Hillary Clinton reaping donations from Wall Street

[antigop]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-reaping-donations-from-wall-street-2016-05-08

Hillary Clinton is consolidating her support among Wall Street donors and other businesses ahead of a general-election battle with Donald Trump, winning more campaign contributions from financial-services executives in the most recent fundraising period than all other candidates combined.

The Democratic front-runner has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of fundraising data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the former secretary of state received 53% of the donations from Wall Street in March, up from 32% last year and 33% in January through February, as the nominating contests began.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. Wall street hates uncertainty. Donald drumpf does also as an investor, but as a

manager or president he has no clue how to avoid it, as he acts like a child, always.

Personally I think stock, wall street, corporations should all be banned off the planet, but while we have it as a major factor in our economy, we have to keep it from being uncertain as much as possible.

[ciaobaby]

2. Hillary supporters

If your'e OK with this then you are O.K. with citizens united, and you're naive to think she will owe them nothing in return.

[CajunBlazer]

6. I'm sorry, but that's a dumb comment

Right now, until Citizens United is ruled unconstitutional - which I would favor - it would be stupid not not to take money from any source offering it. A general election run will cost over a Billion dollars. Did it every occur to you that corporations give money to campaigns not because they want special favors or access, but because they view one candidate as superior to his/her opponent.

The stock market, where I happen to a good part of my 401K savings for retirement, and firms that operate in that environment abhor uncertainty and Donald Trump the embodiment of uncertainty. If I were a CEO whose stock trades in one of the major exchanges, I would send money to Clinton campaign too, if for no other reason that I would expect her to keep the country on an economic even keel. Trump - who the hell knows, I don't think he does.

Not everyone in the business world is monster. There are many CEO who are progressives - think about it - they can afford to be - and they have always contributed to Democratic campaigns. Now even the monsters can find it in their best interest to prefer Hillary over the Donald - not a hard choice.

Think with your brain - not your prejudices.

[ciaobaby]

8. Rationalize much ?

Your argument is like saying "I am against slavery but until it is illegal I got cotton that needs picked"

[CajunBlazer]

19. No, is about not being stupid...

...like Bernie Sanders. It it is not inherently immoral for a candidate or his/her PAC to accept campaign corporate sources. (So your analogy is grossly misleading.) Nor is it presently illegal, but it is stupid not to do so.

It is fortunate for Bernie Sanders that he will not need to worry about the general election. One group of Republican contributors (the Koch brothers and friends) have vowed to spend three quarters of aBillion dollars on the November elections. Total spend on the Republican is expected to range from $1.5 to $2.0 Billion dollars. Without a PAC and relying on individual donors who can contribute a maximum of $2.5K per person, with others giving far less, Sanders would have been heavily outspent in key states and would be unable to defend himself against the huge number of malicious attacks which which would thrown his way.

But he doesn't have to worry about that anymore since it is now clear that he will not be the nominee.

[ciaobaby]

23. I just love this

Your entire argument is based on who can get the most money. This is exactly what is wrong with our political system. And calling me stupid is, well, stupid.
As for a candidate and his or her super PAC accepting corporate $$$- it is not stupid it is corrupt.
Good luck to your candidate - hope she gets enough money to buy herself a presidency.

[CajunBlazer]

25. Maybe so

But only a fool doesn't take advantages of the rules of a game.

For instance, you may not like a poker game where 2's are wild, but you would be a fool not not to use a 2's to fill out your hand. This is all about getting elected - only then you can set the rules of the next game. If you don't win you have to keep playing by the other guy's rules.

[ciaobaby]

30. Bottom line

all the corporate money that Hillary can get her greedy hands on can't buy my vote.
There are thousands of us out there, we will not be bought.

[COLGATE4]

32. Enjoy your purity. It will keep you warm through the many nights

of the eight years of Hillary's presidency.

[Ferd Berfel]

39. LOL !! Spot on

Point ciaobaby !

[Armstead]

9. Corporations do not generally give to campaigns out of a sense of civic durty

[CajunBlazer]

18. No, they do so out of selfish self interest and/or personal idealogy

Contributions by companies and their leaders aren't usually about quid quo pro deals; they are more about funding candidates who the companies believe are already likely in ways that are best for their self interests.

Let's say that you have gun manufacturer. That company would be more likely to give money to as Republican who has vowed to protect 2nd amendment rights. A coal company might well want to fund Hillary's opponent Trump who vowed to bring the coal industry back from near death instead of Hillary who vowed to put coal companies out of business

On the other hand Elon Musk, the highly respected CEO of Space X, Solar City, and Tesla would probably want to donate money to Democratic candidates who support green energy projects. That would be in his company's best interest.

Also contributions may follow the political leanings of their CEO's. Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, Robert Iger of Walt Disney, and Larry Page of Google are all big liberals who give only to Democrats and progressive causes. Even Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs has has a high liberal rating and in the past has given extensively to Democratic candidates.

Often corporate contributions and that of their CEO are not for special favors or special access. It is more about giving money to candidates that have already taken stances which are in the best interest of the companies. It is also about the CEOs' political ideologies. So for both of these reasons the Koch brothers give extensively to Republicans and try to tear down Democrats. First of all they are about a conservative as you can get and their companies deal extensively in the fossil fuel industry. They want to see conservatives who will support the fossil fuel industry in White House and in Congress.

This is the same as teachers who contribute to the campaign of a prospective School Board candidates who has vowed to raise teacher's salaries. They aren't expecting special favors from the candidate in return for their contributions. They are simply contributing in their selfish self interests. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)

It is rarely about some quid pro quo deal as Sanders likes to imply.

[Recursion]

21. It's weird how few people here seem to understand that (nt)

[CajunBlazer]

22. No, it isn't weird at all

They are simply parroting Saint Bernard, the font of all wisdom and truth. Somewhere along the line they seem to have abandoned ability to question and think critically.

[Armstead]

31. Not parroting Sanders - He is expressing what we believe

It's fine if you disagree....I appreciated the reasonable reply you posted previously......But don't be so condescending and dismissive to say We are just gullible idiots that Sanders has brainwashed.

I've been paying attention to this stuff since the 1970's and my views are based on observation and experience over that time, and seeing trends emerge and evolve. And my professional activities have involved these issues.

While his younger supporters can't say that, they are intelligent and aware people who see the results of 35 years of the systemic bipartisan corruption too...They also support Sanders because he is giving voice to their opinions.

Clinton herself openly states that there is too much money in politics....(doing something about it is another matter)-


It is not some fairy tale invented by Sanders, and I'd appreciate it if you not infantalize thise who believe differently than you do.
Y

[CajunBlazer]

35. Point taken....

People like you are the exceptions; Bernie is just preaching what you have believed in for years. I get it. But others are not as politically sophisticated.

For instance, the young people you speak of, those who have been most active in social media and to a large extent sites like this one, were attracted to Sanders either by issues like free college tuition and reduction of student debt or his general stances on the existing political situation. It is very doubtful that most of them have thought though and established their own positions on the entire range of issues. For that reason they are probably adopting Sanders' positions as their own, at least for the time being. As they are thrust into more responsible roles in life, their positions on many issues may change or not depending on their circumstances and their personal outlooks.

The same may be true for older individuals who are just starting to pay attention to politics, perhaps because of Sanders appearance on the nation scene.

Now, here on DU there may be a higher percentage of Sanders supporters like you, but in general I think many Sanders supporters who are taking their cues from Sanders.

[Armstead]

36. A (reasonable) point of disagreement

I agree with you that not all of Sanders supporters have nuanced views. It varies.

But that is not limited to Sanders and his supporters. That is the nature of politics and candidates, especially today.

Most people don't pay that close attention.They want to elect candidates who resonate with their own their basic views, and who they believe will push for their interests as office holders. That's how they see the job of politicians. To represent them on the issues, so they can focus on their own lives.

Beyond that, their level of interest and participation in issues in the political process varies. Some are issue-junkies and follow it closely. Others may follow their own "hot button" issues closely. Others are "Meh."

Unfortunately our "sound bite" mass media and politics encourages that disengagement. The reality Show, Tiger Beat Sports aspects dominates. It's all about personalities and strategy, like a game of Survivor.

So Bernie's message in the campaign is basic.

So is Clinton's. So are all politicians.

And people respond to the one that most resonates with them on that gut level. Clinton's message is also basic. She campaigns as the most experienced and electable candidate and offers "realistic and pragmatic" solutions, as well as the potential of being the first woman president. As well as the "She's not trump" vatiation of "not the GOP."

Yes some of Sanders supporters are attracted by "free stuff." But many more are attracted by the basic progressive liberalism of his message. Current college students, for example, are smart enough to know that they are not likely to see personal benefits from the concept of free public education.

For me and many others, Sanders resonates because he has brought issues into the campaign that have been ignored and avoided for far too long. I realize "kick the ass of the ruling class" is very basic, but in reality he has expanded the political dialogue in ways that should have become part of mainstream politics years ago......

And outside of the context of our shallow political process, Sanders is very familiar with the details and complexities of issues and policies. (He also does know how to compromise and govern pragmatically, as his experienced as mayor of Burlington showed.)

[CajunBlazer]

38. Basically agree

Though I would say that while Sanders is not known for his readiness to compromise and his pragmatism, he has been a politician long enough that he knows it is sometimes necessary to compromise if any progress is to be made.

My major problem with his candidacy is that it has brought two segments of the population into the discussion which haven't been prominent before. (Though you probably will think that is a good thing.)

The first segment is a group of hard core progressives who would normally dismiss anyone in the democratic nomination process as "not progressive enough". Some of have given up on the Democratic Party long ago and have been been voting third party every since, but they were attracted back by Sanders. They are the ideological purists who are never given to compromise. Many of them are so caught up in their political goals that they don't live in the real world. They seem to feel that they are the keepers of the truth and anyone who disagrees with them are at best "misguided". Having discussions with them is a big waste of time and some of them are not above trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them. They can turn nasty in a heartbeat if you disagree with them.

The other segment is a group of young people who grew up in the rough and tumble world of social media and are making their first foray into politics. They approach discussion on sites like DU in the same cut-throat manner they have always used on social media. They under better than we do the the intricacies of the internet and they study site rules and use that knowledge to silence those that disagree with them as well as help their candidate and destroy the opponent in any way they can. Thus they do their best to manipulate internet polls and abuse the alert and jury systems on DU to remove the posting privileges of the most vocal members of the opposition.

In my opinion, those two groups have virtually taken over GD-P and created such a harsh environment that conversations like this one were next to impossible until recently. They were able to make GD-P essentially a Sanders echo chamber because most Clinton proponents refused to engage them and didn't venture into GD-P.

This has greatly fulled the antagonism on both sides on sites like DU and made it much more difficult to solidify support for the ultimate nominee, regardless of who that is. However,i have decided that in the big scheme of things what happens on DU and similar sites doesn't matter. Even if everyone on DU decided to vote for Trump tomorrow, it very likely wouldn't matter. There are simply not enough of us scattered across 50 states to a factor in any single state contest.

The vast majority of the voting public is unaware and cares not what we do here. I wasn't on DU in 2008 so I was blissfully unaware of the rancor that evidently existed here between Clinton and Obama supporters. I contribute heavily to the Clinton campaign and worked as a volunteer until she dropped out of the race. I then got an email from her campaign asking me to transfer my support to Obama, which I did without missing a beat. I then contributed to the Obama campaign and worked as a volunteer to get him elected.

So I based on that experience I am convinced that regardless of what goes on here on DU, both sides need to realize it is but a "tempest in a tea pot". Now how Sanders supporters have acted on standard social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc. may be a different story. I am not big into social media so I really can't say, but I have heard stories.

[Armstead]

41. A few points

1) I think the definition of "hard core progressives" is subjective....I'm probably considered that by some here, although I consider myself a staunch liberal/progressive but ultimately basically moderate. For example I agree with most of President Obama's stated principles, goals and values (and have felt very enthusiastic and inspired when hearing them)..... But I get angry because I haven't seen it actually practiced by the Democratic Establishment in decades. I believe in compromise but my definition of compromise is different than what I've seen over the years.

2) Personally, I do try to reasonable in discussions here. But it also depends on the tone of particular posts and posters. I'll respond to snark with snark, although I try not to be too gratuitous or personal. I don't always behave, but that trait is shared by supporters of both candidates here.

3)I think it's good to get young people involved. As for their behavior, I occasionally wish they'd tone it down a bit...But that's an age thing I think...... I'm a member of the Baby Boom Generation, and collectively we were totally obnoxious in our political behavior when we were young -- more so than the Milennials in some ways....But my chronological colleagues have over time morphed in differing directions, ranging from well-behaved Establishment Democrat types to still-progressive after-all-these-years to Republicans....I'm sure the current generation of keyboard warriors will evolve with similar variety over the years -- but it's good to see them engaged and being idealistic IMO.

(Personally, I'm adept at Facebook, but can't get the hang of Twitter and Reddit and all that stuff.)

[CajunBlazer]

42. I guess I will have to grudgingly admit...

... that you and I, though we support different candidates, have a lot in common. I too am a member of the baby boomer generation, though more on the upper in of the range. I also view myself as a moderate progressive, though probably more moderate than you.

What I am most interested is electing a Democrat to the White House and recapturing the Senate, nominating progressive Justices to the Supreme Court and possibly recapturing the House (though that seems unlikely) and probably in that priority order. My worst fear is having all three branches of government run by Republicans, especially Republican con artists.

The only progressive people that I really have a problem with is those who will not vote for the Democratic nominee unless it their chosen candidate - and their are some on both side with Sanders supporters being in the vast majority. In my view those folks are political idiots - you may not agree and choose to be more charitable or understanding - but that is my view.

[Armstead]

44. I have a more charitable view...but basically agree on that

I can see why people feel that way...and I must admit I get tempted at times.

But ultimately I agree with you that it'd be a disaster to turn the keys over to trump and the GOP, and I'll vote to not let that happen.

[CajunBlazer]

45. Well, we are in agreement then.

Enjoyed the conversation.

[anotherproletariat]

10. Absolutely not. We are in a Citizens United world, and Hillary's opponent will be going after

contributions from every possible avenue. It would be unwise of any candidate to not play with the rules we are given. You don't have to like the rules, but it is just plain suicide to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Once she gets into office, and appoints a new Supreme Court justice, we can hopefully get Citizens United overturned. Remember, there is no one more against Citizens United than Hillary...the entire case was about attacking her.

[ciaobaby]

12. why is that these rants always end up (or start out) with "poor Hillary" ?

[anotherproletariat]

13. Mine didn't...not sure what you are referring to... nt

[ciaobaby]

14. your last line.....

Remember, there is no one more against Citizens United than Hillary...the entire case was about attacking her.

[anotherproletariat]

15. Do your homework. The case was about an attack documentary on Hillary.

No one said she was poor.

[ciaobaby]

16. AGAIN - poor poor Hillary - another attack on Hillary- I sympathize, really I do.

[anotherproletariat]

17. Really? Do you know anything about the Citizens United v. FEC case?

The ignorance around here is amazing for so many people who are so opinionated.

[CajunBlazer]

24. Relax,

Simply point out how may of the posts by by Sanders supporters on GD-P are about conspiracy theories and attacks on poor Saint Bernard.

[Dem2]

34. Bullshit

Nice assertion that you have no proof whatsoever.

[CajunBlazer]

4. Good, we'll need the money for the general election

Promise them nothing, but take anyone's money.

Did it ever occur to you that Donald Trump scares the hell out Wall Street. I know that if it looks like Trump is gong to win I will take all of my 401K investments out of the stock market.

[jwirr]

5. To the average voter that big money is not a good sign. It

has bought and paid for written all over it. Hillary may no think that is the case but just wait until she is the WH and they come to visit. They'll be wanting more than a night in the Lincoln bedroom.

[anotherproletariat]

11. This is why we choose the party we want to affiliate ourselves with. I trust that any Democrat would

be wise enough to maximize campaign contributions, and still stand firm with regard to their principles once they are in office.

It is very similar to the way that the LGBT community trusted Obama during the 2008 campaign. He couldn't come out and give strong support, because of the climate at the time, but everyone knew how he felt based on where he spoke and how he treated members of the LGBT community.

[CajunBlazer]

27. Then the average voters are stupid to put thier faith....

... in what a politician like Sanders tells them.

If they do not understand that most big donor contributions are not about quid pro quo (which by the way is always illegal) and more about contributing to candidates that have already proved they represent their best interest, then the average voters are too politically naive to try to convince.

You on the other hand should know better.

[AzDar]

7. They aren't walking away from all that equity...

[uponit7771]

20. Get it girl, good for her.. no need to go to a tank battle on a horse.

[Nyan]

26. 25 replies and I see 3 of them.

22 people making excuses for this?

[CajunBlazer]

28. Your statement make no sense

[LeftRant]

29. SCOTUS should clean up this mess! >:|

[COLGATE4]

33. Yeah. I'm sure they'll get right on it.

[DookDook]

37. That's why I'm going to be voting for the candidate that wants the SC to overturn it.

At least he wants to nominate judges to the Supreme Court that will be willing to overturn Citizens United. I'm sure that Secretary Clinton has her own litmus test for judges, maybe that's what she told Goldman Sachs about during those speeches....

[CajunBlazer]

40. Did you know that Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs is a big liberal?

Shocking isn't it, since Sanders used him as an example for what is wrong with corporate America. An independent organization rated him as 4.9L on a 20 point scale which runs form 10.0L (most liberal) though 0.0 (moderate) to 10.0C (most conservative). Blankfein has described himself as "a registered Democrat".

On the same scoring system Bernie Sanders had an 8.2L, Hillary Clinton had a 6.5, Joe Biden a 4.5L while Trump rated a 5.1C, Kasich a 4.6C and Cruz a 9.9C. I think I recall Elizebeth Warren bing rated as an 8.0L, but that one is from memory so don't hold me to it, though it is in that range.

By the way, if you are going to vote for Sanders in the General Election you will need to write his name in on the ballot and that will have the same affect as voting for Mickey Mouse.

[Attorney in Texas]

43. Well the grassroots don't like her so I suppose she'll got to her constituents.