Why the "Hillary is owned by banks meme" is NOT debunked.

[retrowire]

Last edited Wed Jul 15, 2015, 11:27 AM - Edit history (4)

This thread is provided as a fair counterpoint to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/110712458

---

Here are some counterpoints from people that don't live in a "good news only for Hillary bubble"

1. "So you're pretending that bank tellers and janitors are donating to Clinton.

Ignoring that janitors don't actually work for Citibank. And that tellers don't exactly have a lot of pocket change to throw into a political campaign. And that the executive suite has plenty of maximum contributions to give."

2. "Hillary not only gets repeated donations from a large number of corporatebankers - - managers many of them, but she is paid high prices to give speeches to bankers. Some are just employees, some are top managers, some are giving to influence, some not. But the amount of money she receives from Wall Street firms, employees and management, is just too high.

Bankers run banks. Bankers are the banks.

As for the law firms, some are just private donations from employees of law firms who like her. But some law firms do a lot of lobbying, and some represent very wealthy corporate clients.

The fact is that her donor list shows who she appeals to, and it is very clear that she appeals to the oligarchs. Let's remember she doesn't just have that donor list. She also gives speeches to corporate groups for very large sums of money, she has PACs that donate to her, and she collects money for her foundation."

3. "In the end the fact remains, her top donor list, "private citizens" or not just HAPPENS to be all of those companies.... why? why not a bunch of unions that represent the people? its suspect, no matter how you spin it"

so yeah, its not debunked. just clarified. and it doesn't clean that stain, sorry.

It simply can't be denied where most of her money comes from. And it doesn't come from the people that speak for you and me. fact.

This is not an attack, it is a clarification. an educated voter is a good one. and if anyone could actually debunk the "meme" I would be grateful. If Hillary does win the presidency, I would like to feel better about it.

I don't want to live in a good news bubble myself either. we may all be afraid of criticizing our candidates but how else do you expect to make a good decision without some kind of scrutiny? don't you dare just accept what others tell you is an inevitability. if you want change to happen your way then scrutinize! Think for yourselves.

Update: I'm seeing the common retort that it's only 3.4% of financial institutions that ever gave that much to Hillary while 91% from many other organizations give more small donations (but not more money) than that. That sounds eerily parallel to 1% vs 99% to myself. it makes sense that the smaller amount of donators were able to give more than the larger amount.

Update: And even if the 3.4% number is in relation to her entire career and not just the 2016 campaign, there's no doubt that this smaller percentage of the wealthy is still the highest donor. I tried looking for figures specific to just this campaign, but the Hillary camp is only apt to speak of the 91% of donators and not that remaining 9%.

[JaneyVee]

1. You're looking at her donor list in the NY senate...

She also received a lot of $$$ from labor unions, teachers unions, planned parenthood, emily's list, etc.

Her recent record breaking 1st quarter haul was 92% donations consisting of less than $100.

[retrowire]

2. emilys list is great, so are the others you mentioned

but please cite a source for the numbers you just stated. I do actually care to know.

[JaneyVee]

3. Oops, it's actually 91% of donations, not 92%. Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/01/hillary-clinton-raised-45-million-since-april/

It states it in the article.

[retrowire]

5. thank you

however, is that the only source? a media outlet? I was hoping for an organization or something. this doesn't feel as concrete to me.

this is still very much appreciated though and it does help.

[Agschmid]

20. Nope not the only source, you could have Googled this... but since you didn't I helped you out.

According to the campaign, 91 percent of the donations made in Clinton’s first three months as a candidate were small dollar donations of $100 or less.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-raise-45-million-months/story?id=32160248

The campaign, though, is emphasizing a number that it sees a sign of grassroots enthusiasm: 91 percent of the donations were of $100 or less, Team Clinton announced on Twitter. In a handwritten note posted on the social media site just after the campaign announced the top-line numbers, Clinton expressed her appreciation. “Thank you so much for being part of this campaign. I’m grateful for all you’ve done and excited for what comes next,” she wrote. “When the road ahead is tough, you need the best people by your side. That’s why I’m thankful for you.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-01/hillary-clinton-raises-45-million-in-first-quarter-of-campaign

I bet you'll find these "media outlets" dubious as well...

But here is a reminder of what we are really up against and why strong fundraising REALLY matters.

Part of the narrative surrounding Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is that she’s an out-of-touch rich person who can afford to throw piles of money to obtain the presidency. (See: her speaking fees, the shadowy dealings of the Clinton Global Initiative, her Chappaqua house, etc.) However, compared to her Republican opponents, Clinton’s money pile is not that impressive—and it’s dwarfed by Jeb Bush’s pile, which is twice the size of hers.

Here is that assertion, in graph form, from a Washington Post reporter:



It should be noted that this money doesn’t reflect the amount that the candidates themselves have raised: the grand total includes money raised by PACs and super-PACs dedicated to the candidates in question. That’s why Bush has the most money, despite launching his campaign more than two months after Clinton did: according to The New York Times, super-PACs supporting Bush’s candidacy have already raised over $100 million as of July 13, leading to accusations that Bush purposefully delayed his announcement to skirt campaign finance laws. (The practitioners of the Dark Arts, they are.)

[retrowire]

31. thanks for the additional sources

it doesn't seem to disprove the newly found fact that less donators donated more money than the majority of donators.

[Agschmid]

33. Except this...

newly found fact

Isn't true.

Listen so far you seem to be just re-typing what us other keyboard warrior have said, I would highly encourage you to do some digging of your own and post and OP with sources and citations which make your point rather than this. Once you do this the conversation is usually a lot easier to have since you've done the leg work already.

[retrowire]

39. disregard the false numbers then.

91% is fact. 91% small contributors make up the 100% of her funders.

I have no doubt in my mind that the 91% of those contributors make up the least of her total for the 2016 campaign. and where's anyone's proof that the corporations from that career list have suddenly stopped donating during this campaign? bull. they still are. seriously. don't deny that.

and yes I looked to see who the 9% are for her total to this campaign but that number is mysteriously swept under the rug...

[Agschmid]

46. Corporations and unions mind you are barred from donating directly to candidates.

Read US campaign finance law.

Also if you are going to quote the stat get it right...

It was worded that way for a reason.

[retrowire]

58. PACs are how they sidestep that law.

"The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."

and then there's that bolded word from the list too.

[Agschmid]

59. Good now you get it.

[JaneyVee]

61. She only got $8000 from Citigroup PAC. The REST....

Is from individual donors, aka her constituents.

[retrowire]

62. those donors being...

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

why do you keep missing that one detail?

[JaneyVee]

65. NO. She got $8000 from Citigroup PAC. She got....

$772,000 from INDIVIDUALS. They have 25,000+ employees, last I checked only a few owners. But even the owners are NY constituents.

[Agschmid]

75. And since they are a public company...

Hell I'm an owner, technically.

[Agschmid]

73. Are owners not individuals?

Can owners give more than $2700.

Those are both easily answerable... Try it.

[retrowire]

79. they are individuals

with lots of money and tools capable of donating more than the limit. PACs.

[Agschmid]

81. Yes but the numbers show contributions from individuals and PAC's separately.

It seems you are deliberately ignoring this?

It's not as mysterious as some make it seem.

[retrowire]

83. no i acknowledge the difference.

so then why do you think the majority of these individuals donating top dollar amounts are not apart of the higher levels of the company? ie: bankers.

[Agschmid]

85. I don't doubt that some are.

But not all, and we don't have nor will we have access to the data which will really answer this question.

[retrowire]

89. true.

until then I'm working with historical data based on issues with Hillary.

concrete data will come.

[pnwmom]

41. So? She's going to be going up against the Koch brothers billions.

I'm glad she has both broad support and some with deeper pockets.

[retrowire]

42. as long as she fights fire with fire right?

2 wrongs make a right as long as it's for Hillary?

how about we vote Water for once? smh

[JaneyVee]

44. Vote for whoever you want. We will too.

[retrowire]

49. i respectfully agree.

[sabrina 1]

87. She plans to raise $2.5 Billion Dollars. Where will that be coming from?

Oh, right we won't know because of CU which will allow her Super Pacs to hide who those donors are.

Bernie will not accept money that way. IF she truly is as she says, against this practice and CU then she should join Bernie in refusing to accept all that money.

Bottom, she is being funded by special interests who do not represent the American people, that is a fact. So are ALL the candidates, including O'Malley, except for Bernie who they wouldn't fund anyhow because he is so outspoken AGAINST THEM.

[JaneyVee]

88. Yes, and obviously the way to overturn CU is to...

Lose the money game to a Republican who will give us a 7-2 SCOTUS and enshrine CU for generations.

[retrowire]

93. but money doesn't win elections

https://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/07/hillary-has-the-money-bernie-has-the-credibility-history-not-on-hillarys-side/

the system doesn't have to be this way if you don't want it to be.

[JaneyVee]

94. 9 out of 10 times it does.

[retrowire]

95. are you okay with that?

[JaneyVee]

96. I'm okay with Hillary's plan to overturn it.

I'm okay with Bernie's plan to overturn it as well. But are we willing to give Repubs a 9 out of 10 chance to make SCOTUS 7-2 and never overturn it?

[retrowire]

97. 9 out of 10 chance?

what makes you think their chances are that good? don't let fear be your motivator for voting.

[JaneyVee]

98. Umm, not fear; Math. Statistics. Data. History:

95% of the candidates who spend more money wins elections. So make that 9.5 out of 10.

[sabrina 1]

103. How do you overturn something that the people who pay for your election

are FOR. That makes zero sense, they would not be contributing through those Super Pacs if they thought for a minute the candidate they are financing is going to overturn what they worked for years to put in place.

Sorry, not buying. Logic says, you cannot be against something while you are participating in it.

And that is why I support the only candidate who is doing what needs to be done to end the obscene amounts of money that buy our government.

[JaneyVee]

105. You are against things every day that you participate in.

And you overturn it by nominating SCOTUS justices, which all of our candidates support.

[sabrina 1]

102. Yes, it IS the way. If every Democrat refused to take these bribes THEN

made a huge issue of it in the campaign, issuing challenges to the Repubs to refuse it also, call it what it is, BRIBERY, the buying of our elections, I have no doubt it would work.

But they like that money.

They are going to be very surprised when they find that Money in Politics IS going to be one of the THE major issues in this campaign to the point where those who are taking it are going to be very much on the defensive.

And we are seeing that happening already.

THAT is how to neutralize bribe money. DON'T TAKE IT.

I see several Congressional Candidates are emulating Bernie now and also refusing to take that tainted money.

So it's beginning to spread. Lead by example. If you don't agree with something, do not participate in it. Lead the way rather than throw your hands up and 'say but the other guys are taking it'! Nonsense, take a stand, rather than play the money game.

I will support every candidate who refuses that money and I know I am not alone.

[JaneyVee]

104. Good luck convincing Republicans.

I definitely don't need convincing.

[jeff47]

10. 92% of donations. Not 92% of dollars.

Or are you going to argue the people who sent $5 to her web site are going to get as much access as the people who bundled dozens of max donations?

[retrowire]

13. this.

I knew I'd learn something more by discussing this today.

so the 3.4% gave more money than the 91%.

[JaneyVee]

16. The 3.4% figure you're using is based on her senate contributions.

The donor list you are referring to is from her time in the senate. You're conflating 2 separate issues.

[SheilaT]

32. But did all of those donations that were less than $100

add up to 92% of the money she received? I doubt it.

[Agschmid]

34. No and the Hillary campaign didn't claim that...

They very specifically said 91% of "donations".

[SheilaT]

37. Which is, as those who keep on saying it know, very misleading.

What percentage of actual money raised came from which groups, individuals, or companies? That's what those who are saying Hillary is "owned" by the banks are trying to point out, that a significant dollar amount came from them. Not to mention all the speaking fees she gets from such entities. She doesn't get six figure speaking fees from a whole lot of people who each donate fifty dollars or so.

[Agschmid]

38. So when they say EXACTLY what happened they are being misleading?

Also you have a great question how much $$$ did from companies into her campaign fund? I think you should do a bit of research into campaign finance law...

[JaneyVee]

36. Scrap that statistic, op is referring to her senate contributions, not 2016 campaign.

I don't want to make this any more confusing. Op update made it a bit confusing.

[retrowire]

55. my second update clarifies it though.

[DanTex]

4. 3.4%. That's the key number here. 3.4% of her money came from financial sector employees.

Even if we assume that all financial workers are greedy right-wingers (which is wrong, I know plenty who are hardcore liberals), that still only adds up to a tiny fraction.

The numbers don't lie. There's no way to spin 3.4% into "Hillary is owned by banks."

Like you said, an educated voter is a good voter. That means a voter who understands that Hillary has a broad funding base.

[JaneyVee]

6. Historically, stocks perform better under Democrats.

As do many other economic indicators.

[retrowire]

7. and thanks to janeyvee

we have a questionable source that says 91% came from small donors that are more representative of the everyman. this is good data to have and it does alleviate some stress I had about Hillary to be honest.

the list is still telling though. I just can't see how it can be denied when compared to Bernie's list. its representative of whom she appeals to, why would those companies exist on that list instead of others? those companies are no doubt questionable. so why not question it? because its only 3.4%?

but that percentage is relative. if the 3.4% can give as much or more than the 91% then doesn't that sound eerily similar to the 1% vs the 99%?

[DanTex]

9. The list is telling of two things:

1) New York is where the financial sector is primarily located.
2) Banks are big corporations with a lot of employees.

A company with 100 employees is not going to appear on the list. Citi employs 25,000 in New York State.

Again, the 3.4% didn't give as much as the 91%. 3.4% is the total fraction of all the funds that Hillary raised over her career that came from financial sector employees. 3.4% isn't 3.4% of the people, it's 3.4% of the money.

[retrowire]

11. ...

so there are more employees at Citibank than there are people from the 91% of donations?

... that does not add up

[JaneyVee]

17. Again, you are conflating 2 separate issues.

You are comparing her 2001-2008 senate contributions to her 2016 presidential campaign.

[retrowire]

18. Well thats the number DanTex is using.

so do we just throw that number out then? what is it even doing here? okay then. what are the real percentages?

[JaneyVee]

21. Dan is attempting to debunk a meme. You are....

Attempting to debunk a meme that doesn't exist.

[retrowire]

24. what?

I'm contesting Dans opinion that the meme is wrong. I'm just saying it's more right than people think.

[JaneyVee]

27. Your update made it confusing. So...

You are saying the 3.4% contributions from financial sector is wrong? Dan laid out the math, where's your math to debunk it?

[retrowire]

28. i think you may be confused.

I clearly stated the 3.4% contributions from the financial institutions were worth more money than the small dollar donations from the 91%.

3.4% is not the dollar amount, its the amount of people. 3.4% gave more than 91% of the everyman.

[JaneyVee]

29. Okay, lets try this again:

Scrap the 91% altogether for now, as it ONLY refers to her 2016 campaign contributions. The 3.4% Dan is referring to is her 2001-2008 SENATE contributions.

[retrowire]

45. alright

disregard the false numbers then. 91% is fact. 91% small contributors make up the 100% of her funders.

I have no doubt in my mind that the 91% of those contributors make up the least of her total for the 2016 campaign. and where's anyone's proof that the corporations from that career list have suddenly stopped donating during this campaign? bull. they still are. seriously. don't deny that.

and yes I looked to see who the 9% are for her total to this campaign but that number is mysteriously swept under the rug...

[Agschmid]

47. Why would you post the same exact response here?

[retrowire]

50. I dunno

so they could both be notified? I want both of their opinions.

[JaneyVee]

51. I'm not sure you fully understand how donations work:

The "donors" listed are not the ones who gave the money, since that would be against the law. Rather, it is their PACs, employees and those employees’ families. Also, it doesn't include the millions of small donations from citizens. Hillary gets lots of $$$ from labor unions, teachers unions, planned parenthood, emily's list, etc.

[retrowire]

52. you're just repeating your very first post.

and PACs are exactly how corporations sidestep the regulations.

let's read the whole sentence at the bottom of the list:

"The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families."

just because it mentions employees doesn't mean that a bunch of secretaries and data entry folk are giving that much. this point was made in my op as well. and now that we've come full circle I think we can agree to disagree.

[JaneyVee]

53. What you're forgetting is that...

She was the senator from NY, meaning that these were her constituents, these are NY citizens and families who live and work in NY.

[retrowire]

54. if proximity matters...

then why does Bernie's list consist of international labor unions and groups that more so represent the people? they don't really have much to do with Vermont. :/

so proximity myth... debunked.

[JaneyVee]

57. No, proximity myth not debunked. Proximity very much intact.

For someone asking alot of questions, you also seem to believe you have all the answers. Also, Bernie's top labor donor is a mere fraction of what unions have given to Hillary. Bernies top donor: Machinists union ($98,500). Unions have given Hillary much more than that over her senate career and presidential campaign.

[retrowire]

60. nice change of subject.

doesn't matter how much who got from what, it matters who donated it.

Saying Bernie got less is a given. duh he'll be out funded in many ways. that's not the point.

point is, just because Citibank is next door doesn't mean it makes perfect sense for them to be the top donor. correlation does not imply causation.

[JaneyVee]

63. WHAT?? Citibank IS NOT her top donor. Individuals are.

Citibank employees gave her money. BECAUSE THEY WERE HER CONSTITUENTS IN NY. She also got far more money from unions in 8 years than Bernie got since 1989.

[retrowire]

64. the individuals from...

Citibank.

and they are likely...

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

[JaneyVee]

66. All of whom live, work, and raise families in her state.

[retrowire]

68. you got me

because Obama's biggest contributors were from Illinois right?

what did I say about correlation?

[JaneyVee]

72. One minute you're saying PACs are the problem "sidestepping",, next you're saying....

Individual donations are the problem. NYs financial sector is our biggest employer. Also, historically, stocks perform better under Democrats.

[retrowire]

78. i never said that individual donations were the problem.

I said that the individual donations are more likely from...

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

I'm sorry but I'm ending my conversation with you since we've come full circle numerous times. those who are open to reason will understand the op. Thank you for the information that you have provided though. I hope that we can engage in meaningful conversation again on the DU.

[Agschmid]

82. It's mildly offensive to call another poster "not open to reason"

especially when they clearly are and no one has resorted to PA's in this OP.

[retrowire]

84. PA's?

I apologize if I've offended anyone. but I won't continue discussing a matter that keeps going back to the same thing.

[Agschmid]

86. PA's = Personal Attacks

[retrowire]

90. i figured it out after thinking on it a bit.

I don't wish to offend janeyvee. their assistance with data finding was very helpful and I do wish to continue talking with them another time. I've seen janeyvee before and they do have good sense.

[Agschmid]

91. Thanks, keep on keeping on.

[Mabus]

92. When I worked in Silicon Valley,

upper management would ID the politicians they liked and then go office to office soliciting donations. I seriously doubt all these Citi Corps people are contributing spontaneously.

[tammywammy]

30. 3.4% is from her senate career.

The 91% is from her presidential campaign. You're mixing statistics.

[retrowire]

43. ok

disregard the false numbers then. 91% is fact. 91% small contributors make up the 100% of her funders.

I have no doubt in my mind that the 91% of those contributors make up the least of her total for the 2016 campaign. and where's anyone's proof that the corporations from that career list have suddenly stopped donating during this campaign? bull. they still are. seriously. don't deny that.

and yes I looked to see who the 9% are for her total to this campaign but that number is mysteriously swept under the rug...

[Agschmid]

48. And again...

Seems odd.

[jeff47]

12. That post is trying to conflate dollars with donations.

91% of donations were small. But that isn't 91% of dollars raised.

The people who sent $5 to her web site might have a wee bit less access than the people who arranged a bunch of maximum donations.

[FlatBaroque]

8. It is indeed impossible to debunk that which is not bunk. n/t

[Agschmid]

14. 2-5 Leave.

[retrowire]

15. I'm sorry?

what do you mean?

[Agschmid]

22. It means your post was alerted on, and it survived 2-5.

[retrowire]

25. ohhh

well thank you for letting me know.

[DeadLetterOffice]

99. The details

On Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:07 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Why the "Hillary is owned by banks meme" is NOT debunked.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251446566

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Call out thread, there is NO reason to start a new thread where you line by line give retorts to a previous OP. Typically you'd do that in a reply not by creating a meta callout thread where you include some mocking of the original OP. Please vote to hide this callout OP.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 15, 2015, 09:14 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: *eyeroll* Seriously?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter. The post is a call out to a post in a protected group.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'll vote to hide it because the OP is just more Hillary hate. That's enough of a reason for me!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Since there are several threads on this issue, leave it.

I was juror #1...

[retrowire]

100. thanks for the defense

to the alerter who said I should've retorted it in the original thread I say this, I did.

go look and see where I tried debating it there and then got banned from the Hillary group. I thought I was playing by their group rules but was wrong and got banned.

this was my only way to retort after that happened.

thanks again for your decision in the jury.

[frylock]

26. 2 people voted to hide..

people need to get a life.

on edit: I expect this to get alerted as well.

[xynthee]

19. Do we have average and median donation amounts for Hillary?

I can't seem to find any info about that. I wanna know!! Bernie touts his average donation amount, $37, but I can't find anything about Hillary's average. I'm getting frustrated trying to find this. Does anyone else have it?

[WillyT]

23. K & R !!!

[Gamecock Lefty]

35. 1%, 3.4%, 9.8%? Really? Geez, Who the Hell Cares???

“My donor list can beat up your donor list.” “Oh yea, well 98% of people under 25 gave $1.17 to Bernie while Hillary received money from evil lawyers.” “I can top that - I was at a rally where more people clapped for Bernie than anybody else.”

I don’t care who claps for who, I don’t care who gives money to Hillary; I’m still voting for her.

[PoliticAverse]

40. All these 'debunking' threads show how unlikely any meaningful campaign finance reform is -

how many people don't even have a problem with direct, unrestricted payments to (likely) candidates.

[bobbobbins01]

56. Since you're updating, you can update that 3.4 is wrong

It uses fuzzy math. Donations below $200 aren't tracked by industry, so out of all donations that we actually have tracking info on, its 9.6%. The other number is totally bunk.

[George II]

67. Debunked....debunked from here to Sunday

Interesting data from OpenSecrets (the link is for Sanders, Clinton data available using same search criteria)

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00000528&newMem=N&recs=20

All data is from 1989-2016

Taking both of their top TWENTY contributors (employees and PACs of those organizations):

Clinton

Total $8,388,021
Individuals $8,181,675
PACs $ 206,346

% by Individuals - 98%

Sanders

Total $1,205,587
Individuals $ 17,500
Pacs $1,188,087

% by Individuals - 1%

Further, looking at each of their top five INDUSTRIES shows a surprising similarity:

Clinton

Lawyers/Law Firms
Retired
Securities & Investment
Real Estate
Women's Issues


Sanders

Retired
Democratic/Liberal
Industrial Unions
Public Sector Unions
Lawyers/Law Firms

If we equate (not a huge stretch) "Women's Issues" and "Democratic/Liberal", they share three out of five categories.

The bottom line is that they have contributions from similar industries, but dramatically different sources of contributions:

Clinton >90% from Individuals, Sanders <10% from individuals
Clinton <10% from PACs, Sanders >90% from PACs

[retrowire]

69. we're taking about the campaign financing

not the career financing.

try to keep up.

[George II]

71. I'm keeping up just fine....when I talked about campaign financing earlier this week, I got...

...a similar response from someone, saying "we're talking about career"

I can keep up, its just that what I'm supposed to keep up with changes.

[Agschmid]

70. The remaining 9% could not have donated more than $2700 ea. to her campaign fund.

That would leave O’Malley nipping around the heels of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has unofficially reported raising $45m in checks of $2,700 or less for her campaign. Bernie Sanders, the senator for Vermont also challenging Clinton, has reported raising $15m since April.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/jul/15/fec-filings-2016-presidential-campaigns-liveblog

[JaneyVee]

74. Thank you. I'm not sure OP fully understands donor process.

[Agschmid]

76. They clearly do not.

[guillaumeb]

77. Another important thing to mention is that even if the majority of HRC's donors

are in the 99%, and even if a majority of the donations are under $100, the majority of her MONEY will come from the 1%. It also worked that way for President Obama's two campaigns.

As an example of how this issue is framed, and dealing with the 2012 Obama campaign:

"Obama has certainly raised a lot more money in small donations than Romney, who has had a hard time attracting any. But soliciting donations from non-wealthy Americans is just part of the President’s fund-raising efforts—and a relatively small part. Even now, his campaign is raising most of the money it will rely on in the election from rich people. The President’s big donors haven’t disappeared for the 2012 campaign. By some measures, there are more of them than ever. You just need to count them properly."
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obamas-money-game-small-and-big-bucks

The following article details President Obama's fundraising success in 2008:
http://www.opensecrets.org/PRES08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

University of California $1,799,460
Goldman Sachs $1,034,615
Harvard University $900,909
Microsoft Corp $854,717
JPMorgan Chase & Co $847,895
Google Inc $817,855
Citigroup Inc $755,057
US Government $638,335
Time Warner $617,844
Sidley Austin LLP $606,260
Stanford University $603,866
National Amusements Inc $579,098
Columbia University $570,839
Skadden, Arps et al $554,439
WilmerHale Llp $554,373
US Dept of Justice $540,636
IBM Corp $534,470
UBS AG $534,166
General Electric $532,031
Morgan Stanley $528,182


It would take very many $100 contributors to equal the millions from big financial corporations.

[retrowire]

80. this is what im trying to convey

thank you for the clarification.

[guillaumeb]

101. I understood that as your point. I thought you put it very well.

From the post itself, I have no idea if you have a preferred candidate, but what you posted is very important if the US public is to truly address the huge problem of money buying politicians.