Factchecker: 3 Pinocchios for Sanders over Clinton oil & gas donations

There’s been quite a kerfuffle the past few days about Bernie Sanders’ claim that Hillary Clinton has taken “significant” contributions from the oil and gas industry.

Per the Washington Post’s factchecker, it’s a lie.

As the WaPo factchecker put it:

The Sanders campaign is exaggerating the contributions that Clinton has received from the oil and gas industry. In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant. It’s especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money “given” by the fossil-fuel industry.

Three Pinocchios

Update: The New York Times political fact checker agrees with the Washington Post:

by default 2016-04-03 at 12.22.16 PM

Basically, what Sanders did was count any small donation coming from someone working in the oil and gas industry — including janitors, secretaries, or interns — and calling that a contribution “from the industry.”

The second problem the Washington Post factchecker had with Sanders’ claim is that the donations aren’t “significant” at all. They’re a very small percentage.

More from the Post:

As our colleague Philip Bump noted, about 0.15 percent of Clinton’s campaign and outside PAC money is from the “oil and gas industry,” compared to 0.04 percent of Sanders’s contributions. So it’s pretty hard to describe that as “significant,” as Sanders did in his interview

You might have noted in that paragraph from the Post that Sanders himself has received contributions from the oil and gas industry, using his terminology. Thus Sanders himself has been paid off and is now corrupt, if you trust his analysis of things.

And it gets even more troublesome for Sanders. Using his yardstick for measuring corruption, Sanders has been bought off by the US military-industrial complex.

You see, when you do a comparison of Bernie Sanders’ and Hillary Clinton’s top contributors via the Open Secrets Web site, Clinton’s top contributors are unions, foundations, and progressive organizations. While Sanders’ top contributors are huge corporations, the hated insurance industry, the US military.

Here is Hillary, via Open Secrets:

clinton-contirbutors

 

Here is Sanders, via Open Secrets:

sanders-contributors-x

Oh, and you might have noticed that one of Sanders’ top contributors is Boeing. Yes, that would be the same company Sanders blasted in a presidential debate as being a corrupt donor to the Clintons. Sanders said that Boeing’s donations are clearly intended to buy interest, and anyone accepting Boeing contributions simply must be corrupt.

Feeling Berned yet?

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis  — Win a pony! (not really)


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

197 Responses to “Factchecker: 3 Pinocchios for Sanders over Clinton oil & gas donations”

  1. Dan Sloan says:

    You can choose whether you want to invest in a mutual fund that puts money into fracking, or put your money into socially responsible investing. There are lots of plans that do so which take a 2 second Googlesearch to find. Bernie is making money off of fracking companies. He doesn’t have to. It’s totally hypocritical.

  2. CookieThumper says:

    Hillary has not received more donations. Sanders has received by far, many more than Clinton. What she has received though, is lots more money from her corporate wall street backers.
    According to Politico, Hillary has 1289 delegates to Sanders 1045. There are 2431 delegates still to be allocated, which include super delegates. That’s still a lot of delegate votes out there. More than half. Don’t count Sanders out. And Super delegates can and do change their mind.

  3. DCRocha says:

    Hillary is seen to more likely win that’s why she received more donations.

  4. M.-J. Taylor says:

    Big difference between owning a mutual fund which has one fracking company in its portfolio and accepting campaign contributions from a fracking company. You can control what a mutual fund invests in. And he is not saying no one should invest in American companies. He is saying those companies should pay their fair share of taxes. #reaching

  5. DR says:

    You are totally correct. Many news sites just keep trying to make it sound like he’s talking about individual donors (which could be IT people, custodians, whoever at the companies) and for some reason ignore what he’s really talking about. The Lobbyist Bundlers and huge donations to her SuperPAC.

    Go to the FEC.GOV site, look up Hillary for America under the Lobbyist Bundlers section. There should be 3 reports there for the last 3 quarters of 2015. Those are the Lobbyist Bundlers. Google the names in those reports and you’ll see several are lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry, like Jackson Dunn (a lobbyist for various industries including a Houston based Gas & Oil Company) who had bundled $231,000 already by July 15th 2015 for Clinton.

    There are many others too. According to GreenPeace lobbyist bundlers for the fossil fuel industry raised around 1.3 Million for Clinton in. That was between 11 lobbyists so far.

    Also at the FEC site you can check on the SuperPAC called “Priorities USA Action” which is the affiliated SuperPAC for Clinton for more fossil fuel industry donations. Greenpeace showed that number was at about 3.25 million.

    If you really want to delve even deeper… you can look into the interesting scheme the DNC has going on with 33 states right now to bypass some of the campaign finance laws in connection with a Joint Financing Committee called “The Hillary Victory Fund”. That fund started back in August I believe. People can donate $10,000 per year to each of the 33 states. So $330,000 per person. If they did it in December then they could have done another $330,000 in January.

    So the money gets donated to the Democratic Party in some or all of those 33 states by one person, quickly almost all of it gets shifted to the Hillary Victory Fund, and then is used to pay bills for the Clinton Campaign or just transferred there. Some might go to other candidates but the large majority is going to Clinton’s campaign so far. Of those 33 states my state was one that sold itself out like that… The Democratic Party in my state is hurting for money but they’re funneling money for Clinton’s Committee…

    If anyone doesn’t believe me, that’s ok. You can google “CounterPunch” and “33 States” to find the article on this. I’ve included a brief explanation below too. What’s going on was all made possible by a 2014 supreme court decision that gutted part of campaign finance reform and allowed this loophole to exist.

    Anyway, go to the FEC.gov site, look up “Hillary Victory Fund”, go to the individual donations, sort by amount, and check the big donations out. Lots of them around $100,000 to $330,000 huh? That fund got about 26million in 2015 through that interesting loophole. The 2016 numbers aren’t available yet. While you’re there google some of the names of the big donors and you’ll find a LOT of very wealthy people & big shots (CEO’s, etc) from many different industries like energy, banking, investments, etc. All knowingly using this loophole that now exists.

    Now search for Hillary’s official campaign (where her official donations go). It’s called “Hillary for America”. Once you are there click on the link that says “Transfers from Authorized Committees”. Sort by amount again… and would ya look at that? Over 11 million that passed through that loophole so far from the Hillary Victory Fund into Hillary’s official campaign thanks to the 33 states that bowed down, and thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in 2014, McCutcheon v FEC.

  6. Martha Hatcher says:

    Here is your liars proof https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

  7. Amwatching2c says:

    There’s one born everyday, I think P. T. Barnum stated. What are you talking about?

  8. leliorisen says:

    Sucker? You really said that? LOL.

    You really should watch your language or your great grandchildren may stop letting you use their keyboard.

  9. John C. 'Buck' Field says:

    I’ve heard Sanders repeatedly distinguish large donations sourced from lobbyists and super PACs from small individual contributions from people in those industries, especially when the amounts are nowhere near the limits.

    Thus, the claim “Sanders himself has received contributions from the oil and gas industry, using his terminology” appears false.

    Having repeatedly made this distinction, it seems unfair in the extreme to then claim “Basically, what Sanders did was count any small donation coming from someone working in the oil and gas industry — including janitors, secretaries, or interns — and calling that a contribution “from the industry.” This is almost the exact opposite of what Sanders has explained several times.

    Unless there is some additional information of which I’m unaware, the article’s major claims and conclusions appear incorrect.

  10. kladinvt says:

    How much is HillaryInc paying you to write these daily diatribes against Bernie?

  11. Neller6557 says:

    The last election cycle saw business owners coercing or threatening their employees with job loss if they didn’t support a certain candidate, usually republican .

    Employees are certainly dependent upon an industry thriving and if a certain candidate supports that industry more than another it’s not difficult to see a preference here and perhaps more donations to go with it.

    This coercion could be very subtle and overt. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s going on with Democrats as well as Republicans .

  12. Jimbo2K7 says:

    Did I say I was a lobbyist?
    I have no idea where that came from.

  13. Amwatching2c says:

    I didn’t think he would file his taxes in Sweden.

  14. Demosthenes says:

    Thanks Mr. Aravosis, for pointing some light on Mr. Sanders. Despite his great rhetoric, the media have given him a complete pass thus far.

  15. Taradacktyl says:

    Yes. The guy COMPLETELY funded by WE THE PEOPLE. The guy who doesn’t owe a single favor to Wall Street. “F” that guy. The chameleon grifter who got filthy rich in public service while pushing right wing policies and illegal wars – as the middle class sank below 50% of the population – is so much more “authentic.”

    Stockholm Syndrome is an amazing thing.

  16. Taradacktyl says:

    OF COURSE SHE’S CORRUPT! Anyone who got rich in “public service” while pushing policies that helped the middle class sink below 50% of the population didn’t get filthy rich by accident.

    You’re talking about someone who, after (supposed) “careful review” of the Iraq intelligence, voted for the Iraq war crime. Something she now calls “a mistake.” Meaning, she was either duped by – OR COMPLICIT IN – A WAR CRIME.

    On one hand she says that money has no influence over her, on the other hand she publically boasts that she no longer takes money from the prison lobby that she vows to reform. Wait? Why? I thought money didn’t influence her.

    She’s the worst. Stop defending a crook. She’s part of the problem that turned the United States from the most to the least upwardly mobile with the widest income gap of all industrialized nations.

  17. Taradacktyl says:

    Well, because it doesn’t fit their false-equivalency narrative. That’s how propaganda works. You see… we were supposed to fall in line behind the fake DLC-Dem Clintons on day one, but the people got in the way by picking a candidate who doesn’t owe a single favor to wall street. That just won’t do for the people who get filthy rich in “public service” while pushing policies that helped the middle class sinks below 50% of the population. So, now they’re trying to smear a man who actually believes government should work for more than just the filthy insiders who Hillary pals around with.

    From: http://bit.ly/1Swxs9u

    “According to the latest tallies from Center for Responsive Politics, Clinton’s campaign has received $307,561 from people who work for oil and gas interests so far in the presidential race. Sanders has received nearly six times fewer dollars — $53,760.

    For Clinton, that’s 0.2 percent of the more than $159.9 million her campaign committee, Hillary for America, has raised. For Sanders, it’s 0.04 percent of $139.8 million.

    Super PACs supporting Clinton have directly given an additional $25,701. Sanders does not have a super PAC.

    So far, 97.7 percent of donations from people connected the oil and gas industry have gone to Republicans.

    But in Clinton’s case, that doesn’t include “bundlers,” a fancy name for fundraisers who collect money from individual donors and bundle the money together for a campaign.

    A bundler might, for example, arrange to have each executive from an oil company, along with each adult member of his or her family, give $1,000 per person, which is bundled together and given to the campaign. It’s legal because the individuals aren’t violating the per-person limit.

    The Huffington Post article from July 17, 2015, cited by Sanders found that “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.” It links to 40 registered lobbyists but only offers details on some donors who still work for the industry.”

  18. Bill_Perdue says:

    It doesn’t matter what these sellouts call themselves. People often lie in politics, for instance those who insist on calling themselves the Democratic Party, which in reality is just another party owned by the rich.

    Nor are these pro-capitalist reformists internationalists in any sense of the word – they support capitalist wars of aggression more often than not and many support colonialism, for instance European colonialism in Palestine and US/NATO colonialism from Tunisia to Indonesia.

  19. quax says:

    It is those social democrats that have been running the Socialist International (http://www.socialistinternational.org) since forever.

    You my friend seem to be much more aligned with communism.

  20. Bill_Perdue says:

    You sound like an emnittered Democrat. Get used to being embittered.

    ”PRINCETON, N.J. — In 2015, for the fifth consecutive year, at least four in 10 U.S.
    adults identified as political independents. The 42% identifying as independents in 2015 was down slightly from the record 43% in 2014. This elevated percentage of political independents leaves Democratic (29%) and Republican (26%) identification at or near recent low points, with the modest Democratic advantage roughly where it has been over the past five years.”
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

    “Democratic turnout has fallen drastically since 2008, the last time the party had a contested primary, with roughly three million fewer Democrats voting in the 15 states
    that held caucuses or primaries through Tuesday, according to unofficial election results. It declined in virtually every state, dropping by roughly 50 percent in states like Minnesota and Texas. In Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia, the number of Democrats voting decreased by roughly a third.”

    “The fall-off in Democratic primary turnout — which often reveals whether a candidate is exciting voters and attracting them to the polls — reached deeply into some of the core groups of voters Mrs. Clinton must not only win in November, but turn out in large numbers. It stands in sharp contrast to the flood of energized new voters showing up at the polls to vote for Donald J. Trump in the Republican contest.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-voter-turnout.html?_r=0

  21. Bill_Perdue says:

    They’re social democrats, the folks who supported their various national governments in the First World War.

    They aren’t socialists, they’re reformists and that makes them as irrelevant as Democrats from the point of view of creating fundamental change. Sanders is continuing their promotion of wars of aggressiion – he votes for wars of aggression.

    Nov. 21, 2013 S 1197 National Defense Authorization Act
    for Fiscal Year 2014 Yea

    Sept. 21, 2010 S 3454 2010-2011 Defense Authorizations
    Yea

    Oct. 22, 2009 HR 2647 2009-2010 Defense Appropriations Conference Report Adopted Yea

    July 10, 2008 Nomination of General Petraeus as Military Leader of the Middle East – Yea

    Oct. 1, 2007 HR 1585 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Yea

    June 20, 2006 HR 5631 Defense Department FY2007 Appropriations Bill Yea

    etc.

    https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/47/military-personnel#.Vbz8dvlViko

    and
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/05/28/bernie-sanders-the-ron-paul-of-the-left/

    http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/bernie_sanders_says_he_wouldnt_end_drone_program_20150831

  22. Bill_Perdue says:

    Sanders is a Democrat and should run as a Democrat, aka, a corrupt rightist.
    Nader is not a socialist and would not have gotten the support of sociaists.

  23. Nicole Friedrich says:

    So you’d rather Sanders run as an independent??

    So you’re ok with that?

    The don’t whine like a child when it occurs to you that Nader did the same thing.

  24. Nicole Friedrich says:

    ignorant much?

  25. Nicole Friedrich says:

    Were you a registered lobbyist for that government agency?

    Makes all the difference.

  26. quax says:

    I like Bernie and I like Hillary. Why not continuing to showcase to the country how two adults run clean, issue oriented campaigns?

    Only when his supporters accept the reality of a loss should Bernie step aside.

  27. quax says:

    Most Socialist parties in Europe do not advocate for the abolition of capitalism. Rather they argue for strict oversight, market regulation and a welfare system.

    Sorry, but you don’t own the term socialism. You may try communism instead.

  28. CookieThumper says:

    Here’s a better idea John. https://www.facebook.com/bernieorbust/
    Enjoy!

  29. CookieThumper says:

    The difference between the donations made to Clinton vs Sanders is breathtaking.

  30. Amwatching2c says:

    Deals better that Drumpf’s, This was while she was calling for a clean energy “Revolution” And everyone knows a lot of people are interested in what the Sect. has to say. On a wide range of issues. Tell the Bernie guys to sniff around The Kockstacks. Or are the Bernie boys really Rove and the rest of the dark money networks?

  31. Amwatching2c says:

    Sucker.. Revolution and pixie dust. 20+ years on the tit of the tax paying public. I just read, Mr. Clean Money is having trouble releasing his tax returns, seems to be having a Trump double talk. Who gets the votes and delegates wins. He would serve the progressive causes better by sticking to the issues, Drumpf throws mud and BS.

  32. James Oscar Gant IV says:

    Is it really false though? The Super PAC that supports her got 5.3 million from the fossil fuels industry. This is the whole reason that politicians use super pacs. And as Stephen Colbert Showed with his Super Pac it’s not like there is really that many degrees of separation between the super pac and the person who it supports.

  33. James Oscar Gant IV says:

    His investments total less than a million dollars at somewhere between $188,027 to $774,000. And he is at the end of his life.

    The Sanders campaign is not a purity hunt it is about financial responsibility, accountability, and ethics- civil justice in the financial system.

    No one is saying that people shouldn’t have money or invest in the things they want to invest in, but part of the security of a financial system is knowing that it is not based in corporatism or plutocracy because those are not sustainable forms of economy or government.

    Also corruption ie buying politicians for the sake of market controls and corporatism should not be legal in the US. And that corruption IS in fact legal is a large part of what is ruining our democratic republic.

    This is not really a controversial, radical, or ridiculous set of ideas- it is just that which would prevent us from descending irrevocably into oligarchical corporatism. It is the tough choice we need to make to get back to a more sustainable and democratic free society.

  34. David Quach says:

    Why didn’t you include the amounts?? You purposely cropped it out…

  35. Phil in FLL says:

    OK. Understood.

  36. Lindamint says:

    The issue has been constantly insinuating that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt compromised candidate. Never directly like the Republicans, but passive aggressively with additional whining and complaining. So the sub text is the exact same republican BS. When confronted, Bernie claims deep hurt and demands an apology . Typical passive aggressive behavior. Hillary did not sign a pledge regarding not taking money from the industry. Sander’s defends his money because it all came from the janitor. Hillary gets all of hers from lobbyist.

  37. Dan Sloan says:

    We’re talking about caucuses which discriminate against working people (including the working poor) who can’t take time off to go there for hours at a time. College kids can. We know that college kids are for Bernie. That didn’t tell us much about the general electorate.

  38. Dan Sloan says:

    Since Bernie’s on the purity hunt, can we talk about his Wall Street Investments (http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/assets.php?year=2014&cid=N00000528), specifically his investment in the Valic Aggressive Growth Lifestyle Fund (http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=VAGLX&region=usa&culture=en-US)? One of the holdings is the VALIC Company II Mid Cap Value. One of their biggest holdings is Diamondback Energy (http://www.morningstar.com/stocks/XNAS/FANG/quote.html), which turns out to be a FRACKING company in Texas?

    Surprise! In the midst of all this sanctimony Bernie *personally* gets money from the fossil fuel sector. How does that influence him?

  39. leliorisen says:

    You keep telling yourself that.

  40. William says:

    “Long blonde hair and lived with my mommy”…er…what…who? And then you are accusing “all those black people” of not caring about other black people or “MINORITIES”? And, by the way…”all those black people” don’t all have a lot of money. Exaggerate much Annette…time for another prozac.

  41. Silver_Witch says:

    Hi Phil in FLL – I read the article – I have see the 3 pinocchio’s everywhere on Democratic Underground, various articles and did not persume they were John’s. What I mean is he is spreading the PARTY line for HRC. This is the meme of the day!

  42. Annette says:

    You know what all those black people have unlike most of us “MONEY” and no worry about where they will get their next month’s rent. Bernie or Bust just do not do it for us because of the consequences to MINORITIES. If I had money and long blonde hair and lived with my mommy, I would not change my stance because there is NO consequence for me.

  43. Max_1 says:

    Divide and conquer… Iraq, lybia, Siria, Yeoman, etc.
    it’s what THE ESTABLISHMENT doees best!

  44. Max_1 says:

    Hillary could have won those six States… But she did t even try to get out the vote… Ergo ~ LANDSLIDE

  45. Twittero28 says:

    $$$$$

  46. Twittero28 says:

    Funny how you forgot to display the actual number of each contribution…

  47. William says:

    Ahhhhh, there you go Sally, “Bernie the Communist”…I guess that means we can call you anything we want also then…since that’s a total lie. And in calling you whatever we want, we would be correct, right? Hillary people are getting scared and their fangs are coming out…LOL

  48. William says:

    How about Hillary sending out her trust fund daughter and known-liar of a husband to tell lies about Senator Sanders, and how about the numerous lies Hillary herself has said about Bernie. Jesus Christ man, all you have to do to hear Hillary tell a lie is wait for her to open her mouth…guaranteed a few will come out.

  49. William says:

    Which is, in your estimation, why Dr. Cornel West, Danny Glover, Rosario Dawson, Ta-nehisi Coates, Ben Jealous, Spike Lee, Michelle Alexander, Representative Keith Ellison, Representative Justin Bamberg, Killer Mike, Lenny Kravitz, Harlem Senator Bill Perkins, Queens Senator James Sanders Jr., just to name a few, all support Senator Sanders. And the more people hear him, the MORE they like him. Like Spike Lee said – young people…talk to your parents, their thinking needs to be straightened out. And I suppose your argument is more correct than national polls, which put Senator Sanders WAY AHEAD of all the other candidates, in terms of honesty and trustworthiness. IN FACT, in terms of honesty and trustworthiness, Hillary Clinton comes in dead LAST! Almost no one trusts her…and for good reason!

  50. leliorisen says:

    I originally posted the following deeper in this thread, in response to John Aravosis’ suggestion that Sanders should quit. However, I would like it to be seen and not buried, so I am moving it here as a separate comment. It goes to the overall tone of this piece, and the attacks on Sanders veracity:

    If you think that 5 landslides in the last 6 states means that there is no reason for Sanders to pack it in, then you have been in the bubble too long. For the record, Clinton did not get out of the race until June of ’08.

    This is more than just this presidential race. This is restoring a corrupted party that the DNC is intent on destroying. No 50-state strategy. No enthusiasm. No consistent messaging. Burying Democratic debates. Corporatist business-as-usual. The progressives in this party have been ignored for far too long, or have you forgotten what happened right after Obama got elected, and Rahm Emanuel was installed as Chief of Staff? I haven’t.

    Bill Clinton yanked this party hard to the right and it never fully recovered. The Clintons embraced Wall St. It was part of their strategy. It is time for real progressives to take our party back. I voted for Obama twice, yet this president still is trying to ram the TPP down our throats. He gives us Merrick Garland? Really?

    As much as I am invested in Bernie’s candidacy, I am equally invested in all challengers to the establishment that thinks they own the party. It is why I actively support Tim Canova, who is challenging Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

    If President Obama had campaigned on Hillary’s essential platform, “Incremental Change We Hope The GOP allows,” he would never have gotten elected. I find her whole message and tone insulting. Republicans will not work with any Democrat, ESPECIALLY her, so why on Earth aim so low…and accomplish nothing. At least if you have aspirations, you have something to bargain with as you build a consensus.

  51. leliorisen says:

    If you think that 5 landslides in the last 6 states means that there is no reason for Sanders to pack it in, then you have been in the bubble too long. For the record, Clinton did not get out of the race until June of ’08.

    This is more than just this presidential race. This is restoring a corrupted party that the DNC is intent on destroying. No 50-state strategy. No enthusiasm. No consistent messaging. Burying Democratic debates. Corporatist business-as-usual. The progressives in this party have been ignored for far too long, or have you forgotten what happened right after Obama got elected, and Rahm Emanuel was installed as Chief of Staff? I haven’t.

    Bill Clinton yanked this party hard to the right and it never fully recovered. The Clintons embraced Wall St. It was part of their strategy. It is time for real progressives to take our party back. I voted for Obama twice, yet this president still is trying to ram the TPP down our throats. He gives us Merrick Garland? Really?

    As much as I am invested in Bernie’s candidacy, I am equally invested in all challengers to the establishment that thinks they own the party. It is why I actively support Tim Canova, who is challenging Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

    If President Obama had campaigned on Hillary’s essential platform, “Incremental Change We Hope The GOP allows,” he would never have gotten elected. I find her whole message and tone insulting. Republicans will not work with any Democrat, ESPECIALLY her, so why on Earth aim so low…and accomplish nothing. At least if you have aspirations, you have something to bargain with as you build a consensus.

  52. Jimbo2K7 says:

    John, I really do not understand your hostility towards Bernie.

  53. 2karmanot says:

    Same here!

  54. 2karmanot says:

    I find it disturbing that establishment Hillbots are not only abandoning ‘policy’ discussions, but have taken to mud slinging and slandering Sanders as a matter of course. Aside from the DC hard core and it’s media whore’s It’s become particularly evident on AB and for that I am extremely disappointed. I’ve been following and reading this blog for many years and find it’s descent into partisan BS a sad business. This is not the way to unite the party, but will contribute to its fraction. Hillary is showing her true colors and I for one will stick to true Democratic principles and write Bernie in when it comes down to it. Bad form America Blog!

  55. leliorisen says:

    Why not go through all of them, not just those that concur. NPR…Politifact…

    However, if you really want to handle this seriously, why not share this Greenpeace article which just came out, since it is one of their representatives who confronted Clinton. This article goes into the specific nature of the complaint and charge: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/these-are-the-facts-on-fossil-fuel-money-going-to-the-clinton-and-sanders-campaigns/

    I’ll be interested to see your response.

  56. leliorisen says:

    I can see how landslide victories in 5 of the last 6 states will make Sanders, who is not even supposed to still be in the race, desperate. Makes so much sense. You really have no idea what this revolution is about, do you? This goes way beyond election day. Politics as usual in the right-of-center Democratic Party are coming to an end.

  57. leliorisen says:

    Since you are actually trying to use the Washington Post as a credible source, I want to remind your readers of the extremist anti-Sanders slant of Jeff Bezos’ newspaper: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/washpos_obvious_bias_16_negative_stories_about_bernie_sanders_20160308

    For those who want to be truly informed, do a fact-check search on google and you will see that npr, politifact and other fact-checking organizations did not summarily dismiss Sanders the way WaPo did. There are at least 3 other fact-checking organizations who have looked at it. One also has to totally ignore the fact that the Clinton Foundation has received substantial donations. That has no impact? Give me a break.

    I have not read other articles in here recently, but if I find any articles attacking Sanders’ lgbt cred, as nearly all Washington lgbt-insiders have done, but the lgbt community at large has not, I will not be surprised.

  58. Bill_Perdue says:

    The Washington Post is right wing. They endorsed Obama twice.

  59. Amwatching2c says:

    Sanders is desperate, the media keeps him pumped up. The landslides he got in the last caucuses were in the thousands, .01% of eligible voters, not hundreds of thousands. He can rally lots of students for a rally, how many actually turn out will be determined. He needs we over 50% of the votes in the remaining contests. He is millions of votes behind Sec Clinton, that have been cast. If he has a problem with money in the process, first focus on the Kocks, second quit exaggerating. His constant talk about how Huge a lead in the polls, reminds me of another liar with weird hair.

  60. You mean if I stop criticizing Sanders, I help Hillary. That’s a cute argument :) You know how else we can help Hillary and unify the party in the fall, Sanders admits that he’s lost.

  61. Don Chandler says:

    I’m afraid the image of Sanders with a Pinocchio nose is not working for me. There is little doubt in my mind that Hillary has deep pockets of establishment monies. In fact, Jon has posted pieces showing that Hillary gets money from for profit prisons:

    http://aravosis.wpengine.com/2015/07/private-prison-lobbyists-hillary-clinton.html

    In this piece, there is a bit about Hillary and Keystone:

    “One notable bundler is Gordon Giffin, a former lobbyist for the Canadian company working to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin is also on the board of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which paid Clinton $990,000 for speeches she gave immediately before announcing her presidential campaign.”

  62. karlInSanDiego says:

    That’s awesome. You can’t downvote a John Aravosis comment, but you can upvote them. John has ascended. All hail God.

  63. karlInSanDiego says:

    Yes, it is true. She has superpacs and the fossil fuel industry lobbyists were tracked by GreenPeace giving to those. And the Clinton Foundation recently took all kinds of money from oil rich nations, which you cannot detangle as an influence in her politics in the future.

  64. karlInSanDiego says:

    People in the Military don’t want to fight regime-change wars to loosen up the oil in the Middle East. Did you think they get big commissions for the more people they kill? They sometimes get additional hazard pay, but it doesn’t mean they don’t resent being lied to about the Iraq War or the intended goal of the Afghanistan War (which was Taliban regime change, not capture of Bin Laden)

  65. Jimbo2K7 says:

    I have been a long time employee of a government agency, and have contributed to many campaigns. To somehow claim that my contributions are in the name of the agency I work for is dishonest and deceitful. I do not represent the agency nor does it represent me.

    A lie is still a lie no matter where it comes from.

  66. heimaey says:

    Calling us pathetic – and then the Hillary camp cries about the Bernie camp being nasty. A lot of hypocrisy going around these days.

  67. MikeParent says:

    That was a Greenpeace reporter asking her about her Energy sector backers. In their report they showed how she received industry money.

  68. Bill_Perdue says:

    That’s true about HRH HRC but Sanders has one overwhelming piece of baggage.
    he’s a Democrat. He wasn’t always so corrupt.

    “It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party. …“Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?” – Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City, April 1990. http://www.keywiki.org/Socialist_Scholars_Conference_1990

    “The Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt, they have no ideology. Their ideology is opportunism.” – Interview with Vermont Affairs magazine, 1986 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/15/1409803/-Introducing-Bernie-Sanders-the-Hypocrite

    “The Democratic and Republican parties are tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, they both adhere to an ideology of greed and vulgarity.” – Op-ed in the New York Times, January 1989. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/15/1409803/-Introducing-Bernie-Sanders-the-Hypocrite

    “The quotes and other information are from the Politico article: Can Bernie Sanders Win the Love of a Party He Scorns?” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181

  69. Bill_Perdue says:

    What’s important and wrong about BSs campaign is not that he lies but that he’s a Democrat, aka, a rightwinger.

    Sanders campaign will tear the Democrat party apart, win or lose. Democrats are now facing their own divisive challenge for the BS campaign which styles itself a “Political Revolution”. Sanders dishonestly compares his campaign to previous genuine socialist campaigns like those of E V Debs , the founder of my union.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Sanders is pro-capitalist and says so. “Democratic socialism, Sanders said, is not tied to any Marxist belief or the abolition of capitalism. “I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal,’ he said.” http://time.com/4121126/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/

    Debs took a different approach. Debs, who helped found the IWW, ran several presidential campaigns and got his largest vote in 1920, winning 915,000 votes while in prison for his earlier defense of antiwar activists. His views are the authentic voice of working people while has degenerated into being little more than a liberal apologist for the kind of society crated by the rich. His campaign is just another tiresome reiteration of lesser evilism and meant to draw people back into the swamp of Democrat Party politics. Sanders pretends that the struggle is between the Democrat and Republican parties, when in reality it’s a fight between workers and the rich. That’s why socialists concentrate our work in building unions and the union left and in proposing a program that the right in both parties will oppose, like the fights to unionize the unorganized and for a decent minimum wage.

    Debs said “Wherever capitalism appears, in pursuit of its mission of exploitation, there will Socialism, fertilized by misery, watered by tears, and vitalized by agitation be also found, unfurling its class-struggle banner and proclaiming its mission of emancipation”. (The American Movement – 1908) And when summing up his approach Debs said ” From the crown of my head to the soles of my feet I am Bolshevik, and proud of it. (The Day of the People – 1919)

    Compiled from a recent issue of KC Labor – http://kclabor.org/wordpress/?p=824

  70. Angela Walker says:

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!321➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!321……..

  71. Angela Walker says:

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!321➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!321…….

  72. hiker_sf says:

    For anyone supporting Sanders who has committed to vote for Clinton in November if she wins/steals the primary, I suggest stop reading John’s posts. Each one of his vile anti-Sanders posts makes is more difficult to support Clinton and that is unfair to Clinton.

    I wish that the Clinton propaganda and smear committee realized that she is going to needs Sanders supporters to win the November election.

    The only person who is belittled by John’s post is John himself.

  73. Brian says:

    But is Hillary really against it?

  74. William says:

    Of course. The thing is, the tone of everything has become so disingenuous, extreme, and either-or, that no one is being well served by this style of politics. No one is ‘all’ this way or that, regardless of what people are increasingly seeming to think. And that is, of course, due in part to the media, whichever slant, and by the corrupt big money, as you said. Even Donald Trump isn’t evil (100% anyway). For me, it’s a matter of who is more trustworthy, honest, sincere, consistent, and who is the most progressive. But the others aren’t all bad.

  75. Phil in FLL says:

    I’m hoping that anyone who can appoint Supreme Court justices to reverse Citizens United will be performing the best service. The system is corrupt because of the huge amounts of corporate money—like the Koch brothers—that is poisoning the electoral system because of the Citizens United decision. That’s why I can’t stand the Republicans. They love the Citizens United decision. Bernie and Hillary are both against it. In fact, the plaintiff in the Citizens United case was an anti-Hillary pac.

  76. Max_1 says:

    John,
    When Hillary said she’s gonna hold Hedge Fund managers and Wall Street CEO’s feet to the fire…
    … Are we supposed to honestly believe that her son in-law won’t be exempt from that fire?

  77. William says:

    Agreed again, however, what I am talking about is (to REALLY oversimplify) a good cop bad cop sort of scenario. Granted, the players in this Grand Scenario, nor the audience, see the forest for the trees, but that’s what is going on…they are ALL full of it bro. The whole system, whichever side you go with, is corrupt. That’s the problem.

  78. Max_1 says:

    2016 Presidential Race
    Selected Industry Totals

    Pharmaceuticals/Health Products
    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php?ind=H04
    Hillary Clinton (D) graph $2,044,065
    Bernie Sanders (D) graph $132,708

    Oil & Gas
    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php?ind=E01
    Hillary Clinton (D) graph $333,262
    Bernie Sanders (D) graph $53,760

    Lobbyists
    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php?ind=K02
    Hillary Clinton (D) graph $919,477
    Bernie Sanders (D) graph $11,949

    Hedge Funds & Private Equity
    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php?ind=F27
    Hillary Clinton (D) graph $14,112,124
    Bernie Sanders (D) graph $22,731

    Lawyers/Law Firms
    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php?ind=K01
    Hillary Clinton (D) graph $14,425,731
    Bernie Sanders (D) graph $1,012,393

    TV/Movies/Music
    https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php?ind=B02
    Hillary Clinton (D) graph $9,023,435
    Bernie Sanders (D) graph $653,840

  79. Phil in FLL says:

    I like Bernie myself. I just think it would be better for Bernie and Hillary to argue about actual proposals rather than who get which donations from the oil lobby, the gun lobby, the armed forces, Boeing or whoever. In any case, there is a possibility that this could all be irrelevant, depending on what recommendation the FBI director does or doesn’t make concerning criminal charges against Hillary. If Comey does recommend charges, it would no longer be feasible for Hillary to continue. I would enthusiastically vote for Bernie if he is the nominee.

  80. mark_in_toronto says:

    Even if you took this particular issue away, HLC still has tons of excess baggage compared to Bernie. A simple comparison of their voting records is a good example. Bernie may have started this fossil fuel issue, but this article almost seems like nit-picking. Who else do we know who dwells on smaller, more emotional issues while ignoring the big picture?

  81. Phil in FLL says:

    I agree that some topics are taboo throughout the American media, and you would have to read the media from abroad to get a different view. But that is only true of some topics. As far as many other topics of current importance—like income inequality, Citizens United corrupting the system, civil rights, etc.—the Washington Post, NY Times and MSNBC are oceans away from Fox News and right-wing talk radio. I don’t think Fox News would offer Rachel Maddow a spot to rebut Republican arguments, do you? So I agree with you on some points about the news media, but disagree with you on other points.

  82. Phil in FLL says:

    “Three pinocchio’s who came up with this one.”

    Who came up with this one? Glenn Kessler, who wrote the Washington Post “Fact Checker” article that John is talking about in his post. I understand that you disagree with the Washington Post Fact Checker article on this point, but in your comment your seem to be guessing that the “three Pinocchios” is from John’s writing. Did you actually read John’s post or just the title?

  83. William says:

    I could have just asked peggy if she fancied a shag.

  84. William says:

    ;)

  85. William says:

    Thanks Phil, what you say is true, and I do know it. The thing is, both sides of our two party system are the same establishment.

  86. Silver_Witch says:

    These are not Bernie Sanders pacs. They are republican packs hoping to crush her…not Bernie.

  87. Silver_Witch says:

    You are too cute John…do you get your walking commands from HRC Central – go over to DU and you will see this has been posting for two days. Three pinocchio’s who came up with this one. I am very sorry that you have become so different.

    Peace be with you….I will be back after the elections.

    P.S. Maybe you could explain the rules of taking funds rather than making a bad guy out of the misinformation. Something like tinymouse below.

  88. Webster says:

    The body of the quote is from Fair.org, so take that up with them. Bernie, in this race, is the progressive, period. Hillary is the best Republican in the Democratic primary, I’ll give you that…

  89. heimaey says:

    It’s never the data – it’s who spins it.

  90. alwaysthink says:

    Just to be fair, let’s look at all the SuperPACs attacking Hillary on behalf of Bernie. The smear, innuendo, lie business is alive and well helping the VT Senator come up with the best conspiracy theories money can buy.

    As just one example. Take a look at Future 45, run by some Wall Street hedge fund billionaires. According to CNN these guys have fueled the transcript meme insinuating that she “must had said something evil” while telling Goldman Sachs about her time as Sec of State. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/hillary-clinton-pac-ad-speech-transcripts/

  91. heimaey says:

    She’s yelling and looking quite nasty. Not a good look for her. #tonedownwhat

  92. heimaey says:

    Why should anyone trust the WaPo with this stuff when Bezos has come out so strong for Hillary and so strongly against Bernie? Maybe they should keep their mouths shut until the race is over and there won’t be as many doubts – aside from that they’re not counting lobbyists which is essentially the same thing as corporate money.

  93. Moderator3 says:

    I like your new opening sentence. Where I came from, we would simply say, “Bless your heart.” We all knew that meant something else close to your original sentence.

  94. tinymouse says:

    FAIR challenged a similar, recent NPR “Fact Check” and found the tally of fossil-fuel related monies was significantly greater than what is being rolled out by the Clinton campaign and certain media — some authors of whom are Clinton endorsers/surrogates. I’m not sure if either side is “lying” so much as “spinning” the truth. I think it’s whatever filter we want to use to interpret the data that will contribute to what we want to agree to as “truth”. Just food for thought from FAIR here, too:

    Well—why not include lobbyists with fossil-fuel clients, since that is what the Sanders campaign, like other critics, was explicitly talking about? According to Greenpeace, Clinton has gotten “$1,465,610 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry.” That’s quite a bit more string.

    And corporations can’t give directly to campaigns, but they can give to Super PACs that support campaigns. Greenpeace cites “$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.”

    That works out to $5 million altogether. It’s hard to say what the going rate for buying a presidential candidate is, but unlike Overby, I wouldn’t refer to Clinton’s fossil-fuel-industry contributions as “paltry.”

    And even though Overby warns you away from looking at the Clinton Foundation—because it’s the sort of thing a “Republican opposition research group” would do—you don’t need to go to a middleman; the Clinton Foundation lists its donors on its website. There you can learn that the Foundation has received at least $10 million from Saudi Arabia; at least $5 million from Kuwait, as well as from oil-refining billionaire Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi; at least $1 million from ExxonMobil, natural gas-producer Cheniere Energy, Qatar, Oman, United Arab Emirates, the Dubai Foundation, “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” etc.

    http://fair.org/home/did-sanders-lie-about-clintons-oil-money-npr-factchecker-cant-be-bothered-to-check/

  95. Amelia Earhart says:

    yes I can and have…everyone who donates is listed under their employer…I saw Post Office listed as one of Bernie’s top donators…the Hatch Act only controls what I do on my work time and/or using their resources …it has no sway in my personal time…same with the military…

  96. Phil in FLL says:

    Just so you know, your list of news media (with the possible exception of the WSJ) is exactly the list that right-wing talk radio hosts and Fox News anchors constantly rail against as the enemy. It may not be your intention to demonize the same news sources that Roger Ailes of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh demonize, but that is actually the case.

  97. William says:

    LOL, thanks. I didn’t think of that…I shall do that now.

  98. timncguy says:

    there is an “edit” button you could use to change it.

  99. William says:

    Hi, and thank you for you comment – and for not deleting my post, however, if you want to delete it it’s ok with me. I just thank you for being a stand up person and not deleting it immediately ;) Honestly, I thought about it for the past half hour or so, and regret the tone of my post…it is not my normal style. But, when I opened my email and saw that this ‘peggy’ person/troll had shot off a false attack, accusing me of saying and therein thinking something that I didn’t say or think…and then calling me “pathetic”…it pissed me off. sorry and thanks…obviously she is trolling, as she is going through the thread replying to anyone and everyone she can with stupid attacks that aren’t even true.

    Anyway, cheers

  100. timncguy says:

    the data is the data no matter who reports it. And, no, you cannot take a single client of a lobbyist who probably has dozens of other clients and assign their donation to that single client corporation just because it fits the scenario you like.

  101. timncguy says:

    but, you could make a donation and it would be recorded as a donation from the USPS as your employer

  102. timncguy says:

    the above post was making the point that if you judge Sanders donations by the same criteria that he has been judging Clinton, then, this is what you would get….

  103. Moderator3 says:

    I was really tempted to delete your first sentence, but I really hate editing a commenters post. Could you avoid such sentences like that one?

  104. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I am now royally confused. This quote was in the article:

    “Basically, what Sanders did was count any small donation coming from someone working in the oil and gas industry — including janitors, secretaries, or interns — and calling that a contribution “from the industry.”

    It seemed Sanders was being chastised for that. The above chart does the same thing by listing the branches of the Armed Forces even though it was apparently just employees.

    Personally, all this nitpicking by both sides is really distracting everyone from the candidates’ positions on things that matter.

  105. Phil in FLL says:

    At least two commenters are using arguments put out by “America Rising,” a Republican Party propaganda outfit, as I mentioned in replies above. For that reason, a few of these comments have a distinctly RNC flavor. I haven’t heard any Rush Limbaugh talking points… yet.

  106. Phil in FLL says:

    The Washington Post is a fake news site set up by a Hillary super pac? I think you’ve gone off the deep end. Unless you mean that Americablog is a fake news site, but since this a blog rather than a news site, I do think you mean the Washington Post. No one can take statements like that seriously.

  107. Phil in FLL says:

    “America Rising” is not reputable. It is another propaganda arm of the RNC. This is a summary of their history:

    America Rising is a Political Action Committee (PAC) that produces opposition research on Democratic Party members. It is located in Alexandria, Virginia. It was founded in March 2013 by Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign manager, Matt Rhoades. Political strategist Tim Miller left the Republican National Committee (RNC) to join the clearinghouse.

    Another commenter, Webster, relied on information from “America Rising” above, and now you are here. Using right-wing Republican sources for your attacks is not going to convince anyone on a progressive blog.

  108. William says:

    Typical illogical off the point attack you moron. Don’t put words in my mouth you troll. I didn’t say that so don’t say I did…You are pathetic Peggy!!

  109. William says:

    Hey Peggy, how about a big F#*k YOU for your name calling. You are a Hillary Troll who is here spewing bile. And your candidate is a lying creep. Did you know that the wonderful Hillary (just one example) can be heard on tape describing and laughing about how she got a man who raped a 12 year old girl off on a technicality, back when she was young? And at the time she character assassinated the poor little girl, even saying she brought it on herself. Oh wow, explain that Peggy, you worthless “pathetic” troll!

  110. Phil in FLL says:

    The specific points about the Washington Post article that you and timncguy are discussing are one topic. What is more striking to me is this contrast:

    Exhibit A (invective): “I remember when Americablog used to be a progressive site that could be trusted…”

    Exhibit B (wildly out of place, but rather telling): “The industry total here doesn’t include lobbyists with fossil-fuel clients, and it doesn’t do what the Republican opposition research group America Rising did…”

    What is wrong with this picture? You’re stating that Americablog is no longer progressive and not to be trusted, and yet you really on the “Republican opposition research group America Rising”? Why not just throw in a few talking points from right-wing radio for good measure?

  111. Phil in FLL says:

    Why is the Washington Post article wrong? Some supporting detail, please. Otherwise, you have no argument other than your unsupported opinion and your sweeping generalization that everyone in the Washington Post is wrong.

  112. Phil in FLL says:

    Here’s the clip. Watch it again and tell me who’s doing the “yelling,” as you put it: Perhaps you could dial it down a bit, heimaey. You’re not even answering the substance of the article from the Washington Post. You’re just dismissing anything written in the Washington Post as biased. You need to formulate an argument. Otherwise, you’re convincing no one.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A

  113. Phil in FLL says:

    No need to fear. There’s still Russia Today and RIA Novosti.

  114. jimvancise says:

    “his stance”

  115. jimvancise says:

    “Feeling Berned yet?” Why, has he refused to re-instate Glass/Steagall or reversed her stance on TPP or NAFTA ?

  116. Parque_Hundido says:

    No, I’m citing independent evidence that indicates that Hillary Clinton did, in fact, take $4.5 million from oil & gas. Who precisely is “my candidate”? In your imaginary world, Bernie Sanders is Hillary Clinton’s problem.

    In the real world, Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy.

  117. Amelia Earhart says:

    no the Hatch Act only disallows the use of Government time and/or resources to campaign for candidates…so I as an USPS employee could not wear a tee shirt supporting a candidate to work…or use Postal phones to phone bank for a candidate…etc…

  118. Parque_Hundido says:

    Keystone. TPP. NAFTA. Bailing out Wall Street. What more do you want? Stop pretending that Bernie Sanders is what’s wrong with Hillary Clinton. Hillary is her own worst enemy.

  119. 2karmanot says:

    Peggytrollbot knows…………..pppffftttt

  120. Bill_Perdue says:

    Between 2013 and April 2015, Clinton was paid $21.7 million in fees for 92 speeches that she delivered to various Wall Street firms, major corporations, and trade associations. During a Democratic presidential debate on February 4, Clinton was asked if she would release the transcripts of all her paid speeches. She furtively responded “I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.”

    http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/02/20/bernie-challenges-hillary-to-release-her-secret-wall-street-speeches/

  121. Bill_Perdue says:

  122. timncguy says:

    branches are not allowed to donate. Individuals who happen to be in the military are allowed. It’s the same fallacy as county people who work for an oil or gas company as being part of the oil and gas “industry”.

    No company can donate to a campaign. It’s illegal. So, to claim that the oil and gas industry is contributing to Clinton’s campaign is just straight out wrong.

    It’s the same as claiming “lobbyists” are with the oil and gas industry. Lobbyists don’t work exclusively for one industry. They have many clients. And, again, lobbyists are individuals and they have a right to donate to a campaign as an individual just like you or me. They aren’t donating on behalf of the industry they sometimes lobby for. The same goes for “bundlers”. You have no way of knowing why the individuals whose contributions they “bundled together gave money. Someone who is a lobbyist for oil and gas and bundles contributions together doesn’t mean that those being bundled are also supporters of the oil and gas industry. For all you know the loobyist was bundling contributions together from his local PTA.

  123. Peggy Scarborough says:

    Of course – anyone who doesn’t support Bernie is part of the Establishment! You are pathetic!!

  124. heimaey says:

    Yep you said it.

  125. William says:

    Jesus, when are people going to figure this one out…WaPo, WSJ, just like the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc etc are ALL part of the big media establishment to whom Bernie is the enemy. It is so painfully obvious how retarded their spin always is…believe their nonsense at your own peril people.

  126. sukabi says:

    My guess is they aren’t, rather it is members of those branches that are donating and having made the donation they are obligated, like everyone else donating, to list their employer.

  127. Webster says:

    Vox takes a much more fair look at the issue (but Vox only recieves approval and gets linked to when the articles are anti-Bernie, I notice):

    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/1/11347394/greenpeace-hillary-clinton-sanders

  128. Fly Free says:

    Your assertion is faulty, the premise is ridiculous. “The Real Media” as you call it all a collection of owned news outlets. These news outlets are owned by mega-corporations whose best interests are not the public interest.

    Any damage they did was their own doing, people on BOTH sides have been pointing out the bias and the games. Crediting the Left alone with it makes your position suspect.

  129. MD says:

    I thought only republicans refused facts and attacked the media for actually doing its job. It would seems the purist on the left and ind who love Sanders are just like the tea party.

  130. MD says:

    Not true. But keep swinging for the fences.

  131. MD says:

    where’s the “evidence that point so this fact” ? Cite please. And I hate to tell you but Sanders is also polarizing and unlikable to a lot of people. I don’t like him. I know many blacks like myself who don’t like him. Why can’t your candidate get any minorities in significant numbers? Because being poor and forced to work for every single things we have we can smell BS like Sanders policies a mile away.

  132. MD says:

    So you just can make insinuations and assertions and that’s fact? I swear to goodness, Sanders people need to chill with this crap. it’s annoying. And Sanders DOES have a super Pac. But I guess you did not know that?

  133. MD says:

    what is “significant” to you?

  134. This penchant on the left for destroying the credibility of the real media is sad. We’ve been working hand in hand with the right for fifteen years now, and we’ve pretty much destroyed the only independent arbiters we had. If the Wash Post is now biased, then there is no hope anywhere.

  135. Have to look at the Hatch Act, but I don’t think federal employees are forbidden from donating to political campaigns.

  136. jimvancise says:

    “Basically, what Sanders did was count any small donation coming from someone working in the oil and gas industry — including janitors, secretaries, or interns — and calling that a contribution “from the industry.” That’s great except for one thing : That’s how the FEC does it as well.

  137. Voodoo Chile says:

    Getting 2% of your MASSIVE amount of money from a small number of people (in this case lobbyist bundlers) is actually a big deal. These people have no sense of perspective.

    That’s 2% from bundlers from 1 industry. Pick 10 or so industries that we all think are full of assholes, and now we’re talking about 20% (extrapolating) of her MASSIVE sum of money coming from a small number of lobbyist bundlers.

  138. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    How are branches of government allowed to donate? The Navy, Air Force, and Army are definitely part of the DOD.

  139. quax says:

    Hedging their bets. Standard business practice. Even in peace these companies rely very much on the government’s teat.

  140. heimaey says:

    Not true like the Vox “calculator”?

  141. stupidicus says:

    Indeed, which is no doubt why you excluded the contribution figures in the C&P process, which only goes to support BS’s pov, and that he maintains the moral highground on this issue has yet to be disputed

    “Sen. Sanders made a pledge with Greenpeace to return any fossil fuel
    money from their PACs, their executives, and their lobbyists if it is
    brought to our attention,” Gunnels added. “It’s one thing to receive a
    small donation from an office clerk at a fossil fuel company. It’s
    quite another to have fossil fuel lobbyists who are fighting for
    legislation to advance their interests bundle money for her campaign.”

    Generally,
    the Sanders campaign has suggested, without quite saying it, that
    Clinton’s votes and actions as a lawmaker and secretary of state have
    been influenced by campaign contributions. But Gunnels provided a list
    of examples that he said showed the “undue influence fossil fuel money
    has on the political process.”

    She just can’t give the dubious money up, no?

    ANd if this justifies your “calls into question” effort, perhaps it shoulda been applied elsewhere as well eh, like with every piece you write in support of the liar, no?.

    “Still, in the 2008 campaign Clinton did not hesitate to claim that Obama had made deals or cast votes in response to campaign contributions, despite also a lack of evidence.”

  142. quax says:

    I know that elongated noses are all the rage right now, after this creepy Cuz nose morphing attack ad.

    Nevertheless, I really think this is image is inappropriate. There’s a reason the WaPo called it exaggerations and not lies. Would very much like to see a modicum of respect for both candidates, after all we want to retain the energy of Bernies supporters in the general election. (And I am aware that they are mistreating Hillary much more in their corners of the web, Bernie Bro dynamics ain’t pretty).

    I am concerned that some bridges may burn.

  143. heimaey says:

    NOT MENTIONED: fact checker is the Washington Post – not an independent 3rd party non-biased entity. We all know how much Bezos (the owner) loves Hillary and loathes Bernie. Nice try AB but lobbyists count as corporate donations for the rest of the world.

  144. Texdakota says:

    Why are 3 branches of the U.S. Military donating to a supposed anti-war candidate?

  145. heimaey says:

    Hillary pointing her finger in a young woman’s face and yelling at her is about as feminist as she gets – also who needs to tone down their attitude?

  146. Exactly how in the hell is this refuting that those donation were significant. Calling someone a liar is kind of a jack ass thing to do.

  147. Webster says:

    From the original House of Cards: “You might say that…I couldn’t possibly comment.”

  148. marknc says:

    I’ve followed Bernie for a very long time and never heard him go negative. No delusions of sainthood, just disappointed to see hem do this.

  149. marknc says:

    I’ve followed Bernie for probably 15 years and never heard him go negative. Yes, very disappointed!

  150. Webster says:

    Yes, you know and I know that the oil and gas industries are giving money to Hillary’s super PACs, but…shhh…Hillary doesn’t know, so she’s not influenced by that at all . Good thing Bernie doesn’t know who’s giving money to his super PACS … oh, wait …

  151. doug dash says:

    Ironic, that this battle is going to probably come down to NY voters.

  152. BeccaM says:

    Anybody asked about the propriety of the U.S. military making political donations?

  153. timncguy says:

    as you arrive here unwilling to address the fact that your candidate was just given three Pinocchios by the Wash Post. Can you come to terms with that? Of course, you’ll just say that the Post is just part of the establishment conspiracy against Bernie.

  154. timncguy says:

    the Wash Post article addresses the “lobbyist” issue. Did you bother to read it?

    And, a campaign cannot control what a super PAC does or does not do. It is illegal for a campaign to coordinate with a Super PAC.

    All you are doing is spreading Sanders’ talking points without bothering to read what has been presented here.

  155. Parque_Hundido says:

    Nonsense. The claim is that she is in the pocket of her donors. All evidence suggests this is the case. Why is it you Clinton bots have to attack Sanders? Why not think about why your candidate is so polarizing and unlikeable? You need to come to terms with Clinton’s shortcomings and you won’t do that by attacking those who point them out.

  156. Webster says:

    From Fair.org:

    >>But what about “lobbyists working for the oil, gas and coal industry”—isn’t that what Sanders is supposed to be lying about, to the point of making Hillary Clinton sick?

    The industry total here doesn’t include lobbyists with fossil-fuel clients, and it doesn’t do what the Republican opposition research group America Rising did: include corporate money to the Clinton Foundation. The presidential campaign cannot raise corporate money.

    Well—why not include lobbyists with fossil-fuel clients, since that is what the Sanders campaign, like other critics, was explicitly talking about? According to Greenpeace, Clinton has gotten “$1,465,610 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry.” That’s quite a bit more string.

    And corporations can’t give directly to campaigns, but they can give to Super PACs that support campaigns. Greenpeace cites “$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.”

    That works out to $5 million altogether. It’s hard to say what the going rate for buying a presidential candidate is, but … I wouldn’t refer to Clinton’s fossil-fuel-industry contributions as “paltry.”<<

    I remember when Americablog used to be a progressive site that could be trusted…

  157. Sally says:

    Wow. $160,000 will buy how many seconds of an ad? And her Foundation is not ‘gray.’ Lord, are you c=voting for Trump and want to run against Bernie the Communist?

  158. Sally says:

    Oh boy. Check your own mutual funds..wanna tell me there are NO investmetns in oil and gas there?

  159. Sally says:

    Did you read the piece? BERNIE has more money from fossil fuel employees than she does. You guys are becoming the same liars that Bernie seems to be.

  160. Sally says:

    Oh bull. Politifact just did a study of all the candidates, and Clinton is THE most honest of all five if them. Stop parroting the RW BS about her.

  161. Parque_Hundido says:

    We’ve hardly “found out it’s not true.” She’s accepted $4.5 million in donations from the oil & gas industries. That’s hardly “not true.”

  162. Parque_Hundido says:

    This is a desperate defense of Clinton. She’s the candidate that Wall Street bought and paid for. Do you think they’re going to forget that if – god forbid – she becomes president?

  163. Dai Uy says:

    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 to the fossil fuel industry. http://tinyurl.com/zkjmbhz

  164. RC Rust-Laskey says:

    LOL ~ Lyin’ Bernie, enough said.

  165. timncguy says:

    Look, Bernie’s camp started all of this crap initially by talking about the individual donations to Clinton’s campaign, and the donations to the Super PAC, and the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

    Now they are only highlighting the lobbyists and bundling because it was pointed out that Sanders got over 50K in individual contributions from oil and gas employees. That Clinton has no control over the Super PAC (that would be illegal) and that the Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with the campaign.

    So, now he and his surrogates are only left with talking about the lobbyists. And, as you say, that has been debunked as well.

    But, Bernie is still out there demanding an apology from Clinton for pointing out his lies. So, he does have a big brass set.

  166. deblen says:

    Sorry that you’re new to the progressive movement, and don’t recognize AmericaBlog’s long standing role in the progressive conversation. Maybe you’re another Berner over eager to throw yet another long time progressive under the Bernie bus.

  167. Yeah, the Post also debunks that “fact” as well. I noted this earlier this week too. These people lobby for everyone. You can’t call them “fossil fuel lobbyists.” They’re lawyers at firms like Akin Gump, working on lots of clients. It’s dishonest.

  168. Oh I agree it is a distraction. But Sanders made it the centerpiece of his campaign this past week, and now we find out it’s not true. Really calls into question what else his team is claiming that isn’t true.

  169. 2karmanot says:

    Hill bots get the last shrike!

  170. Then I’m damn good if I faked the Washington Post article and faked the data on Open Secrets’ Web site, which I link to directly. I’m DAMN good. :)

  171. May be GOP troll, you know they’re out there loving this.

  172. Which, the Washington Post or AMERICAblog? I’d be a lot richer if this site were set up by a Hillary SuperPAC.

  173. stupidicus says:

    a largely bs distraction intended to obscure how thoroughly rotten she is.

    Let us know when BS lobbies for fracking or offshore drilling, or the pipeline http://grist.org/climate-energy/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-hillary-clinton-and-climate-change/

    ANd let’s not forget

    Clinton blew up at Eva Resnick-Day when she asked why she would not sign
    the same pledge as Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders to turn down such
    money. Clinton responded with “I do not have — I have money from people
    who work for fossil fuel companies. I am so sick — I am so sick of the
    Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it.”

    of course she would never sign such a pledge, and unless and until she does, BS maintains the moral highground on the matter.

    and what’s worst, is the fact that she can dish it out but can’t/won’t take it. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/01/politics/hillary-clinton-oil-gas-donations-obama/index.html I’m surprised she hasn’t played the sexist card on the matter

  174. JohnR says:

    from a more reputable website:

    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/clinton-and-fossil-fuel-money/

    “In its press release, America Rising points to a Huffington Post analysis that found “[n]early 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.” Among them are current or former lobbyists for Chevron and TransCanada, the company that tried to build the Keystone XL pipeline. America Rising also points to millions of dollars donated by oil companies to the Clinton Foundation — a charitable foundation that is not affiliated with Clinton’s presidential campaign — and to the fact that Clinton owns shares of a mutual fund that invests in some oil and gas companies.”

  175. timncguy says:

    the wash post article addresses this claim if you’d bother to read it.

  176. JohnR says:

    Yeah I’m sure you’re all broken up. lol

  177. BernieBots are nothing if not lazy.

    This site has been online longer than you, bud.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americablog

  178. And three year olds hold their breath when they don’t get their own way.

  179. Oh, and this news site was established in 2004. I am assuming it’s been online longer than you have, since you don’t seem capable of doing a simple Google search.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americablog

    Yup: you created your persona just to comment here. So, are you Jeff Weaver?

  180. And equivalent to less than 1% of overall contributions.

  181. Antony says:

    Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, on Friday called Clinton’s statement “disappointing” and untrue, pointing to research from Greenpeace that shows she’s not just receiving money from “individuals” who happen to work in the oil, coal and gas industry, but from 58 industry lobbyists, including 11 who have bundled more than $1 million to help put her in the White House.

  182. Andrew Barnes says:

    This is a Hillary Super pac fake news article

  183. Andrew Barnes says:

    According to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, the Clinton 2016 campaign has received about $160,000 to date from oil and gas company employees. That’s the third highest among presidential candidates — Republicans Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush top the list with $499,000 and $273,000, respectively. (Democrats Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, both of whom agreed to the pledge, have received $13,000 and $6,200, respectively, from employees of the oil and gas industry.)

  184. Andrew Barnes says:

    This is a fake news site set up by a Hillary super pac. According to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, the Clinton 2016 campaign has received about $160,000 to date from oil and gas company employees. That’s the third highest among presidential candidates — Republicans Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush top the list with $499,000 and $273,000, respectively. (Democrats Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, both of whom agreed to the pledge, have received $13,000 and $6,200, respectively, from employees of the oil and gas industry.) This doesn’t count the money funneled into her foundation that is a grey and very sketchy institution.

  185. timncguy says:

    when asked in a recent interview whether he was going to lessen the negative campaigning, Bernie said NO. He didn’t claim he wasn’t doing any negative campaigning, he said he wouldn’t stop.

  186. He’s a politician. They all do when they’re losing, or afraid of losing. He’s been built up as this saint. He’s not.

  187. marknc says:

    Damn shame. I really want to believe that Bernie won’t go negative and rotten – seems even he will go there.

    Very sad

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS