Hillary's top Donors are Bankers, not the banks themselves.

[Motown_Johnny]

The meme that this matters needs to be addressed.

It is a distinction without a difference. Bernie's top donors are middle class workers while Hillary's are wealthy bankers.

So all you rich bankers out there reading this, feel free to support Hillary. And all you middle class workers, feel free to support Bernie.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. "Hillary's are wealthy bankers"

Where can you find the average income of a Hillary donor?

[George II]

17. Wealthy or not, they can't contribute more than $2700

[cascadiance]

62. But now they can contribute $2700 to as many candidates that they want...

... and not face overall spending limits that they used to have in place before McCutcheon SCOTUS ruling...

So... A lot more of those rich people's $2700 contributions coming in this time around than before.

[George II]

63. But no more than $2700 to Hillary Clinton

[cascadiance]

64. But those that had many others they wanted to support locally don't have to worry any more...

... about donating to Hillary Clinton too! Cumulatively a lot more of these wealthy people's donations than before, because they can afford to buy as many candidates now as they want!

And through Citizen's United, they still can put money in to non-aligned PACs to spew out a lot of other unaccounted ads against Bernie, etc. too. Corporate media just LOVES that kind of ad spending and also reflecting these ad sentiments in their "news" reporting these days too!

[Motown_Johnny]

53. given the amount of money donated

it is a reasonable assumption.

Besides, do you know any poor bankers?

[Agschmid]

2. Actually according to that chart his top donor is a PAC...

Bernie's top donors are middle class workers while Hillary's are wealthy bankers.

So that doesn't exactly pan out. Now *YES* that money came from union members just like the other money comes from bank employees.

[George II]

16. Union PAC money doesn't necessarily come from union members.

[uponit7771]

3. Yes it does matter, Bernie can easily say that he's not going to take funds from gun makers but

... he's not going to do it..

Hillary can easily say she's not goin to take funds from bankers but she's not

[99Forever]

5. Hmmmmm...

Could you kindly point me to all of the gun makers on the above list?

The banksters are pretty evident.

Thanks

[kath]

25. This is the latest meme they are putting out - Bernie takes money from gun makers.

Digging deeper and deeper and deeper...

[BrotherIvan]

34. Please back up the argument with proof

He has an F rating with the NRA.

[Motown_Johnny]

54. gun makers?

Where the hell did that come from?

[NanceGreggs]

4. Because everyone employed by a bank ...

... is wealthy, right?

[arcane1]

9. It's only when you donate over $200 that they track your job information

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

The organizations listed as "Top Contributors" reached this list for one of two reasons: either they gave through a political action committee sponsored by the organization, or individuals connected with the organization contributed directly to the candidate.

Under federal law, all contributions over $200 must be itemized and the donor's occupation and employer must be requested and disclosed, if provided.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/include/contribmethod_pop.php


I actually do work for a bank, and I barely scrape by month to month. My donation definitely would not reach the threshold to have my job industry included with it

[arcane1]

6. It also doesn't include donations to candidate-supporting Super-PACs

Which, if I'm not mistaken, corporations can donate to.

It's an incomplete picture in many ways, but it's still a picture.

[DanTex]

7. This is also false. Actually her top donors are lawyers, followed by retirees.

Top 5 Industries, 1999 - 2016
Industry Total Indivs PACs
Lawyers/Law Firms $22,949,304 $22,519,309 $429,995
Retired $14,778,093 $14,778,093 $0
Securities & Investment $11,290,074 $11,132,860 $157,214
Real Estate $9,849,956 $9,768,356 $81,600
Women's Issues $7,488,405 $7,432,624 $55,781

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019&type=I

What's true is that the corporations whose employees contributed the most to Clinton are banks. This is because banks are big and have a lot of employees. So when you add up all the contributions from all the employees, the biggest companies show up at the top.

[uponit7771]

8. ah, so this is just a bunch of bullshit. I wished they'd stop, this is so stupid... the attempts to

... tear Hillary down with half truths is telling

[DanTex]

10. Yes, it is. And, no, it's not going to stop.

[uponit7771]

12. Some of it is sounding wingerish in tactics

[Doctor_J]

20. yes, the wingers are all complaining that Clinton is too corporate conservative

[uponit7771]

21. Yeap, on mixed boards this is their meme

[kath]

28. Oh, yes, it's all over the innertubes. It's everywhere!

[George II]

59. Rove-like.

[arcane1]

11. Only contributions above $200 are tracked like that

However much difference that does or doesn't make

[George II]

22. A few things to keep in mind:

That data is for their entire political careers, not just this Presidential Primary campaign.

Yes, banks are big with a lot of employees (Citicorp and 241,000) and many of them are headquartered in New York, where Clinton ran for Senator twice (successfully, I might add).

Good that you point out retirees being her second biggest "employer" category.

Sanders has only run for office in the relatively tiny state of Vermont with about 1/20 the voters of New York, and I don't know of any large banks in Vermont. Nor are there large law firms with many employees OR investment firms.

Finally, rich or not, no one can contribute more than $2700 to either candidate.

[Man from Pickens]

36. Lawyers in this context are largely lobbyist-lawyers

so her top donors are lobbyists, then banks

[DanTex]

37. If you say so. And you left out retirees. Look out for "big retirement", those guys own Hillary!

Seriously, the refusal of the Hillary bashers to live anywhere near planet earth is becoming absurd.

[Man from Pickens]

40. Retired bankers and lawyers count as "retirees"

just another way to hide where political money comes from

[NanceGreggs]

51. Ya know ...

... as soon as I turned 65, I knew they'd come after "Big Retirement".

We've tried to keep our agenda on the down-low, but these young whipper-snappers were bound to catch on sooner or later.

[George II]

60. I have my Social Security check direct-deposited into a "Big Bank".

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. Fact checks

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/

[George II]

61. Not fact checks, just more misleading "fact":

"Clinton’s top 10 cumulative donors between between 1999 and 2016 were, in descending order, Citigroup ($782,327), Goldman Sachs ($711,490), DLA Piper ($628,030), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), EMILY’s List ($605,174) Morgan Stanley ($543,065), Time Warner ($411,296), Skadden Arps ($406,640), Lehman Brothers ($362,853) and Cablevision Systems ($336,288)."

Citigroup did NOT contribute $782,327, their PAC contributed $8,000. EMPLOYEES of Citigroup (of which there are more than 240,000) contributed the remaining $776,000. And so it goes with Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper, JP Morgan Chase, etc.

Remember, she ran for Senate twice in New York, where many of those companies have headquarters or large offices. How many of those companies have headquarters or offices (large or small) in Vermont?

[NYC Liberal]

14. 90% of donations to her campaign have been less than $100.

Yeah, "rich bankers".

[Man from Pickens]

39. That's actually a staggeringly low figure compared to others

I think the last report on another related-to-Goldman-Sachs-by-marriage candidate, Ted Cruz, was 96% small donations. I don't think there's any other candidate except perhaps Jeb Bush who is below 94% or so.

It's a simple function of volume. The top donors are a tiny fraction of the overall population, far less than 1%, so making for 10% of all donations to a candidate is a massively outsized level of support from that segment.

[bobbobbins01]

50. That is such misleading statistic you're throwing around.

If I have a million dollars in donations, and 90% of my donations are less than $100, it sounds great, and probably fools a lot of people(I'm assuming you're not fooled, you're just using the number because its convenient). Because if I only have 10 donations, then 9 of my donors gave $100, and 1 gave $999,100. I wonder which donor would get special treatment out of the bunch?

[eridani]

15. Banksters instead of banks? Imagine my relief!

[840high]

18. Gee - I can sleep tonight.

[SoapBox]

23. Wheww!

[George II]

24. Not "banksters", but tellers, office workers, maintenance workers, etc.

Citicorp has more than 240,000 employees - are they all "banksters"? Hardly.

[eridani]

26. They aren't donating the maximum to super PACs either n/t

[George II]

27. I don't understand your point.

[fbc]

30. These donations are from tellers? C'mon, that's not realistic.

lol

[George II]

32. See post just below mine.

[kenfrequed]

56. Ok...

So break this down for me.

How Exactly, is this money by "citibank employees" being donated and who exactly in citibank is fronting the funds.

I'm sorry, but there is no way that you are going to convince me that this is a benign donation by bank tellers. This is campaign funding pure and simple in an effort to assure status quo politics for the banks. If you expect me to believe otherwise you must think me to be rather simple.

[George II]

57. You will have to go through the details of the itemized contributions - it's on file, but......

.......I'm not going to go find it for you.

[kenfrequed]

58. Well...

I think I'm just going to make the safe assumption when a bunch of bankers throws money at a candidate that they are hoping to influence policy.

Otherwise we have to let just about every donation made to the republicans off the hook as well and neither of us are willing to do that.

[pnwmom]

29. Is a middle manager a "bankster"? Is a teller?

My cousin works at a bank as a loan officer and makes a middling salary. She was one of the many who gave a small donation to Hillary.
Not because she works at a bank but because she likes Hillary.

But she has to list her employer on the form, so it appears that she's a "bankster."

So ridiculous.

[eridani]

33. And how does her donation amount compare to Jamie Dimon's? n/t

[pnwmom]

35. That's my point. These figures are lumping in $50 donors like my cousin with "banksters" like Dimons

It makes no sense.

If people are under the impression that low level employees of these corporations are being pressured to give, that's not correct. My husband and other relatives have worked at large corporations, and they've never been told (or even suggested) who to vote for.

[Chan790]

41. Actually your cousin isn't being counted with the bankers...

your occupation is only tracked if you donate in excess of $200. As a $50 donor, she's not being counted in that chart...nor are the 90%+ of donors to either Sanders or Clinton that donated less than $100. Most likely, neither is your husband or other relatives.

A better way of putting it is the largest employment sector of her major donors is bankers. Those major donors don't need to be told who to vote for to advance the agenda of their employer...they're generally not working-class employees. As an executive of a company and as someone whose family fortunes come from defense manufacturing...I already know which candidate is tied hand-to-wallet to my economic and professional interests. (It's ironically the one I've vowed to never support.)

[pnwmom]

42. I don't think of $200 donors as major donors either, do you? n/t

[eridani]

47. No. Do bank tellers dislike Glass-Steagall?

I'm betting that the ones who have given any thought to the matter approve of it. Dimon doesn't.

[pnwmom]

48. I doubt that most have thought about it. If you polled US voters most would have little idea

what those words referred to -- even most lower level bank employees.

[eridani]

49. Very true--most people are not policy wonks and don't follow politics

But I think there is a general awareness that banks fucked the economy in 2008 and have suffered few consequences. Traditional deposit-taking banks employ way more people than the gamblers anyway.

[brooklynite]

55. Actually that's not true...

...while the regulations don't REQUIRE collection of employer/occupation data for amounts under $50, the campaigns all collect it because it's easier to use the same reporting software for both. If you go to Clinton's or Sanders' website, you'll fill out the same form no matter what contribution amount you select.

[Phlem]

38. Honestly,

I had the counter clerk, I think it was McDonald's, trying to convince me the banks are getting ripped off. Seriously. I kept it to myself because it was quite evident, nothing else was going to penetrate this man's skull, cept a McRib. But yea, yikes!!

[Doctor_J]

19. I posted that already

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=442731

[Thinkingabout]

31. Way to go, Hillary, her fund is doing very well, we will need more.

[mwooldri]

43. I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with bankers.

That sums up my feelings about certain bankers.

As for donors to Hillary vs Bernie - as long as both are getting the vast bulk of their money from their grassroots supporters then it's probably okay.

[moondust]

44. Chancres. n/t

[mwooldri]

45. lol ;) nt

[Motown_Johnny]

52. You don't think the objectives of wealthy Bankers

is different than that of middle class workers?


As far as being okay, I am not implying anything improper. It just illustrates the different policies which would be pursued by each if elected President.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. What is the city but the people?

-- Shakespeare, Coriolanus

By extension, what are the Banks but the Bankers?

And: what is America but the American people?

There is no difference between saying that the banks are trying to fuck over America (or Greece or Spain or Italy or Portugal) or that the bankers are trying to fuck over the American people (or the Greek people or the Spanish people or the Italian people or the Portuguese people).

Artificial persons make lousy humans. It's no wonder they don't understand the philosophy of humanism. Unfortunately, those real persons, the ones who hide behind their corporate logos, identify with artificial persons and don't care about humans and don't understand humanism. Of course, I'm talking about people like Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd and others, but, unfortunately, many of their underlings as well.

Perhaps this is why they're giving money to Mrs. Clinton. Let her defend the bastards who torpedoed the world economy in 2008 and give her money now. Let her defend how Goldman Sachs helped crooked politicians in Greece hide the nations liabilities, turn around and start betting in the Wall Street casinos against Greece's ability to repay. Hey, it's just business. At least, that's what they call business these days. When I was growing up, it was called a criminal racket.

[azmom]

65. Corporations are people my friend. Romney 2012