Again with this explanation

[HassleCat]

Once again, Clinton supporters are circulating this information, emphasizing the fact that many of Clinton's contributions come from individuals, while campaign finance reporting rules make it appear she's getting money from the financial industry.

Guess what? There is a reason the rules make individual contributors "lump together" according to where they work. Because it prevents a particular form of deception. Let's say I'm Fred Bigbucks, CEO of Bigbucks Investments. I hold a campaign party at my house, invite all the people who work for me, and "suggest" they each write a check for $2600 to my favorite candidate. So the contribution records for my candidate show $2600 from John, $2600 from Sue, $2600 from Andy, $2600 from each of the 100 or so people attending my party. This is a form of "bundling," the practice of collecting individual contributions from a bunch of people and giving the aggregate amount to the campaign. Unless you knew they worked for me, you would never know those contributions were all related through my company. To prevent this sort of deception, campaign finance reporting procedures require information that allows the reader to figure out when 100 people who work for Bigbucks Investments all get together and pony up $1700 each.

What's the dif? Who cares? "Bundling" is responsible for almost half the campaign money that flows to major national candidates. If it wasn't reported as bundled, you would think it came from John, Sue, Andy, etc. and you would never know they all work for me, Mr. Bigbucks. You could find out, but you would have to do a lot of independent research, and the election would be long over by the time you established John, Sue, Andy and 100 other "individuals" all work at the same place.

Some Clinton supporters are circulating this information to refute the accusation she is "in the pocket" of large financial organizations. Well, the accusation may be unfair, but the denial is disingenuous. The fact is, Clinton has the support of big Wall Street firms, investors, traders, etc. This does not justify the claim that she is a shill, a stooge, a sock puppet, etc. for Wall Street, but it does illustrate a significant difference between Clinton and Sanders. To claim otherwise is deceptive. It's up to the voter to interpret this distinction between the two candidates. One reason I support Sanders is because his campaign finance reports show little connection to Wall Street, but I'm not ready to conclude Clinton will sell out the working class and middle class to benefit her Wall Street contributors. I support Sanders because I like Sanders, not because I hate Clinton.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/08/11/you-know-that-meme-about-hillarys-vs-bernies-campaign-donors-its-a-lie/ via Addicting Info

[n8dogg83]

1. "I support Sanders because I like Sanders, not because I hate Clinton."

I agree. I like and respect Hillary a lot. I have some concerns about her Wall Street connections but I don't think that translates into her being a total shill for the industry. She would make a good president. But Bernie would make a GREAT president. I think Thom Hartmann said it best on one of his programs: " Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an FDR type president, Bernie, however, IS an FDR type president (albeit with a lot less money!). That's why I support him, but would vote for Hillary if it came down to it.

[SheilaT]

2. Perhaps more to the point,

Bernie Sanders, like Howard Dean in 2004, has thousands and thousands of individuals who are each giving less than $100, but it's adding up to pretty decent money.

And perhaps most telling is that Bernie's top nine donors are unions, while Hillary's are either banks or large corporations, with Emily's List as an actual outlier here. And Emily's List only gives to women, which I have no problem with, but they should spread their money around more to other deserving women.

[cali]

3. thanks for this

[SonderWoman]

4. So why does the graph not show her union $$$

Which is far greater than her bank contributions combined?

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/07/1409515/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-Hillary-Clinton-s-Campaign-Donors

[HassleCat]

5. I don't know

It appears to me the amount of money she gets from the financial sector is much greater than what she gets from unions. Your link is to an article comparing totals from two previous campaigns, or it appears that way, hard to tell. It's confusing, which appears to be the intent of the article. Anyway, it does not change the fact that Clinton receives significant support from financial institutions, at least so far in this election cycle.

[Snarkoleptic]

6. There is currently a "$1 limited edition supporter card" offer from Hillary's campaign.

This was a topic of discussion on the Thom Hartmann show last week and the consensus seemed to be that the goal of these is to both-
1) To decrease the average donation amount.
and
2) To get a list of people who are inclined to donate to her campaign, in order to solicit further donations in the future.

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/627862002464083969

[HassleCat]

7. Pretty smart move

It's a good tactic for both reasons you suggest.

[artislife]

8. This just makes me sigh

So many things that shouldn't be a tactic in such a way. I have to admit, once I saw one, I now see many.

It is the purple elephant effect but it just makes me sigh, with her.

Everything just seems so calculated.

[OnyxCollie]

9. If you bundled enough money for Bush, you could become a "pioneer." nt

[MyNameGoesHere]

10. "What's the dif? Who cares? "

Alex, I take you for 500.