Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:32 AM Apr 2016

FACT: Hillary & her SuperPAC have received $4.5 MILLION from OIL & GAS INDUSTRY to date

Greenpeace

Hillary Clinton’s Connection to the Oil and Gas Industry

Research compiled by Greenpeace USA

Contact: Perry Wheeler, perry.wheeler@greenpeace.org

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been backed by the fossil fuel industry in a number of ways.



Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry.

First there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of 3/21/16; source: Center for Responsive Politics) from such donors.

Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,259,280 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number.

Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign.
All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.

Number of oil, gas and coal industry lobbyists that have made direct contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign: 57

57 registered oil, coal and gas lobbyists have personally given $126,200 to the Hillary campaign
Of those 57, 11 are bundlers.
11 lobbyists have bundled $1,140,930 in contributions to the Hillary campaign
43 lobbyists have contributed the maximum allowed ($2700).

This includes:

Lobbyists who have reported lobbying for the oil and gas industry – both in-house company lobbyists and hired lobbyists from “K-Street firms.”

This does not include:

Industry executives
Other employees of the oil and gas industry
Board members
Corporate PAC contributions
Contributions by major investors
Donations to Super PACS or non-profit groups
Contributions made by trade associations to Super PACs

Hillary takes more from lobbyists in general than any other candidate

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php

*********

Total Amount bundled from oil and gas lobbyists: $1,140,930


Examples:

*3 Enbridge lobbyists contributed to HRC’s campaign. While she was Secretary of State, Clinton signed off on the Enbridge pipeline (the alternative to KXL).

*Ben Klein (Heather Podesta and Associates) lobbied on behalf of Oxbow Carbon on petcoke and other issues. Petcoke is a byproduct of refining. Communities in Detroit and Chicago have complained about piles of petcoke blowing into the community. Bill Koch (the estranged brother of Charles and David) owns controlling interest of Oxbow. Klein also lobbied on restrictions of ivory imports for Oxbow.

*Fracking company and gas industry trade association lobbyists have also contributed to Clinton’s campaign, including Former Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX), who lobbied for the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, and Martin Durbin of the American Natural Gas Association (now merged and part of the American Petroleum Institute – API), the nephew of Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). Another donor is Elizabeth Gore, a lobbyist for WPX energy (fracking). A lobbyist for FTI Consulting, creator of an industry front group called Energy In Depth, also contributed to Clinton;s campaign. Although Clinton has said she would require FERC to consider climate change before granting any new gas pipeline permits, she recently told activists she would not ban fracking as president, and has a pro-fracking track record which has been well-documented by numerous groups, including pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record.

*Marty Streett, a lobbyist for BP, gave Clinton’s campaign the maximum allowable amount ($2700). Her sister, Stephanie S. Streett, is the Executive Director of the William J. Clinton Foundation and former ED of the Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, 990 report 2013). The Podesta Group (Tony Podesta) also lobbied for BP, on issues including the Gulf of Mexico spill response and recovery.


*While Secretary of State, Clinton pushed fracking in countries around the world, through the department’s Global Shale Gas Initiative. According to Grist, after the Bulgarian government signed a five-year deal with Chevron, major public protests led the Bulgarian parliament to pass a fracking moratorium. Clinton traveled to Bulgaria and then dispatched her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans, which were eventually overturned.

*Clinton’s State Department played a major role in negotiating a bilateral oil agreement with Mexico. Her former special envoy for international energy affairs, David Goldwyn, has donated the maximum allowable amount to the campaign ($2700). Since leaving State, Goldwyn has consulted for companies wishing to profit from Mexico’s decision to allow private oil services contractors into the country in order to expand PEMEX’s ability to produce shale oil and tap deep offshore reserves.

*David Leiter (ML Strategies lobbyist for Exxon and a HRC bundler), the former Senate chief of staff to John Kerry, is also a lobbyist for Burisma Holdings, a private Ukrainian natural gas and uranium mining company with many connections to the Democratic Party. Biden’s son Hunter joined Burisma’s board in 2014, right before Leiter was hired to lobby members about the role of the company in Ukraine (arguing for its role in helping Ukraine be independent of Russia). Another board member, Devon Archer, is a HRC donor (2700) and Democratic bundler (I don’t see any record of him bundling for HRC). FTI’s Lawrence Pacheco does communications for Burisma. Burisma is owned by a Cypriot holding firm, Brociti Investments Ltd, which is controlled by Nikolai Zlochevskyi, a former Ukrainian gov. minister.

*Although Clinton has said she supports an investigation into Exxon’s early concealment of what it knew about the risks of climate change and subsequent financing of climate denier front groups, her campaign has taken contributions from at least 7 lobbyists working for Exxon, including one in-house lobbyist – Theresa Fariello – who has bundled and additional $21,200 for the campaign.

*Hess lobbyists from Forbes-Tate (Daniel Tate, Jeffrey Forbes, George Cooper and Rachel Miller) all gave maximum allowable contributions to HRC’s campaign. The firm lobbied on behalf of the Hess Corporation, on crude by rail and crude exports. Hess owns rail cars that came off the tracks and caught fire after a BNSF train derailed in North Dakota in early May, 2015. Hess is the third largest oil producer in North Dakota. Lynn Helms, a former Hess executive served as ND’s top oil and gas regulator at the Department of Mineral Resources between 2005 and 2013. When Clinton came out in opposition to KXL she started talking about how fixing train tracks would create jobs. In December 2015, a couple of months after Clinton announced she opposed KXL, and just over a month after Obama turned KXL down, Warren Buffett — who owns BNSF — endorsed Clinton. Buffett is also a big oil investor (e.g. Phillips 66).

*Companies invested in LNG projects with lobbyists that have given to HRC’s campaign include Freeport LNG (Elizabeth Gore – Brownstein Hyatt, $500); LNG Allies (Michael Smith – Cornerstone Gov. Affairs – 2700 and a bundler of $59,400); Dominion Resources (Tom Lawler – Lawler Strategies, 2700); Oregon LNG (Robert van Heuvelen VH Strategies – 2700). Exxon also has LNG projects. Cheniere Energy’s Ankit Desai not only gave the maximum allowed, but also bundled $ 139,300 for the campaign. Another donor ($2700) to Clinton’s campaign is Heather Zichal, Obama’s former energy advisor, who joined the board of Cheniere (LNG export company) after leaving the administration.

*Former Rep. Richard (“Dick”) Gephardt’s firm lobbies for Peabody Energy (coal), Prairie State (coal-fired power plant and adjacent mine), Ameren Services Co. Gephardt and his wife, son and daughter Chrissy all contributed the maximum allowed to Clinton’s campaign (Dick is the only fossil fuel lobbyist in the family). Gephardt, a Democratic Party super delegate, has pledged to support Clinton. In February, the DNC rolled back its previous commitment to not take any contributions from federally registered lobbyists. Clinton’s campaign has also received contributions from lobbyists representing big mining companies — Westmoreland Coal, Arch Coal and Rio Tinto.

*************

Other points relevant to lobbyist contributions:

During the NH debate Clinton said donations are not evidence of favors, but in 2008 Clinton suggested the contributions Obama took from the industry were evidence of a quid pro quo.

“But in April 2008, Clinton’s campaign aired a television ad portraying Obama’s support for a 2005 energy bill as a quid pro quo for campaign donations. The ad said Obama had “accepted $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies,” while criticizing him for voting “for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that that put $6 billion in the pocket of big oil.” The clear message: Obama backed the bill as a favor to donors.”

It’s worth noting that Obama didn’t take any $ from lobbyists or PACs in 2008 and pledged to not take contributions from lobbyists in 2012, too, and gave some donations back.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FACT: Hillary & her SuperPAC have received $4.5 MILLION from OIL & GAS INDUSTRY to date (Original Post) RiverLover Apr 2016 OP
It's not like there's a planet wide crisis..... daleanime Apr 2016 #1
K&R amborin Apr 2016 #2
Seriously. And NYC is projected to be underwater in less than a century RiverLover Apr 2016 #5
But...but..... they didn't donate DIRECTLY to her campaign! jillan Apr 2016 #3
Thanks to Donkees for sharing this earlier. Dragonfli Apr 2016 #6
Too true.... daleanime Apr 2016 #11
and..and..didn't cor-ordinate...Citizens United decision did real damage to this country. EndElectoral Apr 2016 #7
And they didn't. nt Jitter65 Apr 2016 #8
The two steppin' going on in her campaign..... daleanime Apr 2016 #9
So, "The entire premise of the OP is false, but I'm still supporting it"? Recursion Apr 2016 #14
So you just skipped over the "& her SuperPAC" part? (nt) jeff47 Apr 2016 #59
Thank you for posting. /nt think Apr 2016 #4
K&R Dragonfli Apr 2016 #10
more here: amborin Apr 2016 #12
Thanks for posting. More proof she's a player -trying- to play US. RiverLover Apr 2016 #13
Enbridge. That speaks to foreign policy as well as U.S. and what it says suffragette Apr 2016 #15
Thanks. I couldn't link from my current device to post. mmonk Apr 2016 #16
Gosh. That would explain the, um, er, lack of action. Octafish Apr 2016 #17
Its really sad. RiverLover Apr 2016 #26
What the late, great DUer JackpineRadical said... Octafish Apr 2016 #37
Octafish. What a beautiful post. RiverLover Apr 2016 #39
This is false. This is individual money, not corporate money. Corporations can't donate to campaigns DanTex Apr 2016 #18
Yes. Only their employees can. But the corporation CAN give money to her super pacs. Correct? think Apr 2016 #20
They can but they haven't so far. The SuperPACs backing Hillary and Bernie have thus far DanTex Apr 2016 #22
A serious question - do you understand that ethics isn't law? kristopher Apr 2016 #25
Sure but I don't see what the relevance is. Hillary has done nothing either unethical or illegal, DanTex Apr 2016 #28
No, of course not. $21,648,000 corporate money when she knew she was running... kristopher Apr 2016 #38
"Hillary has done nothing either unethical or illegal" Dem2 Apr 2016 #49
But they can & DO give to SuperPACs. Why do you think we're so against Citizens United? RiverLover Apr 2016 #21
They can, but so far SuperPACs supporting Bernie and Hillary have been funded by individuals. DanTex Apr 2016 #23
You are triangulating. A corporation is composed of people. Those people give on behalf of the RiverLover Apr 2016 #29
"You are triangulating" marmar Apr 2016 #30
Yep. RiverLover Apr 2016 #34
There's the Mitt Romney meme again. Interesting that the far left has jumped on that. DanTex Apr 2016 #32
Seriously, who do you think is buying this BS of yours? RiverLover Apr 2016 #33
Everyone outside the Bernie bubble understands the difference between corporate money DanTex Apr 2016 #35
... RiverLover Apr 2016 #41
It's indicative of how little the Clinton campaign and its fellow travelers think of voters..... marmar Apr 2016 #40
only the elite matter; it's part of her religion: amborin Apr 2016 #56
i trust greenpeace over dan questionseverything Apr 2016 #54
BOOM! RiverLover Apr 2016 #63
$21,648,000 in corporate money when everyone knew she was running for president. kristopher Apr 2016 #42
Kick azmom Apr 2016 #19
Jimmy Carter calls it "legalized bribery". kristopher Apr 2016 #24
Ha! Touche! RiverLover Apr 2016 #27
The entire Sanders campaign ... salinsky Apr 2016 #31
Citing facts is definitely within the character of the Sanders campaign. revbones Apr 2016 #51
What do you call it when ... salinsky Apr 2016 #52
Sanders has received nearly a million dollars from Internet-related firms. randome Apr 2016 #36
I'd be concerned if that were true. RiverLover Apr 2016 #44
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #43
Thanks Joe, for R&King. RiverLover Apr 2016 #45
:) Uncle Joe Apr 2016 #47
Thank you. I can't believe the pretzel-logic spinning that's going on here from Marr Apr 2016 #46
This message was self-deleted by its author felix_numinous Apr 2016 #48
To anyone who has ethics re: money in politics loyalsister Apr 2016 #50
Her outfits always remind me of Dr. Evil PonyUp Apr 2016 #53
Poor Hillary, her baggage car is overflowing again. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #55
since when do "progressives" support fossil fuels? nt TheDormouse Apr 2016 #57
An Inconvenient Truth. AzDar Apr 2016 #58
Just Another True "Smear" colsohlibgal Apr 2016 #60
Politifact confirms she receives $$$$ from fossil fuel industry amborin Apr 2016 #61
Yeha, Greenpeace is reliable on this... joeybee12 Apr 2016 #62
Her reaction to the allegations are proof enough of her complicity randr Apr 2016 #64
Libya. Octafish Apr 2016 #65
kicking amborin Apr 2016 #66
her behavior us anti-environment amborin Apr 2016 #67
She makes me hurl. PonyUp Apr 2016 #68
As if approved by Cheney himself. Octafish Apr 2016 #69

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
5. Seriously. And NYC is projected to be underwater in less than a century
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:45 AM
Apr 2016

acc to a new report.

You would think that would be a concern if thinking about all life on the planet being unsustainable in the future is too big a concept to grasp.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?_r=1

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
9. The two steppin' going on in her campaign.....
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 11:55 AM
Apr 2016

is completely nuts. If you don't have photos and witnesses of the money being placed directly in her hand....

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
14. So, "The entire premise of the OP is false, but I'm still supporting it"?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:11 PM
Apr 2016


The industry donated precisely zero money to Clinton's campaign. This is such a stupid line of attack...

amborin

(16,631 posts)
12. more here:
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:02 PM
Apr 2016
Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of money from fossil fuel executives and lobbyists acting as bundlers (fundraisers who collect donations) who represent fossil fuel companies. (She also has lobbyist bundlers who represent other environmentally challenged corporations like Monsanto.)

Here’s just a partial list of the fossil fuel–friendly bundlers who raised money for Clinton from April through June:

ExxonMobil executive Theresa Mary Fariello raised $21,200. ExxonMobil is the world’s largest oil and gas company, and it has a particularly ugly history of funding climate change denial. It is also eager to exploit oil reserves in delicate regions such as the Arctic, despite its responsibility for the most devastating Arctic oil spill in history.

Brian Wolff, executive vice president at the Edison Electric Institute, a utility company trade association, came up with $26,600. EEI opposes and lobbies against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, the centerpiece of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. The power-plant regulations are essential for the U.S. to meet its emission-reduction targets under the Copenhagen Accord and to live up to the promises it is laying out in advance of U.N. negotiations in Paris this December. Clinton has pledged to protect the Clean Power Plan regulations.

Heather Podesta and Tony Podesta have raised $31,150 and $74,575, respectively. The power ex-couple are big-shot Democratic lobbyists. Tony’s brother John is Clinton’s campaign chair and former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton. Even though John Podesta is considered a climate hawk, Tony and his ex-wife Heather represent fossil fuel companies. Heather’s recent past clients include Marathon Oil and Bill Koch’s Oxbow Carbon, a coal giant, and from 2004 to 2006 she lobbied for Koch Industries. Tony lobbied for BP in the wake of its disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, and through last year he represented Golden Pass, a company co-owned by ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum that wants to export liquefied natural gas. To be fair, they also work on behalf of renewable fuel companies — Tony represents SolarReserve, a solar power company, and Heather lobbies for the ethanol industry. You might call the Podestas the very embodiment of the Obama/Clinton “all of the above” energy policy.

Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists for Chevron, bundled $24,700 and $29,700 for Clinton, respectively. Their work includes opposing the Clean Power Plan controls that Clinton supports, and protecting the tax breaks for oil companies that Clinton has previously called for eliminating.

One of Hillary’s top fundraisers, Gordon Giffin, is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company pushing to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

That’s just a sampling. As the Huffington Post reports, “Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.”

Advertisement – Article continues below

In its most recent print issue, The Nation magazine called on all presidential candidates to pledge not to take contributions from fossil fuel companies. Clinton’s two main Democratic opponents, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, both climate hawks, took the pledge. Clinton didn’t respond.


http://grist.org/climate-energy/hillary-clinton-rakes-in-money-from-fossil-fuel-interests/

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
13. Thanks for posting. More proof she's a player -trying- to play US.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:07 PM
Apr 2016

We're smarter than we used to be & not so easily fooled. Someone should tell the establishment elite.

suffragette

(12,232 posts)
15. Enbridge. That speaks to foreign policy as well as U.S. and what it says
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:14 PM
Apr 2016

Is not good. Foreign policy decisions are about issues such as extracting and transporting oil, gas and coal as well about security and conflicts. Oil spills can cross borders easily, especially in areas such as British Columbia and Washington State.

Posted previously about Enbridge here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5832689

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5837820

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
26. Its really sad.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:34 PM
Apr 2016

I went through a period, after it really sunk in, where I would silently apologize to every baby, beautiful tree, seagull, heron, sunflower, eagle, dog, cat, etc for the upcoming end of their species existence.

I can't internalize it like that anymore. It must be how doctors manage to interact with terminal patients. Its a detached compassion that I have now.

But I still have the strong drive to try to change things. While I myself as a citizen or "average voter" am powerless to change things on a fundamental scale, I still can refuse to vote for those who would be in power while being paid off by the people killing our planet.



Octafish

(55,745 posts)
37. What the late, great DUer JackpineRadical said...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:57 PM
Apr 2016


The blue heron is one of my totem creatures. They have appeared at many times and brought comfort in my life crises. I can't explain their personal significance to anyone who doesn't already know about that sort of thing.

-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023676773


What keeps me going politically is Beethoven and his realization that his hearing wasn't coming back, but that he had to keep going on.

As long as there are two of us left, RiverLover, Democracy lives.
 

think

(11,641 posts)
20. Yes. Only their employees can. But the corporation CAN give money to her super pacs. Correct?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:24 PM
Apr 2016

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
22. They can but they haven't so far. The SuperPACs backing Hillary and Bernie have thus far
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:25 PM
Apr 2016

been funded by individuals and unions.

The money discussed in the OP, though, is not SuperPAC money, it is campaign money donated by individuals.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
25. A serious question - do you understand that ethics isn't law?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:34 PM
Apr 2016

Just because a powerful group makes a set of laws that allows them to legally engage in overtly unethical behavior doesn't mean that the people in a democracy are without recourse.

We are holding the trial right now and I have to tell you, things aren't going so well for your client.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
28. Sure but I don't see what the relevance is. Hillary has done nothing either unethical or illegal,
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:36 PM
Apr 2016

and she certainly hasn't taken corporate campaign money.

As far as the trial we're holding, I feel pretty good about how my client is doing. Check the delegate count...

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
38. No, of course not. $21,648,000 corporate money when she knew she was running...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:58 PM
Apr 2016

...is perfectly legal here. And perfectly ethical in Bizarro World.

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
49. "Hillary has done nothing either unethical or illegal"
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:23 PM
Apr 2016

You know that's irrelevant, don't you?

She. Must. Be. Destroyed.










/s

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
21. But they can & DO give to SuperPACs. Why do you think we're so against Citizens United?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:25 PM
Apr 2016

How can you not stand with People? Unless you work for a Superpac or underhanded campaign, I can't see how anyone defends this. Or worse, tries to cover it up.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
23. They can, but so far SuperPACs supporting Bernie and Hillary have been funded by individuals.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:28 PM
Apr 2016

Also, candidates have no control over who donates to SuperPACs, nor do they have any control over what SuperPACs do. SuperPACs are independent expenditure committees.

Hillary's campaign has received no corporate money, and it will never receive any corporate money and any such suggestion is an outright lie.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
29. You are triangulating. A corporation is composed of people. Those people give on behalf of the
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:43 PM
Apr 2016

corporation.

Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 BILLION.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
32. There's the Mitt Romney meme again. Interesting that the far left has jumped on that.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:46 PM
Apr 2016

Of course people don't give "on behalf" of a corporation. They give on behalf of themselves. Individuals have the right to donate up to $2700 to any candidate they want. It's the individual's money, they can do whatever they want with it, and corporations have no say in the matter.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
33. Seriously, who do you think is buying this BS of yours?
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:50 PM
Apr 2016

Do you really think anyone believes this pathetic justification of the purchase of our political system?

You are kidding yourself if you do.

Maybe those above you are hoping otherwise, but it just makes you look like a poser.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
35. Everyone outside the Bernie bubble understands the difference between corporate money
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:51 PM
Apr 2016

and individual money.

And judging from the delegate counts, there are more of us than there are of you.

marmar

(77,073 posts)
40. It's indicative of how little the Clinton campaign and its fellow travelers think of voters.....
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:01 PM
Apr 2016

..... that they'd insult their intelligence that way. But people are figuring it out. They're tired of neoliberal con artists.


questionseverything

(9,651 posts)
54. i trust greenpeace over dan
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 03:42 PM
Apr 2016

perry.wheeler@greenpeace.org.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been backed by the fossil fuel industry in a number of ways.

First, there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of March 21, 2016; source: Center for Responsive Politics) from such donors.

Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,465,610 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number.

Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign.
All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.

//////////////

i think it is important to point out if greenpeace was slandering hc as dan suggests...hc has plenty of money and manpower to sue them to make them stop

since she is not doing that i assume greenpeace has that old best defense of TRUTH

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
42. $21,648,000 in corporate money when everyone knew she was running for president.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:02 PM
Apr 2016

Legalized Bribery.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
24. Jimmy Carter calls it "legalized bribery".
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:30 PM
Apr 2016

He suggests we not do it.

No wonder the Clintons have always hated him.

salinsky

(1,065 posts)
31. The entire Sanders campaign ...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:46 PM
Apr 2016

... has been heavy with demagoguery and light with reality, so this line of attack is totally in character.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
51. Citing facts is definitely within the character of the Sanders campaign.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:53 PM
Apr 2016

Sorry some have a problem with that.

salinsky

(1,065 posts)
52. What do you call it when ...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:57 PM
Apr 2016

... someone knowingly and continuously makes accusations that are factually and demonstrably incorrect?

That is what the Sanders campaign is engaged in here.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
36. Sanders has received nearly a million dollars from Internet-related firms.
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 12:52 PM
Apr 2016

Why is this not worrisome to you? What is the cutoff number at which your concern kicks in? Face it, all candidates receive bundled money. Even -gasp!- Bernie Sanders!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.
[/center][/font][hr]

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
46. Thank you. I can't believe the pretzel-logic spinning that's going on here from
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 01:11 PM
Apr 2016

Hillary fans today. They're literally claiming there is *zero* corporate money in politics now.

I thought the pro-fracking episode represented maximum spin velocity. Apparently not.

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
50. To anyone who has ethics re: money in politics
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 02:51 PM
Apr 2016

The question is not whether Hillary (or any other candidate) followed the letter of the law. It is "has her campaign benefitted from corporate donations?" Yes technical details matter and the accusation is worded in a way that allows her groupies to protest. But any reasonable person who is concerned about corporate influence, should have reservations about the fact that they are indeed helping her even if they are not donating directly to her campaign.
If she wanted to reject that money going to support her campaign is there a way for her to tell the superpac to "cut it out"?

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
62. Yeha, Greenpeace is reliable on this...
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 09:57 PM
Apr 2016

Is Bernie going to give back the money he got AFTER signing a pledge NOT to take such money...oh wait, that's DIFFERENT.

randr

(12,409 posts)
64. Her reaction to the allegations are proof enough of her complicity
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 09:02 AM
Apr 2016

She wants to deny the obvious because she knows it is viewed, in this election cycle, as the wrong thing to do.
Let us hope we put an end to CU and this activity becomes a thing of the past.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
69. As if approved by Cheney himself.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:50 PM
Apr 2016

Servant of Satan and Big Oil.

Former US vice president Dick Cheney has praised Hillary Clinton as one of the more competent members of President Barack Obama's administration, saying it would be "interesting to speculate" on how she would perform as president.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8741148/Dick-Cheney-heaps-praise-on-Hillary-Clinton.html


It's almost weird how Rachel hasn't talked about that.


Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»FACT: Hillary & her Super...