Hillary donor fact check part 2: bankers account for 3.4% of her campaign contributions.

[DanTex]

Last edited Mon Jul 13, 2015, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Also, bankers are not the largest source of campaign donations to Hillary Clinton. The largest source are lawyers. Followed by retirees. Securities and Investment is 3rd. Yes, retired people contributed more to Hillary than all those evil banksters that supposedly own her. Maybe the new Hillary bashing meme should be that she's owned by "big retirement".

And just how much have bankers donated to her?
$11M from 1999 through 2016.
That's $11M out of a total of $328M, or about 3.4%.


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

The bashers, of course, never show this chart that totals it up by industry. Why? Because banks are big, and have lots of employees, so when you total contributions by employer, they show up at the top. And if you want to bash Hillary and don't have the least interest in honesty, that's the best way to make her look bad.

[HooptieWagon]

1. Is she still taking money from the Koch brothers?

They did fund the DLC.

[Agschmid]

2. Boycott this...

Koch Products & Companies Include:

- Angel Soft
- Angel Soft Ultra
- Brawny paper towels
- Dixie cups (& napkins & plates)
- Insulair cups
- Perfect Touch cups, paper products
- Quilted Northern
- Sparkle paper towels
- Stainmaster
- Vanity Fair napkins & paper towels
- Mardis Gras napkins
- Zee Napkins
- Georgia Pacific products



Home/Office papers:
- Advantage
- Image Plus
- Spectrum

Other:
- American Greetings
(Kochs own minority
share)
- Guardian Glass
(Kochs own 44%)
- Stainmaster
- Lycra
- Teflon

Building supplies:
- Georgia Pacific

[NCTraveler]

15. That's not as easy as typing and complaining about evil progressives. nt.

[DanTex]

3. So does this mean you're giving up on the "Hillary is owned by bankers" lie?

You've found a new angle for bashing her? Progress!

[London Lover Man]

5. She is *OWNED* by the Wall Street

There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. Goldman Sachs tells Hillary to "jump" - she asks "how high?". Average man asks Hillary to "jump" - she asks "Where's my contribution?"

[DanTex]

6. 3.4% "owned" by Wall Street, to be precise...

[London Lover Man]

7. Bankers?

Lawyers (also can be lobbyists), lobbyists, investment bankers, hedge fund managers, principals, CEO's, CFO's.. look them all up.

You'll get the number you're looking for (pretty close)... so your debunk is debunked.

[DanTex]

20. LOL. The true numbers don't tell the story you want, so you "unskew" them.

Why does this seem all so familiar?

[JaneyVee]

11. I noticed labor unions like IBEW and Plumbers gave her $$$ also.

But her critics won't count that as "owning".

[HooptieWagon]

8. They're bffs.

Hillary and Lloyd: Such a cute couple.
[img][/img]
Blankfein, BTW, is under scrutiny for Goldman Sachs helping Greece hide their national debt from the EU, in the process greatly increasing it.

It's about time a Socialist Jew chased the money-changers out of the temple.

[HooptieWagon]

9. I hope Henry isn't jealous...

...nope, doesn't appear to be.
[img][/img]

[madokie]

36. He's on the march,Better yet We are on the march

gaining backups as continue on forward.
Priority number one is exactly that, chasing the money-grubbers out of the temple

[uponit7771]

4. But wingerish lies about Hillary and Wall Street sound so much better than the truth dammit /sacarsm

[NanceGreggs]

10. Minds are already made up.

Please do not attempt to confuse them with facts.

[SunSeeker]

12. K & R

[Report1212]

13. Not sure if you realize this but uh

This isnt how you calculate how much influence an industry has over a politician, from what you posted they were the 3rd largest source of her cash and pooling is how interests create their money

but gg well played

[DanTex]

14. Interesting. Because the Hillary bashers don't seem to mind using this method when they post that

other completely misleading chart and repeat the outright lie that Hillary's largest donors are banks.

The fact is, only 3.4% of her money came from bankers. A negligible portion. The entire "Hillary is funded by banksters" meme is simply wrong. Like most anti-Hillary memes.

[RiverLover]

16. FACT: You are omitting her Super PACs and dark money...where the big $$$ comes in play.

The Clintons and Their Banker Friends
May 9, 2015

<SNIP of excellent, well-researched article. Riveting, please read if you have time>

conclusion~

In her brief 2008 candidacy, all four of the New York-based Big Six banks ranked among her top 10 corporate donors. They have also contributed to the Clinton Foundation. She needs them to win, just as both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton did.

No matter what spin is used for campaigning purposes, the idea that a critical distance can be maintained between the White House and Wall Street is naïve given the multiple channels of money and favors that flow between the two. It is even more improbable, given the history of connections that Hillary Clinton has established through her associations with key bank leaders in the early 1990s, during her time as a senator from New York, and given their contributions to the Clinton foundation while she was secretary of state. At some level, the situation couldn’t be less complicated: her path aligns with that of the country’s most powerful bankers. If she becomes president, that will remain the case.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/05/09/clintons-banker-friends/

Also, see this article on hiding the identity of campaign "bundlers"~

Hillary Clinton Isn't Ready to Disclose Who's Funding Her Campaign
Her campaign isn't saying whether it will reveal the bundlers who are raising huge sums of money.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-bundler-disclosure-campaign-finance

[DanTex]

17. If the Hillary bashers drop the false "Hillary's top campaign donors are banks" meme,

and move on to conspiracy theories, that will be a first step, I guess.

Oh, and the fact that your "well-researched" article repeats the very same misleading meme (complete with a link to the open-secrets chart, but conveniently ignoring the overall tabulation by industry that shows that the portion of her donors from banks is negligible) doesn't give me much confidence in its accuracy.

[RiverLover]

18. You are being naive.

Or something.

[DanTex]

19. I am posting actual numbers. And doing division. Maybe the problem is that Hillary bashers are

arithmetically challenged. Come to think of it, that would explain a lot. Because otherwise, I can't imagine why anyone of sound mind would think that an industry whose employees contributed 3.4% of Hillary's campaign donations somehow "owns" her.

[RiverLover]

21. Do you really not realize Super PACs exist for the purpose of hiding the identity of donors?

Why do you think so many of us are opposed to Citizens United? Dark money is the term used because donors names are kept in the dark.

I'd "bash" Bernie if he used them too, but he doesn't.

There's a reason Clinton's super PAC fundraising irks progressives

By MJ Lee, CNN Politics and Finance Reporter

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/18/politics/hillary-clinton-super-pac-election-2016/

[DanTex]

22. Sure, but its pure conspiratorial speculation that it's big banks that are funding her SuperPACs.

Given that only a tiny fraction of her campaign contributions come from banks, the only reason to believe that is for the sake of Hillary-bashing.

We're getting into a common pattern. Attacks on Hillary that try to have a basis in fact falter. But rather than revising their views, the Hillary bashers keep with the same attack, but change it up so it becomes an unverifiable conspiracy theory.

For example, the recent AFT dust-up. At first the accusation was that AFT went against the will of their membership. But this is provably false, since a poll was conducted and AFT members overwhelmingly support Hillary. So then it changed to some kind of conspiracy where the polling or the timing was manipulated. It couldn't possibly just be that AFT supported a candidate that its membership overwhelmingly likes and that has a perfect voting record on teachers' issues and that has had a close relationship with AFT her entire career. That's way too logical.

This is similar. The original attack was that banks were her biggest donors. This is provably false. Then it evolved to bankers, not banks, are her biggest donors. But this is also provably false. So now we're on to banks are the biggest donors to her SuperPACs, speculation which can't be proved or disproved, though it seems highly unlikely given the rest of the evidence.

[RiverLover]

23. You haven't "proven" anything. We don't know how many bankers contribute to her super pacs.

And its naive to think that the huge $ paid for speeches at banks & the huge amounts given to her foundation weren't given for influence. Its also not quantifiable by design. You want to keep the status quo of Moneyed Interests controlling our elected officials, you vote for Hillary. It appears most people are fooled by the subterfuge as well. But it isn't a conspiracy theory when its actually happening. They're just crafty enough to figure out ways to work the system.

And it will continue with the help of enablers like you.

[davidpdx]

24. I agree

Those who vote for the status quo, get the status quo. It's sad to hear Democrats excuse PAC money, but that's exactly what we are seeing on DU.

[DanTex]

25. I've proven that there's no factual basis for the accusations that Hillary is mostly funded by banks

Like I said, there will always be conspiratorial allegations against Hillary. Nothing can be done about that. Whitewater, Vince Foster, Benghazi, emailgate, etc. Conspiracy theories can't be proven or disproven. That's the whole idea. I also can't disprove that Hillary is being remotely controlled by aliens.

As far as the speeches, a lot of people are on the speaking tour. The Hillary bashing here reminds of something that happened to Paul Krugman. He also does paid appearances, and once he was payed to speak at an event that was organized by Enron, so naturally the right seized on that to paint him as somehow involved or complicit with the Enron fraud, or hypocritical when criticizing Enron-style financial practices.

Hillary, of course, speaks at a lot of different venues. For example, $275K for speaking at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. $265K for speaking at the Massachusetts Conference for Women. Tech companies seem to be the most common locales for Clinton speeches, according to the list below. But of course, to the Hillary-bashers on the right, they pretend it's just bank-to-bank-to-bank, to try and smear her like they did Paul Krugman.
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-all-the-six-figure-speaking-fees-that-hillary-clinton-received-after-leaving-the-state-dept-2015-5

[virtualobserver]

27. So this $2 billion plus in Hillary's SuperPACS that supposedly make her the only one.....

who can stand up to the Republicans.

Is that coming from retirees?

Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, for god's sake..... has fundraised for Clinton.

But.....it is a wacky conspiracy to think that Wall St. money isn't pouring into her SuperPACS

It is not a conspiracy, it is called a clue.

[DanTex]

28. I'm sure some of it comes from finance. About 3.4% maybe, similar to her past donors.

You're right that her fundraising is one of the things that makes her the only one who can beat the GOP this time around. I often wonder how many of the people complaining about her fundraising ability simply want the GOP to win.

[virtualobserver]

29. or maybe a whole heck of a lot more

this is why Hillary is not my candidate

She likes the invisible money system....


You often wonder that, do you? That anyone who challenges the idea of the wealthy pumping obscene dollars into our elections....secretly wants the GOP to win?

[DanTex]

30. Or maybe a heck of a lot less.

The good thing is, she actually has fundraising capacity, which is unfortunately necessary in order to compete with the GOP, thanks to Citizens United.

Losing the elections while refusing to take PAC money will do nothing to change the system. Hillary is dead-set against Citizens United, she's made that clear. And, yes, I can't think of any reason why someone would want the Democrats to kneecap themselves financially other than that they want to see the GOP in the White House. Certainly not people who want campaign finance reform, because the GOP is sure not going to deliver that.

[virtualobserver]

31. if she wins with this system, why would she change it. She wouldn't.

Winning the election while refusing to take PAC money will change it.

[DanTex]

32. She would change it because she feels that the system is a bad one.

She has made that crystal clear. She thinks Citizens United is horrible and would appoint justices to overturn it. She even said she would support a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

But she's not dumb enough to bring a knife to a gunfight, get grossly outspent by the GOP, and lose the presidency. Because she understands that losing will accomplish nothing. The way to change is by winning elections, not losing them. You don't have to like the rules to play by them.

[virtualobserver]

33. time will tell n/t

[kenfrequed]

42. No, he isn't.

He isn't being naive, he is being intentionally obtuse. There is a difference.

[madokie]

37. Hey Dan

Hillary will never be the President. You can take that to the bank. There will be no President Hillary Clinton

I live in a bastion of 'CONs and guess what? 3 out of 4 of the ones I've talked to has told me that they are looking at voting for Bernie Sanders, Surprised me too but there it is.
That three out of four is a quiet a few people too, (as I'm a talkative kind of guy whose never met a stranger,) if it holds across the board as I'm sure it will Hillary hasn't a jim inhofe's snowballs chance in hell.
Hillary Clinton is not one of us, us being the 99%'rs, Bernie is


Get used to it! President Bernie Sanders

[DanTex]

40. Anecdotal evidence for Bernie. Keep it coming. Because there sure isn't any statistical evidence

to support your case.

[madokie]

41. Whatever you think

If it makes you happy to support a person who does not have our best interest at heart more power to you. My world won't allow me to do that kind of thinking, sorry

[Thinkingabout]

26. Hillary has proven she can raise money, a campaign fund has to

large in order to get through the campaign. Yes, she is having many giving and will have more donations in the future. She is well liked and is laying out her plan, building a business plan to achieve her plan.

[Android3.14]

34. Just reinforces my view that she is compromised

securities and investment = $11,000,000.
You poo-poo this, saying, it's only 3.4 percent, but the truth is that her voting record speaks stronger than 3.4 percent.

She supports the TPP, opposes Glass Steagal, and has never-ever-ever lead the way on progressive legislation.

Damaged goods.

'Nuf said.

[DanTex]

38. It's 3.4%. It's a tiny fraction.

Hillary has broad appeal and raises a lot of money from a lot of different kinds of people. That's a good thing. It's why she'll be able to withstand the GOP attack machine (that and not saying things like "I'm a socialist&quot . To claim that she's somehow "owned" by banks because 3.4% of her contributions come from employees who work in the financial sector is simply absurd. If the banks are trying to bribe her, they are failing miserably. They are even behind retirees when it comes to contributions.

If you want to talk about her voting record, then talk about her voting record. She has a strong record of standing by progressive causes. Just now Joe Stiglitz has chimed in in support of her economic platform. But what does he know, he's just a nobel-prize winning liberal economist. Maybe you should write him about the 3.4% of her donations that came from bank employees.

[Android3.14]

46. Let's compare her to another Banker Buddy

Only 3.4 %, and therefore she is clean? i think not.
Please allow me to direct your attention to this: Banker Boy Romney's contributers
Romney's total raised $446,135,997
Amount from securities and Investment $23,047,500

Romney percentage of total is 5.1 % compared to Clinton's 3.4% a difference of 1.7%

If Romney was working for Wall Street at 5.1%, then Clinton is certainly working for it at 3.4%.

"It's only 3.4%" is a poor response at best. Her record speaks for itself, and, I repeat, she has never ever ever lead on any progressive legislation.

The banks bought her just as much as they bought Romney.

[Capn Sunshine]

39. I hate to be the one to break this to you, because I wish it weren't so

But Hillary is reflecting some majority viewpoints here. I've fought this fight from the inside for a long time. Progressive views are still a minority viewpoint of the public, even after all the total screwing over we've gotten from the Republicans.

What' I've learned from this is that most voters are low-info voters. I know the hardest part with progressives is counseling patience of any kind, and dog knows how we've suffered, but the nature of politics in this country is incremental. People just aren't awake enough to consider progressive viewpoints because it requires critical thought, a trait the majority lacks.

Backing Bernie Sanders is a necessity at this point, just to articulate the progressive viewpoint into mainstream politics. Please review Hillary's speech on the economy. I guarantee it wouldn't have sounded this progressive 5 years ago.

And let me remind you how far we've come in the past 10 years. And how far we have to go.

[Android3.14]

45. Hilaries speech on the economy was a zero sum

It meant nothing without specifics.

[Capn Sunshine]

35. aside from the obscene amounts needed these days in a campaign

we should be worrying about Jeb's gigantic stash. Eyes on the prize, kids.

[ieoeja]

43. For people who don't like clicking on links, more from that site.

Top 5 Contributors, 1999 - 2016
Citigroup Inc $782,327
Goldman Sachs $711,490
DLA Piper $628,030
JPMorgan Chase & Co
EMILY's List $605,174

[DanTex]

44. I covered that in part 1 of the debunking, but thanks for the kick.

All Dems need to stand up against these right-wing smears against Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251442602

[Capn Sunshine]

47. I Know DU hates to hear about it, but there are several stealth "Left" sites

All designed to appeal to progressives, with an undercurrent of Hillary hate. The idea is to create just enough division in the party to create "protest" voters- those who will "sit it out". This combined with fresh voter repression techniques and the time honored "They are all the same" meme which has been in play since the early 1970s, can get them close enough to steal another election.

There are several huge fallacies in this approach, conditions that did not exist in 2000. Or 2004.
See if you can guess what they are?