. Spinning bothers me, that's why I posted the facts in your thread.

Greenpeace tally that says she has collected “$1,259,280 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry.”

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 Clinton’s campaign.

[ucrdem]

21. Try spinning in the other direction.

A nap can also be helpful.

[fun n serious]

2. Except Hillary is not running a PURITY campaign

This is getting weirder everyday..

[jillan]

4. Giving 3.25 million to her super pac Priorities USA is not the same as

direct contributions from employees.

Is that really so hard to understand

[beam me up scottie]

6. I don't know if they can't understand it or if they think we can't.

Notice how they never post excerpts just bits and pieces.

[uponit7771]

11. But a damn white bird landed on his podium!! What do you people think that means!?!? /sarcasm

[ucrdem]

16. I think it was nature's way of telling him to stop tweeting.

[uponit7771]

18. lol

[Cha]

17. BS the hypocrite..

thank you, ucr~

[uponit7771]

19. +1

[ucrdem]

20. LOL, now that's a graphic that ought to go viral.

Love it!

backatcha Cha!

[Cha]

23. There's more truths..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=87643

[mhatrw]

22. If Hillary would only agree to speak to them pro bono for about 45 minutes,

Bernie could return this entire amount.

[lostnfound]

24. Seriously? What an absolute joke.

So laughable I thought it was a parody.

Hillary could be doing the country a big favor and gain some respect if she just came out and said "yes I take big contributions from lobbyists, that's how the game has been played for decades."

Telling the truth about it would be a real public service.