2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton’s Exaggerated Wall Street Claim
February 11, 2016
Hillary Clinton exaggerated when she claimed Bernie Sanders took about $200,000 from Wall Street firms through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The DSCC did provide about $200,000 to support Sanders 2006 Senate race, but a relatively small percentage of the DSCCs contributions came from Wall Street.
In fact, the DSCCs largest single contributor that year was Friends of Hillary which was Clintons Senate campaign.
Clinton has been criticized by Sanders for accepting large donations and speaking fees from financial companies. In response, Clinton has said the donations have not influenced her decisions which was the point she made at an event at Manchester Community College in New Hampshire a day before that states primary (see the 45:40 mark):
Clinton, Feb. 8: Senator Sanders took about $200,000 from Wall Street firms. Not directly but through the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. You know, there was nothing wrong with that. It hasnt changed his view. Well, it didnt change my view or my vote either.
The DSCC did support Sanders, as Clinton says. In 2006, then Rep. Sanders defeated Republican Richard Tarrant to win the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont. Although he ran as an independent, Sanders was backed by the state Democratic Party and supported by both the state and national Democratic committees.
During the 2006 campaign, the DSCC gave $37,300 to the Sanders campaign and spent an additional $60,000 supporting him in campaign advertising. It also gave $110,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party to help Sanders, making eight separate committee transfers (the last coming on Oct. 4, 2006).
That adds up to $207,300 a little more than the $200,000 claimed by Clinton.
However, Wall Street of course wasnt the sole source of the DSCCs money in 2006. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the DSCC raised $121.4 million in the 2006 campaign cycle and roughly $10 million of that came from what the center defines as Wall Street. (That would include donations from the political action committees and employees of companies in two industries: securities and investment, and commercial banks.) Thats a little more than 8 percent in Wall Street money.
in full: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/clintons-exaggerated-wall-street-claim/
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)She's grasping at straws trying to negate one of her biggest handicaps. Nobody with any sense is buying it.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)needs to give her a wake up call. Those ratings are among Democrats and Independents.
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)my distrust of her has NOTHING to do with the GOP, and EVERYTHING to do with HRC and her actions and behaviors.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)been a healthy one, we don't due to the Clinton machine of money.
They're a politically powerful couple, obviously they imagine they can
buy credibility too. It's not happening, so they attack, and smear some more.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)how weird.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...off of the amount as if that was her main point.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)You get to pick, it's not hard for some. Throw in her Iraq war vote and Kissinger
and the choice gets even easier, I think.
Bernie Sanders for POTUS
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... a direct descendant of Lucifer... he doesn't distinguish what you did
Until we find out that not only does he lobby for money from the same place these devils do but he takes some of the money too.
Throw in Sanders gun stance (not just one vote) and his embrace of racilzed bomb throwers like Cornell West and my choice gets even easier too ... I think
Hillary Clinton for POTUS.. Cause she's not claiming her crap doesn't stink**
** I don't know if that helps but I just pictured an ad spot saying this and it was pretty funny
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)I would say, she should not do that ad, but that is funny. lol
uponit7771
(90,347 posts).... when there's big oil and others horrid industries that have hurt Americans that Sanders could've taken money from?
That the thing with Sanders purity claims via pointing at everyone else... eventually the fingers gets pointed back at him
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)the economy, trade deals, oil, foreign policies, weapons deals.
Corruption becomes entangled within our society in numerous ways and
means...it was 3 Democrats that prevented Obama's gun legislation
after Newtown. This is not just a Republican problem, far from it.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... Sanders claim there was JUST some criticisms about Obama
They weren't, Sanders wants a "course correction" (his words) from the Obama legacy and Clinton wants to continue it.... Sanders has been a consummate Obama basher for the last 3 years and everyone on here knows it.
Sanders isn't willing to tell whole swaths of PoC voters from the SEC states this cause HE knows this will be rejected outright....
If "he can take it" then he would be standing up for what he's said about Obama so far.
Sanders voted for the CFMA, if wall street was so aweful why give them that great and wonderful gift of deregulating derivative trading?!
Sanders can't pass his own purity test... even on authenticty
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)and his campaign is not about Obama, nor should it be.
Maybe you're forgetting WHAT obstacles were before Obama
and his agenda..what makes the Republicans so in the bag for
corporations? Why did 3 Democrats vote no on Obama's gun
legislation after Newtown?
The extension of power the NRA has led to stand your ground laws, WHO
is on the receiving end of those laws and dies? That is only ONE
example, there are thousands of them. So please don't discuss this
as if this revolt is only about jobs and money..it is NOT.
Bernie Sanders is going after the main culprit, if we don't we will
not have a functioning democracy.
Sanders authenticity is not an issue, I suggest you look at the
exit polls from NH on trustworthiness..your candidate has a serious
problem.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... Obama or his legacy ANY WAY now.
Go ahead and let people know Obama should have been primaried and that he's weak and rightward...
Sanders campaign is about course change from Obama, a revolution against the status quo which includes Obama
Sanders authenticity IS an issue, he's not being such now because opposing Obama in front of the SEC states would sink him fast...
seeing the last polls I don't thing he needs any more wrong steps
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)in her call out to SC voters as one can be. Sanders has both praised and admonished Obama on policy
and he has never claimed otherwise. Are you aware of how many Democratic Senators called out Obama
on the public option at the time and pointed their finger at him in a very public manner? They have every
right to do so and if voters in SC don't like it, they can refuse to vote for Bernie..he is not going to change
his message and lie.
Bernie Sanders Talks Up Primary Challenge to Obama as a Good Idea for Our Democracy and for the Democratic Party
August 2011
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-talks-primary-challenge-obama-good-idea-our-democracy-and-democratic-part/