2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's top Donors are Bankers, not the banks themselves.
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
(30,439 posts)Where can you find the average income of a Hillary donor?
George II
(67,782 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... 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
(67,782 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... 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
(22,308 posts)it is a reasonable assumption.
Besides, do you know any poor bankers?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)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
(67,782 posts)uponit7771
(90,370 posts)... 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
(14,524 posts)Could you kindly point me to all of the gun makers on the above list?
The banksters are pretty evident.
Thanks
kath
(10,565 posts)Digging deeper and deeper and deeper...
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)He has an F rating with the NRA.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Where the hell did that come from?
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)... is wealthy, right?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)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
(38,613 posts)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
(20,709 posts)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
(90,370 posts)... tear Hillary down with half truths is telling
DanTex
(20,709 posts)uponit7771
(90,370 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)uponit7771
(90,370 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)However much difference that does or doesn't make
George II
(67,782 posts)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
(1,713 posts)so her top donors are lobbyists, then banks
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Seriously, the refusal of the Hillary bashers to live anywhere near planet earth is becoming absurd.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)just another way to hide where political money comes from
NanceGreggs
(27,820 posts)... 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
(67,782 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)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
(20,138 posts)Yeah, "rich bankers".
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)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
(1,681 posts)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
(51,907 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Citicorp has more than 240,000 employees - are they all "banksters"? Hardly.
eridani
(51,907 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)fbc
(1,668 posts)lol
George II
(67,782 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)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
(67,782 posts).......I'm not going to go find it for you.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)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
(109,020 posts)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
(51,907 posts)pnwmom
(109,020 posts)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
(20,176 posts)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
(109,020 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)I'm betting that the ones who have given any thought to the matter approve of it. Dimon doesn't.
pnwmom
(109,020 posts)what those words referred to -- even most lower level bank employees.
eridani
(51,907 posts)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
(94,851 posts)...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.
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
(36,392 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)mwooldri
(10,303 posts)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
(20,018 posts)mwooldri
(10,303 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)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
(45,984 posts)-- 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.