2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIt turns out Bernie does raise money from the financial sector
The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.
. . .
A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.
"At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html
Lots more at the link
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party -- which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.
Among the DSCC's top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.
During that 2006 campaign, Sanders attended a fundraiser at the Cambridge, Massachusetts home of Abby Rockefeller -- a member of the same family whose wealth he had one proposed confiscating.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)It is also awesome that you've pointed out (if indirectly) what has been stated time and again; Bernie takes no direct contributions from corporate interests! Thanks for that as well!!!
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)It's illegal.
But you've done a good job of swallowing the campaign rhetoric whole.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)I mean, some might see that as a back-door to circumvent laws that are intended to keep corporate dollars out of campaigns. I bet that would be awfully damaging to one's perceived integrity... good thing no running candidates have any such set ups... oh wait...
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)Than a charity, provide it and then report it to the IRS and FEC.
Of course, the Clintons could have stashed a charitable trust in the Caribbean to avoid US govt oversight, but they didn't. That was someone else.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)So I guess I really don't need to contact the IRS or the FEC. Well, best of luck to the Clintons in dealing with the FBI... I hear they've several bones-of-contention with her based on past interactions... I guess that just goes to show, it pays to treat everyone with whatever kindness that can be mustered.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)BainsBane
(53,076 posts)which included money from the very investment banking firms and big banks he rails against today.
You actually think he hosts fund raisers but refuses to take money? What would be the point of that?
tecelote
(5,122 posts)That's all you've got?
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)Just read it.
Clinton's donations are $2700 a piece, and we're told that corrupts her. Yet $35k isn't a problem?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Where the money is purely from, corrupts her.
Whom she defends, corrupts her.
And to respond to your OP...
25% of the donors at this event were from the financial sector. All donors gave their money to the DSCC, which then cut Bernie some as well as other Democrats...
You're trying to spin it as "LOOK! BERNIE TOOK MONEY FROM THE BANKS!!!" But really it's, "Look, the Democratic Senatorial Committee raised money from a bunch of donors, 25% of which are from the financial sector and distributed the fundings to all Democrats that needed it throughout the party."
This is kinda desperate...
This is like accusing ME of taking money from the financial sector, simply because all money comes from a bank at one point in time lmao.
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)You don't care that a politician has been telling for a month on end that he doesn't take money from Wall Street, only it turns out he does. Not once, but year after year.
Bernie hosted those fund raises. Attends them, raises money from the very people that he describes in this election as unacceptable to relate with.
Hillary hasn't been selling the public a story about her being above a system. Instead, she has made clear she obeys the law as it exists but seeks to change it. Bernie instead pretends to be above it all. He has not been truthful. You don't care. That is hardly unexpected. I have seen enough issues thrown overboard to know that the only thing that matters is some attachment to him as a man, even when it is shown that he has been purposefully misleading his supporters.
His whole spiel on campaign finance is empty rhetoric. He depends on the ignorance of the voting public when he repeats thousands of times over that he doesn't "have" super pacs, while benefiting from the single greatest super pac and dark money expenditure in the entire election.
http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-receives-outside-money-support-despite-hitting-clinton-over-super-pacs-2294847
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bernie-sanders-gets-some-outside-help-he-didnt-ask-for/
http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-receives-outside-money-support-despite-hitting-clinton-over-super-pacs-2294847
Bernie doesn't directly correlate with the Super PACs helping him against his will like Hillary does.
Also, he wasn't the only one to host the thing, you act like he threw a party and took money from the financial sector. He didn't.
He helped host a democratic function, 25% of the donors happened to be from the financial sector. Whoop dee doo..
That's not parallel to Hillary directly speaking for a financial sector host and recieving 100% of the funds from that financial sector.
Sorry, $225,000 is the real number, I shouldn't have rounded it out like that I guess. But she's received an average of $225,000 per speech to Goldman Sachs, that's open knowledge as apparent as the sky is blue these days so I'm not sure why you want a source but here?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/04/hillary_clinton_i_took_675000_in_speaking_fees_from_wall_street_because_i_didnt_know_i_would_run_for_president.html
So again, Bernie helping to be one of the hosts of a Democratic fundraiser, while 25% of the donors happened to be from the financial sector, does not make him a hypocrite or corrupt.
25% of the funding that was cut between many politicians does not automatically make them "beholden" to the financial sector like Hillary is.
100% of the funding from $225,000 speeches straight from the financial sector DOES make them "beholden" to the financial sector like Hillary is.
Bernie didn't do that. This meme didn't work, just try again tomorrow. No worries.
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)That is illegal.
Then note your singular concern with campaign finance depends not on how much money the super pacs pump into the campaign and corrupt the process, but on a state of mind, a state of mind it turns out is not what he claims. Bernie says he doesn't have Super Pacs, even as one of his top campaign aids runs a pac and a former one runs a Super Pac.
Your complaint is that Clinton earned money from speeches. Those are not campaign donations. That is income she earned. You assert, with NO EVIDENCE, that it makes her beholden, but your principal complaint is that she earned money, money that apparently is okay when it goes to Bernie's campaign. Bernie helped raise hundreds of thousands a year. That is more than $200k and it is campaign contributions.
Your point is clear enough. Clinton shouldn't earn money. Bernie can raise money from Wall Street or whoever he wants because he's Bernie. You don't care cuz Bernie. Clinton is corrupt cuz Hillary.
As for beholden, I'd say votes giving immunity to gun corporations and $800 billion plus to Lockheed-Martin demonstrate just the sort of thing you claim to fear results from being paid for speeches, yet somehow none of that concerns you cuz Bernie.
Nice to see there is absolutely no principle or issue you aren't willing to throw under the bus because Bernie is just special.
I myself don't like when politicians pretend to be revolutionaries. In fact, I resent the language of social revolution being appropriated as a campaign slogan. I don't like it when they promise the world knowing full well they will never deliver on it. I don't like it when they reduce complex issues to bumper sticker slogans. I prefer it when they deal with the complexities of policy rather than playing to the ignorance of the voting public. Bernie deals with the world and policy in one dimensional, simplistic terms. We are gradually finding out that his own self-promotional hype doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)No evidence?
When anyone gives you that much money, they are making an investment. They want something in return. That's logic.
Immunity to gun corporations? cool by me, they only make the device, they didn't instruct people to commit atrocious acts.
Lockheed Martin needed to build jets somewhere, Vermont needed jobs. Good job Senator Bernie.
lmao your spin to make that negative is so funny. Sorry I'm not "concerned" for those good decisions.
Don't mock my revolution. You do yourself no credit in doing so.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Squinch
(51,043 posts)And really, really serious places. That really matter.
Chew on that, missy!
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)The very money in your wallet has also come from the financial sector.... GASP
ALL OF IT DID OMGGGGG
lmao
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... or its affliates after directly lobbying for it to a live crowd
I'll ask again, so does this mean Sanders has taken money from the financial sector in the form of donations that he has pockted himself?
tia
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Yes. Which would be wrong.
or
No. Which would be wrong.
So here's the better question... What defines a corrupt hand dealing with Wall St?
Is it the one who does business directly within Wall St and receives 100% funding from an event directly from them?
OR
Is it the one who helped host a Democratic event, in which only 25% of the donors involved were from Wall St, the other 75% from many other things, and the money was distributed to many recipients rather than one?
Because Bernie is the ladder and Hillary is the former.
Would you say that Bernie, is now beholden to Wall St's agenda because he received money from an event in which there were many donors and 25% of them happened to be apart of Wall St?
Because if THAT makes Bernie beholden to Wall St, then I must be beholden to the ketchup packets on my tray moreso than the burger, fries and soft drink that also came included. lol
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)...demonizing everyone else who've take 1/240th of their net worth from wall street.
Sanders hands better be damn clean since everyone else is a sell out...
Based on your answers it doesn't look like that's the case
retrowire
(10,345 posts)when and where?
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... means she'll sell out.
On this issues Sanders has 3 fingers pointing back at him.... it aint lookin good so far
#SandersSoPure
retrowire
(10,345 posts)they didn't pay her a quarter million per speech and expect nothing in return.
why does she laugh about the transcripts?
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... again, Sanders better have some damn clean hands since everyone else is a sell out of even talking to a wall street janitor.
Also, I want to see the transcripts also...
I'm talking about Sanders transcripts too...
See, when you point 1 finger at someone there are 3 pointing back at you
they didn't pay Bernie.
they paid the dscc and he along with many others received funding.
Hillary on the other hand received all that other funding for herself.
see how that works?
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Holy crap, I haven't heard that one in decades.
Debate captain
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That is the corruption.
basselope
(2,565 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
retrowire
(10,345 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)he doesn't even care enough to help raise funds to re-elect Democrats!!!" <-at the top of your lungs.
I wish you guys would come up with some new material, this is getting boring. This "story"
was debunked several months ago, and I notice just "updated" by CNN to try to glue new legs
on the story. Pathetic.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because i was going to if no one had.
It seems they can change narratives and never notice the conflict.
cali
(114,904 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)The OP's today are hilarious.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)It's comical. "Bernie bad for raising money to elect me Dems to the Senate!"
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)is establishment politics. lol
I guess he is just like Clinton now on WS and we should ignore Goldman Sachs
recent declaration that Bernie is dangerous..their word, not mine.
lol I have laughed a lot today as they try and spin Bernie as a WS tool.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is that he's only a Democrat on some days and refuses to raise money for a Party that he hates. It gets hard to keep up with the trope of the day when they are so frequently utterly contradictory.
At some point y'all need to pick a singular line of attack because this scattershot stuff just looks sillier by the minute. Attack him for raising funds for the Party, attack him for not doing so but doing both just makes me wonder what the actual motive might be.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...they're pointed in every which direction. What a laugh!
treestar
(82,383 posts)of the OP. Bernie is not sure pure as stated. Why is it OK now? Because Bernie is doing it. Double standards. People railing on that Hillary must be corrupt because of raising funds now are confronted with the fact they shouldn't have done that after all. St. Bernie does it too. Dodging that question gets you nowhere.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)I hope CNN starts loudly and persistently pointing out our man Bernie's hypocrisy. Maybe I will even gain a little respect for that "news" organization in the process.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... walls street money in his own caufers
It's about a tah get real
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It's OK if he does it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)because if you read those and then read this the nickname 'Weathervane' does in fact seem fitting. It just does. 'Bad for not raising funds, worse for raising funds' Yawn-o-Rama.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)You can look for the threads.
Knock yourself out.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)... and has been a participant in Democratic Party activities in the past.
Are you criticizing him or praising him?
This is why the 'Camp Weathervane' label is so appropriate for the Hillarians.
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)despite endless statements to the contrary, and that doesn't concern you. Instead, the horror is that Clinton supporters read and post a news story. And we're "camp weathervane"? Is there anything that matters in this election besides Bernie? I've systematically seen one issue after another dismissed until we are now left with nothing.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Let's not worry about consistency. Let's just twist facts until they support her Highness, NoHope Hillary.
(Heading the "YOU CALLED HER 'HIGHNESS' SO YOUR SEXIST!!!!!!!111!!!11" claim with a preemptive "I don't give a fuck whether you think I'm sexist or not. Until you've successfully eliminated gender based words from the English language, it's "Her Highness".)
retrowire
(10,345 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)DU poutrage level at all time high!
Tonight at 6: Bernie pets kitten, proves he hates puppies!
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... but he took some himself.. I mean like a dollar or something cause anyone who takes funds from these bastards are evil and shit right?
lol...
#SandersSoPure
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)#hillarysupporterssodesperate
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... financial sector hands aren't clean.
Sounds like he panders to the same people Clinton does...
#SandersA_LittleDirty
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The woman you personally said was paid millions for her influence by Wall Street?
See THAT is what's so hillaryous!
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... for talking to a wall street janitor but it looks like Sanders takes from the same till Clinton does...
This is getting interesting
Judge, lest ye be judged right?
tia
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How far are you willing to go with the smears?
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... then calling everyone else "establishment"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)BainsBane
(53,076 posts)I don't know about you, but I don't need to receive an email to tell me to read the news.
Interesting how Wall Street donors suddenly aren't a concern anymore. Funny how that works.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)and becomes a BAD thing.
You guys were lying when you posted all those threads about how Bernie Sanders didn't help the Party...
I'll tell you what. Admit that you and your cohorts were lying (or admit you were just parroting someone ELSE'S lie) when you posted all that shit about Bernie Sanders not helping the party, and I'll call him a hypocrite.
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)I don't know what others said, but I never claimed he had never raised money for the party, but I will say the information surprises me, particularly given all the negative things he has said about the Democratic Party. I said he isn't raising money in this current election for other Democratic races, as Clinton does through her Clinton Victory Fund. As far as I know, that is correct. I also said that Clinton has instructed her staff to support an Iowa candidate who had endorsed Sanders because she wanted to get more Democrats elected. I thought the point important because legislative agenda depends on a massive turn-over in congress, something he doesn't seem to be working toward.
Back to the definition of lie:
I did not lie. I stated the facts as I knew them to be, and as far as I know they are still accurate. If I had known these facts at the time, I would have been more careful to stipulate I was speaking exclusively about the current year. I, however, knew none of this until today.
I am not, nor can I be, responsible for what anyone else says. Nor am I particularly familiar with it since I read quite little of DU these days.
Now an intentional misrepresentation would be claiming "I don't take money from Wall Street," while at least in the past he has done just that.
Given the deluge of blatantly false claims made about Clinton on this site, I'm not interested in lectures from people here about lying.
Now that has been clarified, why don't you explain how Bernie's raising money from the financial sector is okay because he's Bernie?
Naturally the truthfulness of a candidate about the core issue in his candidacy for the presidency concerns you less than possible inaccuracies in what anonymous people online right. Because I and a handful of other complete strangers on a message board are so much more important than a candidate for president of the United States. I find your priorities troubling but not at all surprising.
safeinOhio
(32,736 posts)for both
ericson00
(2,707 posts)LOVE
retrowire
(10,345 posts)BainsBane
(53,076 posts)It's okay cuz: Bernie.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Gothmog
(145,666 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Bain, Bain, I've heard that name before somewhere.
Oh well, maybe it will come to me.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511134307
Clinton will no longer attend an event in Boston scheduled for Friday that was to be hosted by Jonathan Lavine, managing director of Bain Capital affiliate Sankaty Advisors, sources close to the matter said.
The event has not been canceled but will now be held sometime after the New Hampshire primary, which takes place Feb. 9. It is the second such postponement in the last two weeks. The Clinton campaign last week said a New York City event that was set for Thursday with executives from investment management firm BlackRock would now be held Feb. 16th.
The postponements come after Vermont senator Sanders ripped Clinton last week for leaving Iowa to attend a fundraiser in Philadelphia with financial services executives that featured a live performance with Bon Jovi.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-postpones-fundraiser-financial-services-218708#ixzz3zAA1rv16
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)What's next, child molester? Sex with animals? I mean damn
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)You don't care. The issue is irrelevant, facts are irrelevant, cuz the Bern.
safeinOhio
(32,736 posts)Context matters
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I guess that meme that he does not raise money for the Democratic party just got blown out of the water. Huh?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)november3rd
(1,113 posts)I find it unlikely that he was included as a host in a DSCC event, since he wasn't a member of the DSCC.
This story doesn't pass the smell test.
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)I believe that is Hillary's "Saying hello" fee.
George II
(67,782 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In the debate. Having a hard time talking about progressive and establishment. Maybe next time we will get another answer.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Well, he's wrong:
BainsBane
(53,076 posts)rather than financial purity, particularly when those claims don't hold up to scrutiny.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)This is such a transparently disingenuous angle to work for the Clinton campaign.
Really? Sanders hosted one event per year for five years to help out the DSCC get Democrats elected and you guys try to connect that to Wall Street? Lame.
And here I thought you all didn't even think he supported Democrats.
Fucking pathetic.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)B-b-but I thought Bernie "wasn't a Democrat".
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)itsrobert
(14,157 posts)He can't be voting against common sense gun control bills for free?