Every Vote For Bernie Sanders Is A Vote AGAINST Citizens United!

[sabrina 1]

We know that Congress is not going to do anything that would undermine that Decision.

Too many of them are funded by the very people who are using that ruling to buy our Government.

But there is a way to undermine it and take the first important steps towards reversing it:

Every Democratic Candidate for Elected Office COULD refuse Corporate Money and challenge their Republican opponents to 'stop taking bribes from Corporations and then working for THEM rather than the people who elect them'.

Iow, make that money POISON to anyone trying to get elected to any office in this country.

Is that likely to happen right now? Every Democratic Candidate? I don't think so!

But it could happen in the future.



The only candidate so far to refuse their bribe money is Bernie Sanders

Think about the Supreme Court when electing the next president of the United States. Bernie is thinking about it:

Bernie Sanders: My SCOTUS Nominees Must Pledge to Overturn Citizens United

“If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice,” he said. “That nominee will say that we are all going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”

If he wins the primaries and then the GE imagine what a victory against Citizens United that would be.

ALL their money, all the power they have grabbed, would have been for nothing.

And imagine how many others would then follow his example.

The people have that power!

Bernie has given them a way to use it.

Can he win this election? Oh yes, he can!

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[MineralMan]

2. If you're right, he'll win. If he doesn't win, you weren't right.

Hillary Clinton also says she wants Citizens United to go down, too. Will she be successful? Would Sanders? I have no idea, but I doubt it very much, frankly.

I'm caucusing for Senator Sanders in Minnesota next March 1. If he's the nominee, I'll be working to get him elected. If not, I'll be working for the Democratic nominee anyhow.

If you believe what you're saying, then you have a lot of work to do. Right now, he has zero chance. Lots of education needs to be done.

[sabrina 1]

4. Very hard to follow through on promises like that when you are accepting $2.5 billion

for the very people she would be harming if were to follow through.

But maybe she will join Bernie in refusing to accept what Citizens United has made possible for them to do?

If that happens, then her promise would carry more weight.

Bernie otoh, has been against it from the beginning.

He puts his actions where his words are.

[BeanMusical]

18. +1 Well said.

[woo me with science]

3. Hear, hear! An honest stance from an honest candidate.

[Faux pas]

5. Kickin'

[JEB]

7. Bernie walks the walk.

[sabrina 1]

8. Yes, he does, on 99% of the issues that are most important, he has been consistent

over the years, and he puts his votes where his words are.

We say we want all the things Bernie stands for.

Now it's the people's turn to put their votes where their words are.

[BrotherIvan]

9. Excellent argument

It's the last gasp of democracy and we either help it live or let it die. We don't have to wait for a constitutional amendment or for our bought and sold congresscritters to do anything. WE CAN DO IT OURSELVES by letting every candidate know that taking corporate money is the fastest way to lose. We can't change anything until money is out of politics.

[sabrina 1]

10. People have the power. They can either exercise it now while they have the chance, or not. If they

do not, then I definitely do not want to hear any more whining about CU.

I agree that we need to make 'taking corporate money' a huge issue in this campaign and a 'sure way to lose support'.

I see Hillary has stated she too will be nominating SC justices who will overturn CU.

But how on earth is she going to repay all that money from Corporations if she does that.

I would definitely change my mind about her if she joined Bernie in refusing it.

[L0oniX]

11. Silly Bernie! Doesn't he know you must kiss the olgarchy's arse to get enough campaing money to win?

[MaggieD]

12. Is there a Dem candidate FOR CU?

Who?

[sabrina 1]

16. Better question, are the other Dem candidates going to take that corporate money that

Bernie has refused to take?

Imagine the impact that would have.

I know one member of Congress announced that she won't be taking it.

But don't know of anyone other than Bernie, maybe you do?

[MaggieD]

29. The one that gets elected will

There are no gold stars given out for being a "principled" loser. Also the USSC stays right.

[sabrina 1]

34. Really? Since the obscene, democracy-destroying corporate money has never been challenged

before in a major election, you don't know that.

A majority of the people now say they want that money OUT of politics. But up to now, they had a choice between one corporate funded candidate or another.

Now the people have a choice, they can take the corporate funded candidate or THEY can put their votes where Bernie has been putting his, AGAINST that money.

And so far, things are looking great for a candidate who just this past Jan was hardly known to the public.

OWS brought world wide attention to this issue, raising it as an issue that got the attention of, according to polls at the time, approx 80% of the population.

Each passing election, it has become more of an issue as we watch how our elected officials vote.

This may be the election where the people decide to use THEIR power to begin the process of turning it all around, of refusing to allow fear to stop them for voting for the candidate who most represents them.

It is an exciting time, something worth working for.

[MaggieD]

84. I do know that

I'm sorry you haven't figured it out yet.

[sabrina 1]

88. Not only have people figured it out, they are not going to allow this

(what did deBlasio call it, 'political moment' I believe) pass without taking advantage of it.

[cantbeserious]

13. Amen

eom

[MissDeeds]

14. K&R

[chknltl]

15. KnR. nt

[BeanMusical]

17. Kick and R.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. Coincidentally,

every vote for Hillary is ALSO a vote against Citizens United...

Quite sure every vote for Martin O'Malley would be the same. Can't really think of a Dem anywhere who supports the CU decision.

[sabrina 1]

22. Lol! Are you serious? Wait, she has refused all that Wall St money then? Great, that is the way

to do it. Do not take their contaminated money.

Bernie matches actions to his words.

If Hillary does the same, my opinion of her will rise immensely.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

25. Hillary has spoken against CU decision in the past.

And has spoken against in recently. I know you're scared to look at her ACTUAL record (aside from the IWR), but I'd suggest taking a look at where she voted on EVERY bill. Your respect would probably rise.

Remember, Bernie, being worth over $400K, is a 1%er as well. Demonizing someone who has money is a bullshit tactic. You know goddamn good and well there isn't a SINGLE Dem who wouldn't try to undo the damage of the CU decision. Smearing the best chance we have at the presidency because of some cult of personality isn't very progressive.

Also, see how far Bernie will go no funding (or anyone else for that matter).

[sabrina 1]

28. I have read her words. Now I'm looking at how her actions match those words.

So far I'm just hearing words.

In Bernie's case I see actions matching the words. THAT is the ONLY way to defeat this obscene corrupting money in our electoral system.

Either she does what he's doing, publicly REFUSE IT and say why, or the words mean nothing.

We've heard so many words in campaigns before.

Show us, don't tell us.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

30. Actions. Whole fucking list of them.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton#.VVfGyZP5aSo

Co-Sponser on Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, bridge repair funding, removing immunities from TelCo's for spying, Iraq troop reduction, and Iraq Withdrawl.

YES on Amtrak funding, Low income housing projects, raising min wage, et al.

NO on offshore drilling, shale drilling, "emergency" surplus appropriations for DOD, Military Commissions Act of 2006 (the nasty act that allows military detainment for the vaguely defined "unlawful enemy combatant&quot

There's even a fancy little drop down so you can select from each category. 10 pages. Actions.

[TM99]

32. Excuse me.

You were asked about word and actions being congruent with regards to Citizens United.

Your campaigning list of key votes does not answer that question.

So try again, please. Give us a few tangible actions that Clinton has taken with regards to CU that match her now copied rhetoric on wanting to accept the money but getting rid of CU once elected.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

33. Do you even know what CU was?

In the case, the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA&quot .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC


CU started over an anti-Hillary movie. Do for one minute think that Hillary doesn't want that shit repealed? You're excused.

[TM99]

35. You still didn't answer the question.

I know exactly what it was and is.

Currently, whether she 'wants that shit repealed' or not, she is benefiting greatly from the after effects of Citizens United.

So once again, we ask, what actions has Clinton actually taken to match her rhetoric. Sanders is speaking out AND he is refusing to take corporate funding. Will Clinton join him in that pledge?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

36. If your opponents are taking in tons of corporate cash

and you decide not to, you're not doing yourself any favors. The Koch's plan on spending $889 million against Democrats this year. That's almost a BILLION fucking dollars. And that's ONE donor. We're gonna need money to win this one. Even Obama took advantage of CU during his reelection.

I stand by my original statement: A vote for Hillary is ALSO a vote against CU. No matter which way you TRY to spin it, she is JUST as opposed to it as Bernie is.

[TM99]

38. Then you stand by a likely lie.

Hillary Clinton has no actions to back up her words.

The only one spinning things is you. One way to measure trust is consistency. The other is congruency. Clinton in this regards lacks both. Sanders, however, has both in spade.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

42. Cool story, bro!

No actions? Surely you didn't look at the link that lists EVERY SINGLE VOTE of hers during her time in the Senate. Her words back up her actions. Hillary isn't without her faults, but she's got the recognition and the base to win this thing.

[TM99]

48. Still incapable of directly answering the question, eh?

You are definitely a Clinton supporter!

I didn't ask what she had done in the Senate. I asked specifically what has Clinton done in action against Citizens United.

She spouts rhetoric after the fact to sound populist. But unlike Sanders who has taken action and is currently taking actions, has she? No. All talk, no walk. All hat, no cattle.

If I am wrong, then please send me a simple and direct link to actual actions she has taken against CU.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

50. Well,

seeing as Clinton was no longer a Senator after the CU ruling, and didn't hold an office that could do anything about said ruling, she has only spoken out against it at this point. Same as many of us have done, seeing as we're not in a position to change things.

However, her former NY colleague in the senate, one Chuck Schumer introduced legislation to lessen the impact of said ruling, and also introduced proposed constitutional amendments to kill said ruling.

Once again, Hillary was the intended target for the whole uproar that brought us the CU ruling. She's very much opposed to it.

[TM99]

54. I would be ok with you just

admitting that it is simply talk at this point.

[sabrina 1]

59. All she has to do is to refuse to take advantage of a SC ruling she says she wants overturned.

Instead, she will accept the money CU enables these corporations to 'speak for them'.

And by the time it is over-ruled, which will be thanks to the millions of Americans, now with a candidate who is putting his actions where his words are, who have been fight to have it overturned since it was passed.

Please do not insult people's intelligence.

She has the opportunity to HELP get it overturned by joining Sanders in refusing to take advantage of it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

85. You do realize that CU has fuckall to do with

campaign contributions.

It has to do with corporate spending on political advertising. In particular, over "Hillary-The Movie", an attack film made by one Citizens United, and the money that they spent advertising said movie in the days before the primary election.

Nothing to do with campaign contributions. You're conflating two completely different issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

[sabrina 1]

87. I know what CU does to our elections. Are you denying that that ruling

does not allow huge amounts of money to be spent on campaigns to support those who will be 'friendly' to Wall St?

Let me ask you this. How much money will Goldman Sachs pay, through whatever devious means CU allows them to do, to place positive ads for Bernie Sanders?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

93. Actually, you have demonstrated that you have NO idea what the CU

decision does. It has nothing to do with campaign money. NOTHING.

[sabrina 1]

94. You didn't answer the question. 'How much money will Goldman Sachs be spending

to promote Bernie Sanders for President?'

And how about Hillary, how much will they be spending to promote HER campaign?

My bet is that they will spend millions on ANTI-BERNIE ads and smear campaigns.

What do you think?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

95. How the fuck would I know?

I don't work for GS. I work for a small, locally owned music shop.
I'm not privy to GS's financial books, nor their plans for the upcoming elections. Are you?

Do you have the info? Did Dr. Oz tell it to you?

[sabrina 1]

96. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have some information on the subject. This might help

you understand more what people are talking about:

[Dr Hobbitstein]

97. See the column that says "individual"?

Those are INDIVIDUAL donations from people who work for those companies. Regular employees. Max limit is $2,700 per person. The corporations did not donate that. Employees of said corporations did.

Now, see the column that says "PACs"? Those are donations from a corporation's PAC (unlimited donations, no records). According to this graphic, Bernie pulled in more PAC money than Hillary did.

This graphic doesn't say what you think it does. No matter how you try to spin it differently.

[L0oniX]

90. +1

[sabrina 1]

41. Why? Why do you have to do what your opponent is doing, especially this is a major

issue in this country right now.

She could turn this into the biggest issue of her campaign. She could challenge Republicans, use charts to show who they are beholden to, take advantage of the polls on this issue and make a huge statement AND win, in fact if she were to do that, she would get so much support from across the political spectrum.

Right now her numbers are dropping, as more candidates enter the rce. And the polls we've seen are only of Dems.

The largest voting bloc is the Independent vote, which has grown to an historical high as voters from both major parties leave in disgust.

THAT is most likely the vote that counts the most in this election.

And no one who is viewed as Wall St friendly, status quo, is likely to get that vote since that is why the ARE indies.

But she could get it. She could be a leader and go all out to reverse that awful decision.

Because like or not, Wall St doesn't donate billions of dollars to candidates and then expect nothing from them. THAT is the perception people are going to have, especially when they have a candidate who is acting on his words.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

43. If your opponent outspends you 800:1

You're likely not to win. If you can't wrap your head around that, then we have nothing more to discuss...

[sabrina 1]

62. That's a self defeating argument. 'I hate this, but if I want to win, I must have it'.

With that attitude, CU will never be overturned. Because it is allowing Corporations to BUY our government.

The ONLY way it can be defeated is for every Democrat to make it such a huge issue, that Republicans will be AFRAID to let anyone know how bought they are.

Bernie Sanders has started this ball rolling.

He's willing to take the chance that yes, the people really do want to end this despicable practice of the wealthy buying this government. We've seen the results, now we can elect someone WITHOUT that money. And yes it can be done, IF people really mean what they say and act on it.

[OilemFirchen]

40. What has Sanders done?

He is, after all, a legislator. Unlike Clinton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6682215

[sabrina 1]

44. The topic here is Citiens United. So how much Corporate money has Bernie taken?

[OilemFirchen]

45. I don't know. I don't care.

Why didn't he co-sponsor legislation attempting to offset the harm from CU?

[sabrina 1]

65. The answer is he has never taken Corporate donations. Individuals and Unions have been his donors,

and that is who he has represented.

He has introduced legislation to overturn that decision. How many Dems are going to help him get this done?

[brooklynite]

63. How much has Sanders taken? None. How much has Clinton taken? none.

Both campaigns accept only personal funds (as stated on their donation pages).

[sabrina 1]

66. Would you like me to post the chart again of Bernie's donors V Hillary's?

[TM99]

46. You do realize that Schumer's bill does not directly

address Citizens United?

It only offers corrections to certain aspects.

Sanders has repeatedly put forth legislature to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United. The Supreme Court rarely appeals itself on a ruling though it can happen. Therefore, even prior to Clinton announcing it, he stated he would support justices that would work to appeal CU.

Finally, Sanders is actually turning down big money from the corporations who want to buy elections now enshrined in CU.

So, again, I ask another Clinton supporter, outside of words....WHAT....HAS....SHE....ACTUALLY....DONE?

[OilemFirchen]

49. I described Schumer's legislation accurately.

Sanders has not "repeatedly put forth legislature (sic) to amend the constitution to overturn Citizens United". He co-sponsored S.J.RES.19, a resolution offered by Sen. Tom Udall... along with 47 other Democrats. That's it.

I'm a "Clinton supporter"? Prove it.

[TM99]

55. I may be wrong on you being a Clinton supporter.

You just come off as one from your defense of her. My mistake perhaps but certainly an understandable one.

Yes, repeatedly. 2013, 2014, and then again this year.

[OilemFirchen]

56. None of his amendments made it to the floor, AFAIK.

Only Udall's. Nonetheless, I retract my statement. He did "something" - along with virtually every other Democrat.

No one is doubting that Sanders is committed to overturning CU, if possible. Likewise, no one is seriously doubting that any Democratic candidate is likewise committed. This thread is based on a ridiculous premise.

Where is my defense of Clinton?

[TM99]

57. You jumped into a side thread

where the discussion is about Sanders being congruent in speech and action while Clinton is incongruent with only talk about overturning CU but no actual actions.

That's why it looks like a defense of her.

Yes, there is doubt about many Democratic candidate. Candidate Obama was vastly different than President Obama. Words did not match actions. Democrats are traditionally pro New Deal. Today, the Third Way is not. Democrats are traditionally pro-labor. TPP sure suggests otherwise.

That is not the first time nor will it be the last time. But many Dems are fed up with the incongruencies. We want a candidate and a leader that has been consistently a progressive & populist Democrat. No more triangulation, please.

[sabrina 1]

68. Has Sanders taken advantage of CU in order to try to win an election? That is what is at issue, and

you appear to be trying to distract from what is a very simple issue.

He is against it, always has been, has worked with others to try to find ways to overcome it, has been outspoken against it, AND has introduced legislation to try to overturn it.

BUT NONE OF THAT compares to what he is now doing.

He taking the risk of REFUSING to take advantage of a SC Decision that he vehemently disagrees with in order to win an election.

Hillary is not taking that risk, she SAYS she's against it, but IS taking advantage of it.

So who is doing more to get this overturned?

The one who refuses to USE that SC Decision to help him win.

It is that simple.

[sabrina 1]

37. She is taking billions in corporate funding. Bernie's voting record is far superior going back

decades. He did not vote for the Iraq War.

IKf her words mean anything regarding CU then she needs to tell those Wall St donors who are taking advantage of that ruling, that she will not participate in this ongoing scam against the people.

Her saying 'I want CU repealed' but accepting the money that ruling permitted.

'Watch what they do, not what they say' is how I view politicians from now on.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

39. CU started over an anti-Hillary film...

In the case, the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA&quot .


Do you really think she sides with the decision? Is your disconnect with reality that great?

One can support Bernie without smearing Hillary. I haven't a bad thing to say about Bernie (unless you consider my opinion that he won't win is akin to saying something negative about him), he's a great Senator with a great record. But, IMHO, so is Hillary (just that she's now a former Senator and former SOS).

[L0oniX]

89. Corporate campaign money should be soaked in Fukushima drain water.

[Enthusiast]

20. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

[zeemike]

21. Big money is not a sure winner.

There are examples when it failed...like I remember in the race for Governor of California where that woman, (can't remember her name) spent something like 400 million trying to get elected and failed.
In the end it is the voter that has the power...and if the votes are counted that is.

[ucrdem]

24. Meg Witless.

Yeah it was the voters but we also had a great Dem candidate to vote for:

[zeemike]

52. Thanks I could not remember.

But yep, Jerry Brown was a great choice.

BTW I ran as a delegate for him when he ran for president and donated my 100 dollars to his campaign.

[jtuck004]

23. A few years back Jimmy Carter suggested we start acting like adults and put on sweaters,

lower the temps a little, drive a little less - all to combat increasing inflation and fuel wars. Take control and try to produce more than we were taking, so we could all profit.

So the people elected R. Reagan and proceeded to hock anything that had been built beforehand, the structure that had allowed their parents to safeguard themselves. And got nicer homes, for a while.

I'm honestly not sure we haven't burned up so much we can't recover, but I am sure willing to vote him in to find out if we can. Along with that is going to take a coalition of millions of more activist citizens to demand his agenda, and that's gonna be a really tough thing to sell until people have lost everything. Even then they would rather follow a right-wing preacher to their doom, it seems. People are interesting.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, nor that we can't be successful. There was no guarantee we would beat the Nazi's, and this fight against the rentiers, bank$ter/donors, plantation owners, and other tyrants is no different. Consigning millions of people to the lowest levels of work for the duration of their lives, while removing most of the opportunities they might have to get out by sticking the profits in one's pocket is not much different than killing them, except such servitude is the way to certain profits for a few. And probably a recipe to the end of this country.

Go Bernie.

[sabrina 1]

26. Well, he's making us an offer. We can accept the lifeline he has thrown us, or not.

If we refuse, then I have little hope another such candidate will come along for a long, long time.

Sometimes we get one chance, imo, this is it.

Thanks for being willing to give him a chance.

[arcane1]

27. That applies also to every small, personal donation to the Sanders campaign

[sabrina 1]

98. He's up to $4 Million now. In less than a month. At this rate I think he will easily get

what he says he needs. I intend to make a monthly donation to him if possible and as more people learn who he is and what he is about, those donations are going to increase.

[arcane1]

99. Me too! I've made one, and plan a monthly donation of varying size

Money well spent!!

[kentuck]

31. Bernie is doing his best to enlighten the people.

We should help him with this worthwhile project every chance we get.

[davidpdx]

47. I agree in terms of getting candidates to stop taking corporate money

and that will take over turning Citizen's United. Of all the candidates running, I would like to see Sanders win. I have very strong doubts about it. Hillary lost the primary the last time around, but don't think she will make the same mistakes again. The unlimited amount of money that can be raised makes Clinton a dangerous candidate.

I wholeheartedly support and encourage those supporting Sanders though.

[sabrina 1]

78. I'm not so sure that the unlimited amount of money will help any of them this time. Over the past

few years, this issue has become bigger and bigger. And I think the early enthusiasm for Bernie is BECAUSE of it.

I have to admit that as late as 2008 I remember when I read that many Wall St donors were now supporting Democrats, that it was a good thing. I interpreted it to mean that they had had it with Republicans.

But people's understanding of the money in politics has changed drastically since them. OWS showed how much of an issue it was when that movement spread so rapidly across the country when it was supposed to be in one city and for no more than a week or so at most.

It was simmering under the surface, but had no channel to express it. Since then it has become a very big issue.

So rather than help those who are Corporate funded, it may backfire on them, especially with a candidate in the race who is making it a big issue by refusing to take that money.

[davidpdx]

81. I agree with the possibility of it backfiring

It's just so hard to tell since this is the first "open" primary race on the D side since Citizen's United. We know the Republicans buy their way into the nomination, I just hope our candidates don't do the same.

[sabrina 1]

82. Yes it is the first primary since CU. A decision which drew a lot of attention to the corrupting

influence of money in our electoral system. And combined with the effects of OWS which got the message out to the nation, as someone said recently 'this is a moment in politics'.

Actually it was deBlasio who very astutely made that observation.

And Bernie is seizing the moment. As is the deBlasio.

And if voters do so also, then definitely that money will have a deleterious effect on those who are taking it.

In the end it's up to us. Are we willing to overcome the habit of NOT voting for who best represents us because we are afraid the Republicans might win.

I know I am no longer willing to do continue with the same old ways.

Some new leaders have stepped forward, and I hope that voters take advantage of this 'moment in politics'.

[brooklynite]

51. UNREC

NO candidate can accept (or "be bribed by&quot Corporate Money. Its against FEC rules. AND Citizen's Union has no relationship to campaign contributions. It has to do with independent expenditures over which the candidate has no control. So all this chest thumping about Bernie's integrity is irrelevant.

[sabrina 1]

58. Candidates can refuse to take corporate money. Unless that candidate has been

chosen by some small group of people who manage the finances.

Sanders is running as an individual. He certainly appears to be able to refuse corporate donations. So clearly you are incorrect. Unless you think only certain candidates are 'eligible' for this job due to having proven they won't rock the boat.

I disagree, so long as this remains a democracy, every person who can convince the voters, by their records, by their stand on the issues, can run and can refuse to take money from whoever they want to.

Clinton eg, in the last election, returned Larry Flynt's donation. I found that to be very ungrateful considering all he had done to help expose the hypocrites who were behind the impeachment effort.

[brooklynite]

61. Here are Bernie's contribution rules.....

This contribution is made from my own funds, and funds are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.

I am making this contribution with my own personal credit card and not with a corporate or business credit card or a card issued to another person.

I am not a federal contractor.

I am at least eighteen years old.

I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident (i.e., green card holder).

...and here are Hillary's.....

By clicking "Donate," I certify that:

I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident of the U.S.

I am making this contribution on a personal card with my own personal funds, not those of another person or entity.

I am not a federal contractor.

I am at least 18 years old.

miles apart.....

[sabrina 1]

64. Those are standard rules. But Sanders has never taken money from Wall St, his donors have always

been the people he works for, individuals and unions.

Who are Hillary's donors, Kruz's, Bush's?

And what do those Corporate donors expect in return for their huge contributions?

Eg, Sanders raised 1.5 million on the day he announced, from tens of thousands of ordinary people.

The next highest raising candidate received close to that amound, from a HANDFUL of wealthy donors.

So who will THAT candidate be most concerned about representing?

Bernie will be representing the PEOPLE who donated to him. The average donation was approx. $40.00.

[TexasTowelie]

67. The alerter will be taking a timeout. I'm juror #5.

On Sat May 16, 2015, 10:42 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Those are standard rules. But Sanders has never taken money from Wall St, his donors have always
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6682972

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This shit is out of line, this poster consistently insists Hillary took money from Bush for a political campaign. This is a blatant lie, this poster has been informed of this multiple times a continues to post it.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 16, 2015, 10:52 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not only is this post appropriate for DU,
it is exactly correct.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alerter is way out of line. It looks to me as though sabrina thinks that Hillary took money from the same people as the Bushes. This post is fine. Leave it alone.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post does not claim Hillary took money from Bush.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Your complaint has nothing to do with the direct contents of this post. Think about your alert before you press the button over opinions.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The argument from the alerter is that Hillary took money from Bush for a political campaign; however, there is nothing in this particular post that says or implies anything of that nature. It will be interesting to see if the remainder of the jury gives this alerter a timeout.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is an absurd alert and a waste of my DU experience.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post doesn't say Hillary took money from Bush; it implies she has some of the same donors as Bush and Cruz. Not the same thing. Nothing wrong with this post with respect to DU standards.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

69. And I am Juror #2!

[TexasTowelie]

70. I've been on some 3-4 and 4-3 juries lately

plus some split decisions in the forum hosts group, but I finally called one correctly for the first time in awhile.

[Oilwellian]

72. I'm juror #6! lol

[sabrina 1]

73. Thank you, my point was that Bernie's donors have always been ordinary people and unions, while

all the other presidential candidates will be receiving huge donations from Corporations.

Whoever this person is, their statement is completely false. I would never make such a claim, that any Dem would take money from Bush.

I am glad the jurors were smart enough to see that. Thank you again California Peggy

[CaliforniaPeggy]

74. Glad I could help, my dear sabrina!

[sabrina 1]

75. Whoever that alerter is, that statement is completely false. Lol, I would like them to link to

all those times I claimed Hillary took money from Bush and all those people who told me that was a 'lie'.

I'm glad the jury understood what a false claim that was and that they were all able to read and comprehend my comment.

I don't know what the rules are re this, but if someone outright lies in an alert they probably should get a time out from alerting.

Thank you for TexasTowlie!

[TexasTowelie]

76. You're welcome. If there is an 0-7 verdict to leave then the alerter gets a 24 hour timeout from

making an alert.

As I said above, the description of the post was completely inaccurate and I see nothing in the thread that substantiates the alert. We may not get things right all the time, but we aren't idiots either--those are the ones that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

[sabrina 1]

77. Okay, didn't know that. About a 7-0 result. I guess it's a good rule to try to stop frivolous

and in this case, false alerts.

Yes, 2004 I will never forget. I thought the country would have figured out just how bad they were by then. Nearly lost all hope for the country that night.

[gordianot]

79. Juror #4 glad to see a unanimous decision.

[sabrina 1]

80. Thank you. The alert was false and I am glad the jury realized that.

Appreciate your vote, thank you!

[Cheese Sandwich]

71. No they just take a break from government, collect millions in speaking fees, and then right back in

A revolving door of sorts.

Collecting millions of dollars from companies they are supposed to regulate.

Corrupt beyond belief.

Can you think of any major Presidential candidates who may have engaged in such activities?

[SidDithers]

83. Don't confuse 'em with facts...

it gets in the way of a perfectly good manufactured outrage.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

86. We have the facts. And since you brought it up here are those facts:

Goldman Sachs. They are known for just donating money for atlruistic reasons.

I hope the facts are clear now to anyone who was confused in any way.

[L0oniX]

91. Someone doesn't care about facts.

[sabrina 1]

92. That always puzzles me, because whether you care about them or not, they remain facts!

Never understood the effort to deny reality, better to simply say 'I don't like the facts'!

[MohRokTah]

100. Conflating individua donations with their employers is silly at best.

It is dishonest at worst.

[sabrina 1]

101. Explain that please, and while you're at it, could explain why Bernie

has no donors, employees or otherwise, from those big corporations?

[MohRokTah]

102. The corporations are not donating, their employees are.

Haven't you ever donated to a campaign?

[brooklynite]

103. How do you know that?

What your seeing are top listings, not total.

I assume, by the way, you're ready to throw Elizabeth Warren under the bus for accepting donations from "Wall Street Corporations"? (because I know a lot of people who gave them).

[99Forever]

53. Oh Hell yes he can win.

And the Democratic Party had damned sure better hope it happens. The alternative puts Republicans in full control of everything.

[liberal_at_heart]

60. He's got my vote.

[woo me with science]

105. K&R And a record that makes the promise believable!