paying lip service to things we care about.

Where did this originate?

I am getting a kick out of the folks saying this is just a smear campaign. It isn't. Ms. Clinton is damaged goods.

Many would rather come to their opinions and decisions based purely on feelings and emotions.

That means that those amounts came from INDIVIDUAL (limited at around $2,000 per person) donors at those companies. Not from the companies themselves. The line that says PACs, that is the money that the actual company donated to PACs.

Hillary raised $45 million for the first quarter of 2015. 91% of that money came from donations of $100 or less.

The graphic you posted is a widely debunked piece of propaganda, trying to smear Hillary. It's been posted again and again over the past few months. Try again next time.

with individual donors from major corporation.

There's a reason why that data is collected: it's relevant.

you disclose your employer. It's not gaming the system. It's the way it works.

Do you see the pattern here?

from 2008 to Bernie's senate campaign around the same time?

People work for different companies. The majority of those that work for financial firms are not big money. If you want to vilify them, you can. I chose to take the high road, and refrain from smearing any of our Dem candidates (with the exception of Lincoln "Privatize Social Security" Chaffee).

Come from employees at investment banking firms?

Anything odd about that to you?

Or are major employers there.

Nah can't be it.

That may be true, but I'm certain that the majority making those donations are medium money. Do you think it's just coincidence that the highest individual totals are from banks? Are banks the largest employer in the nation (I actually don't know)? Or is it investment bankers making $200k+ a year thinking nothing of throwing $2000 to a candidate that supports their industry? Sure it's not the billionaire class but it is the millionaire class.

working for those few big firms a problem for those of us who oppose Citizens United.

she supports towards killing my industry to help them make more money (by pushing for allowing even more H1Bs)

The data in the image above includes all doations from 1999 to 2016 election cycle.
Take those numbers and subtract te numbers below.
Still notice that Hillary accepted quite a bit of money from Wall St.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019

EMILY's List $541,239
DLA Piper $496,700
JPMorgan Chase & Co $446,479
Goldman Sachs $407,850
Citigroup Inc $401,217
Morgan Stanley $374,830
University of California $273,756
Lehman Brothers $253,753
Skadden, Arps et al $220,310
National Amusements Inc $219,304
Merrill Lynch $194,109
21st Century Fox $193,500
Greenberg Traurig LLP $192,800
PricewaterhouseCoopers $191,900
Microsoft Corp $184,119
Time Warner $177,956
Kirkland & Ellis $177,741
Ernst & Young $161,150
General Electric $157,621
Cablevision Systems $154,063

She was the Senator from NEW YORK--not Idaho. Not Vermont, either--a state where there are fewer people in the entire state than the city of Boston.

Bet she doesn't have a lot of dairy farmers or maple syrup producers on her list, either.

Do you see a pattern THERE?

We would need to see what the names of the individuals who gave the money are to know to what extent this is a problem.

The "small donor" line is a hoot!

you said:

"Hillary raised $45 million for the first quarter of 2015. 91% of that money came from donations of $100 or less. "

The truth is

"91% of Clinton's donations were $100 or less" (source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising-45-million-in-primary-money/ )

Those are very, very, very different things.


We need more numbers, but at this point, those under $100 donations might have made up only 10% of her total for all we know.

91% of those donations are $100 or less. Seeing as max donation amount is just north of $2,000...

That's just math.

You originally said "91% of that money". I point out that it is 91% of the donations.


I'm not a mathematician, but I do not believe you can accurately speculate on percentage of her $45 million total that came from donations under $100. I believe we need the total number of donations for that equation.

And I do not think that the 5200 limit helps us with a guesstimate here since part of that $45 million may have come from super-pacs.

... (if you are a Super PAC or the Koch Bros., it;s WAAAAY more like an INVESTMENT than a DONATION, but I digress,) I believe that ANY and ALL monies accepted by political campaigns are termed "donations", whether they come from a PAC or an individual.

Keep in mind that more than just bankers and brokers work for financial institutions.

... for tellers & janitors and ... ? Wanna bet that it's reasonably close to ZERO?

Could you please point us to an unbiased source that debunks this information?

It gets tiring posting it over and over, because the graphic keeps popping back up.

It also depends on what one's definition of "debunked" is.

If posting a link to defend your candidate is too difficult, then perhaps it is time to reconsider your candidate.
Bernie Sanders makes me feel

DU doesn't navigate well on my phone.

There's a lot of good info in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026506869
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6610245

It's about framing. The dollar amounts are correct, but the way people interpret this graphic is wrong. Individual donations from people (Hillary represented NY, where most of those companies reside) are not representative of a particular companies beliefs. That is, they are NOT an endorsement by a corporation. Bernie represented VT. A LOT smaller than NY. Bernie is also only NOW in a national election, not state elections like he has before. This is Hillary's second national. There's a lot of money involved.

Do we need campaign finance reform? Yes. But vilifying a candidate because they have an ability to raise the necessary funds, and because a lot of individual donations came from employees of a corporation is dishonest at best.

"debunked" the notion that Hillary's support comes from very different sources than Bernie's sources? I see none that did that.

It's up to you to discern it. I'm not gonna spend 20 minutes searching different keywords (because there are a bunch of different ways to find this, including click bait headlines) to find the (at least) 100 times this graphic has been posted and find every word.

Like I said, it's about framing. The problem with comparing these 2 in this manner is that it's apples and oranges. One is a high-profile former Senator from the populous state of NY who (when these numbers were tallied) already had a national election under her belt. The other is a low-profile (as of the time that these numbers were tallied) from the small state of VT who has no national election (as of the time, again) under his belt. Of course Hillary's numbers are going to be higher, and of course she'll have Wall Street donors, most of her campaigns were NT state elections, you know... Where Wall Street is.


A better comparison is the first quarter totals. $45 million for Hillary. 91% of donations were under $100.

that claim. I've looked at something around 150 posts at your first link and not a one debunks the chart.

Higher numbers is not the issue at all. Source of funds is the issue. I take you point about state v. national, but I've been to Vermont. There are banks there, too.

Floating the notion that the only reasons Hillary has Wall Street donors almost exclusively is that she was from New York is just silly. We all know that is not the reason.

Never did I say that that link debunked anything.

This is a graphic that someone made that is using real data, OUT OF CONTEXT from opensecrets.org. The numbers are (were, they're outdated now) correct, but the framing (once again) is wrong.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019&type=I
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000528&type=I

Bernie and Hillary both had "Retired" as a top donor. Bernie received just over a million, whereas Hillary pulled in over 14 million. It's really NY vs VT, not Hillary vs Sanders.

Look at ALL the data, don't just cherry pick (which is what this graphic is).

Wall Street is not all there is to it. Really.

Retired is a top donor but not the top donor

Hillary's top three categories (which accounts for about half of the money) of donors are:

1. Lawyers/Law Firms
2. Retired
3. Securities & Investment

Bernie's are:

1. Retired
2. Democratic/Liberal
3. Industrial Unions

OpenSecrets.org, where this originated.

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019&type=I

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

Or maybe there's a great reason all the file clerks and messengers and janitors who love Hillary are at places like Goldman Sachs while all the ones who love Bernie are at places like unions. Come on, now.

Many of us may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.

name calling, but you just wouldn't let me.

First time I'm seeing it and I definitely think it works well.

the 9% donated a huge majority of her take.

you will see that when she releases her full report.

This was an attempt by her campaign to make it look as if most of her money came from small donors.

or SPIN, as they call it in politics

That's north of 16K donors if ALL of her donors gave that. More likely, however, she had around 400K donors. But you're right, we'll see when she files.

Bernie had 250,000 donors and 400,000 donations

I will be impressed if Hillary has more than 250,000 donors
because that will be both broad and deep support.

The only reason that I doubt that number because of the wording
of the press release. donations rather than donors, plus the unusual breaking
down of 91% and 9% That telegraphs an attempt to affect perception of the data

Even If go with 91% of 400,000 donations - if the under $100 donations avg @ $50
it would be $18.2m of the $45m

I suspect that we will be under 400k and under $50.

If the actual report disproves my suspicions, I apologize in advance.

I wonder how many individuals contribute to the PAC's and are not listed...Citizens United is one fine example of screwing the common man

donate $2,000. By the way, they do both and they give HRC cash in hand for speeches. The individuals you are talking about aren't everyday Americans, they are all wealthy execs. The point made by the graphic is still valid. Those donating to HRC represent the 1%. They expect to receive over a billion dollars. Those donating to Sen Sanders represent the 99%.

Sen Sanders is the people's candidate not the billionaires candidate. Try as you might you can't paint it any other way.

debunking that as propaganda?

thanks

Please don't believe this line of crap. This is what is called "bundling". Hillary Clinton and all other corporate candidates circumvent the $2,000 cap by maintaining "bundlers" - basically people who coordinate and funnel the donations through individual names and then present the collective amount to the candidate.

There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that these donations are not from the organisations as listed in the graph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States#Bundling

Bernie has never been tested, he is a Dennis Kucinich candidate.
he is left wing ideologue. The kind of candidate that always
loses to the GOP: Dem can not afford to lose the white house,
the GOP are planning to take us to war.

Dem's cannot have another McGovern candidate


The President has to be leader of all the American People!

Is that really the story you want to stick with?

Vietnam! Eagleton! Nixon! It's 1972 all over again!!!

I don't even remember McGovern, but do remember the cold war, and thought it was a crock of shit created by Republicans.

Here is one of McGovern's ads http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9323459/mcgovern-sanders

I agree Lewebley3. Although I like Bernie's ideals and track-record better than Hillary's, I have my doubts as to whether he can make it.

and has come up short, over and over again.

Maybe not as short as the GOP candidates, but still way too often.

And she kinda came up short....

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 11:56 AM - Edit history (1)

How odd that "never comes up short" doesn't apply to losing her only contested election...

into one of his speeches?

I await your referenced response.

because no one really believes it. If they're not, they will be taken to task for it.

What are lessons we should not forget: We lost both houses of Congress in 1994, for the first time since the Eisenhower administration. We had horrific losses in 2010 and 2014 and not only in Congress, but state and local. Third Way policies are the ones losing those elections, not populist policies.

There, I fixed it for you.

PS: it's 2015. Neither McGovern nor Kucinich are running.

If we're going to use time travel as "proof" that Sanders can't win, please venture back to 2008 and tell me what History says about Clinton's chances.

And nobody currently running can handle Wall Street better than Sanders. Unless by "handle" you mean "appease".

These memes are stale and tired. When will some new ones be circulated?

Like when her husband helped deregulate their industry and pave the way for the meltdown and bailout?


I'll give you this: you can regurgitate talking points will some skill. But it's still pure bullshit.

No wonder you defend Clinton.

I think Bernie has worked in DC long enough to know what needs to be done to deal with the Wall Street corruption that is going on there!

The Bankers are not going to listen to Bernie, he will never
be able to deal with banks. The Dem party if it get enough
votes with Hillary skills might be able to do it, but not Bernie
he would be way over his head

It's all how a comment like that is framed. He knows what they've DONE to us, as Elizabeth Warren probably knows more than about any other politician in DC now with her work in the Senate on the Finance committee as well as her work in academia before that.

You don't have to "know" banksters the way TOO MANY Republicans and Democrats have "known" them for the last few decades which is precisely why our nation's in the toilet now in terms of its middle class, the wealth divide, and the overall economy. We need someone as president that knows what they do, but doesn't necessarily "know them" this time around to start our country's healing again!

But we're dealing with the real world, and how real world people like Senator Warren and Senator Dick DURBIN would REGULATE banks, and not just "be their friends" to give them a lot of money as Democrats including Democrats like Durbin have helped the banks out in exchange for their bribery money so that they could get away with tons of what used to be call criminal acts with no one going to prison and many of them perhaps not being subjugated to prosecution with the statute of limitations running out on the current administration's inexcusable LACK of enforcement of criminal law in this area on those CROOKS that call themselves banking CEOs these days.

It's going to take lawmakers like Sanders and Warren who may not "know" banks well enough to continue participate in NOT regulating their activities that have put this economy in the toilet, but who want to do some pragmatic and proper REGULATING of these banks so that we can get them back under control as the system that our founder gave us where GOVERNMENT runs our country and not BANKS! Some people today seem to forget this.

Sanders was one of a few people that was instrumental at getting an audit of the Fed done, which is what was NEEDED for the public and other people in government to understand the activities of this organization who's objectives have arguably been compromised over the years.

Warren has had a LOT of recognized experience and training in commercial law in the academic world before becoming senator and was widely sought for her understanding on how the banks' activities had affected Americans, as is demonstrated here by her being a distinguished lecturer giving a televised speech at UC Berkley right before the crash of 2008 warning us of what was coming ahead in terms of the mess that happened to us not long afterward.

People like they should be in prison for the FRAUD they've perpetuated that has destroyed the middle class in this country and has made a wealth divide that's the worst it's been since FDR had the courage to "welcome their hatred" in taking back the country then from the crooks that too many people allowed as "players" that tried to took over our country then. Fortunately we had FDR then to stop them along with decent people like Smedley Butler (despite the Texas school board's and others' efforts to keep that bit of history from our students) to stop a CRIMINAL COUP by banksters then, that they look to be trying to start again with CRAP like the TPP/TPA that other Korporate Amerikan Demokrats like Obama seem to be happy to jump on board with even if it screws those that voted them in to office.

We're NOT f'ing putting up with it any more. That's why Bernie will win! As long as we still have a vote and enough of us can work through the voter suppression that they are trying to disguise as being "legitimate", there are people from all parties that will vote to stop those that want this oligarchy. "No Thank You!" to those that want to be "nice" to the banksters. Reagan, despite the rest of the crap he pushed on us, at least had the decency to arrest and prosecute banksters during his term in office.

... because he didn't just let the "players" have their way with us back in those days when banksters were screwing us then too.

The real world is that many in this country, and not just Democrats are suffering because of the players using their wealth and power to SCREW the rest of us in their sociopathic obsessive quest for more of that at our expense. The positions on issues that Bernie supports just about all show a MAJORITY of Americans supporting too. At some point, rather than just listening to the corporate media propaganda on who is more of a "star" than the other, they are going to realize that Bernie is fighting for THEM, and is the first honest politician that hasn't just been making false promises like Obama and other recent pols from both parties have that have screwed them later.

There's a REASON why minimum wage propositions PASSED in the last elections where people threw out Democrats that didn't have the courage to support them and actually support people issues instead of just issues that didn't offend their corporate donors. People knew that laws like this they didn't have to worry about later being an entity that would violate their trust like a politician would and has in recent years.

Politics is the art of enough people being affected by mismanagement by those who "represent" them to know when they need some new people that will change the system that isn't working for them any more. I think more people probably feel we need a change than have felt that way in my lifetime at least right now. Now is as good a time as any for someone like Bernie who gives us hope that there is someone that can be the agent of change and not someone who's "owned" by someone else making false promises to "get their vote".

Why did they prosecute Savings and Loan banksters in Reagan's day? Why is it not possible that we prosecute similar criminals like Dimon today? I don't accept that banksters not being controlled is a "fact" that we have to live with. Only if we are either COMPLICIT with these criminals or we are willing to just say "I guess we don't have a democracy any more. It's not worth fighting and we should just accept being slaves and eating gruel every day if our masters wish it!" Sorry if I don't accept either of these "realities" that you propose exist.

Hillary is the only one strong enough to deal with them, she knows how to win
a political fight. She knows the players, Bernie will get eaten alive if he were President.
I do not want a weak President, I want a President that knows who to play
the game of politics, at least a little better than Obama. (although he has done well given
his choices and times).

My family has old pictures of FDR that were handed down, we have always work and
voted for Dems. Sanders is not a Dem, nor are his supporters, they are left wing ideologues,
and they are helping the GOP.

BERNIE SANDERS!!!!!

And it was him dealing with the banks who've tried to keep their treasure trove secret that he fought and won that battle, along even with Republicans like Ron Paul to do so!

She knows that banksters and CODDLES them! How does that help average Americans? Why do you LIKE a system run by people who you admit yourself "eats alive" people from your perspective who don't play the game the banks want them to play that has us all in this country be their servants? Why do you WANT to be a slave and have people in power that are nice to people that want us as slaves?

Sanders is far more like FDR in "welcoming their hatred" instead of welcoming their dollars when asked to be a part of the corporate takeover of our government!

Or explain why you like to mispell Dick DurBin's name!

And explain how he is so much better than Warren. I don't have specific complaints about Dick DURBIN, if that is who you are talking about, but it seems like you do have some problems with Warren that you can't be specific about. And if you are talking about this fictitious Tolkien dwarf king Dick Durin, please explain how he's relevant, or why you don't like to spell your senator's name properly.

not much!