Time to debunk the "Hillary takes cash from private prison corps" nonsense

[MaggieD]

Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 10:59 AM - Edit history (2)

This talking point originated from Right Wing libertarian Glen Greenwald's site. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/23/private-prison-lobbyists-raising-cash-hillary-clinton/

Again, I am very disappointed that right wing talking points are being used here, but I guess that's just normal now.

In any case, the crux of this fake talking point is that some lobbyists and lawyers that have Geo or CCA as clients are also bundling donors for Hillary. But it's ridiculous on its face to claim that translates into her taking money from for profit prisons. Nonsense.

Lawyers and Lobbyists have dozens of clients. Every interest group that can raise cash has lobbyists and lawyers. That includes teachers, unions, Latino groups, the NAACP, LGBT organizations, environmentalists, physicians, hospitals, planned parenthood, NARAL and on and on. That's how the system works.

The fact that a lobbyist represents a group you don't like out of the dozens of clients they represent, AND also bundles donations for a Democrat does NOT equate to that group you don't like making a contribution to a candidate. Talk about playing the 6 degrees of separation game! It's just silly, and sadly, a perfect example of how right wing news media operates.

Believe it or not, lawyers and lobbyists are allowed to make their own personal choice of which candidate they want to help get donations for. Obama was awash in bundlers, some of whom are lawyers and lobbyists. If any of you think we can win this election without taking money I would like you to explain how.

But the bottom line is that because a bundler has a client that Democrats don't like does NOT equate to that corp we don't like donating to her campaign. And in fact, Open Secrets clearly shows that prison corps give 80% of their donations to rethugs, and 20% to Democrats (and none, as far as I can tell, to HRC).

[seabeyond]

1. yea. we are back. and ya, another bullshit, and we know this. but still, so much fun

to use it repeatedly as an attack. good for you by simply putting up an op. i have not wanted to call bullshit on every accusation and too busy doing it on other issues, as it is. lol

good for you. thanks. hey.... and i am not even a clinton supporter. but, fair is fair.

[seabeyond]

2. geez and look where it comes from. "Right Wing libertarian Glen Greenwald"

why am i not surprised this man is considered rw libertarian.

[MaggieD]

3. Exactly

I wish folks would quit with the right winger stuff here. I've been reading here 14 years and never thought I'd see that here. Just makes me want to shake my head.

I don't care for Bernie, but I can damn well tell you I would not even consider using a right wing talking point to smear him. Out of the question, IMO.

[seabeyond]

5. guess i am gonna have to bookmark cause i am sure the smae ole, will continue to use this source

and will just be easier to link it to the article instead of typing out an explanation. and the very souls using it are not gone walk in this thread and get enlightened. that is not the purpose of the use.

benghazi!!

[Wilms]

4. You left out the story the author did before the one you posted,

Lobbyists Fundraising for Clinton, Bush, Rubio and Kasich Are Coworkers

Lee Fang
July 22 2015, 9:53 a.m.

Just how incestuous is the small world of big money politics? The leading Democratic candidate and at least three major Republican candidates are all relying on members of the same lobbying firm to help them raise presidential campaign cash: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

Akin Gump is hardly a household name, but the law and lobbying firm is famous in Washington for its ability to sell access to those in power. Akin Gump’s employee roster is filled with former members of Congress, and its client list is a veritable who’s who of elite interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Monsanto, Boeing, Chevron, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer and AT&T. The United Arab Emirates and Japan are among the foreign governments represented by the firm.

snip

Last week, the Clinton, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio campaigns filed reports with the Federal Election Commission to list their lobbyist bundlers, revealing that all three have relied on Akin Gump for campaign cash. In Clinton’s case, her campaign not only used Akin Gump lobbyists as bundlers, but the Clinton campaign treasurer, Jose H. Villarreal, works for Akin Gump’s lobbying division, though he is not registered as a lobbyist. In addition, former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., who is now employed by Akin Gump, has been tapped to raise money for the presidential campaign of Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, who kicked off his candidacy on Tuesday.

snip

“As a result of the breadth and depth of our experience and relationships, our firm is well positioned to represent its clients — regardless of which party controls the legislative or executive branch,” boasts the Akin Gump website, touting the firm’s lobbying practice.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/22/top-fundraisers-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-work-lobbying-firm/

[MaggieD]

6. So you'd like to add more from the right wing media?

Fine. It doesn't change my point.

[Wilms]

12. Your point is specious.

In fact, your point is a talking point. The linked articles provided information I was unaware of. Is any of it, to your knowledge , untrue?

Let's be reasonable.

[MaggieD]

22. See post #16 - asked and answered there

Last edited Tue Aug 18, 2015, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)

ETA to add correct post number.

[Wilms]

35. Well, logic isn't the easiest class.

Perhaps a tutor?

[Fuddnik]

129. Translation:

Any site or writer who doesn't worship HRC, and dares to point out the truth about her, and her policies, has got to be right-wing.

[artislife]

147. A little aside: Who is actually going to probe Hillary?

The media is right wing, so they want a republican. They will definitely question her.
The DNC is her own cheering section, she has two media outlets that are run by associates, so they aren't going to probe her.

Bernie Sanders hasn't paid for focus groups to find out about her---he is running on his issues only
So who is left? O'Malley.--No

--So all we have is the internet. Supporters may know of every person who crossed Hillary because they have been there every step of the way, rooting for her.

I followed her briefly in 2008, but jumped on the Obama train early. I didn't pay attention.

I mainly read local, Huffington Post, Common Dreams, AJ4 and the Guardian as far as main stream media. I follow links and surf out the waves in what I find through those sites, this site and a few more.

Do they ask probing questions, do they make their case, does this fit ?

So the cry that the rw is out to get Hillary to me sounds like anyone can be considered rw if they question Hillary.

YMMV, of course.



Back to your amazing ability not to be bothered that the same bundlers are buying---er --donating politicians on both sides of the fence.

[Bubzer]

113. A quick read through cleared up pretty quick that this isn't a right-wing propaganda outlet.

In fact, they have the journalist who broke the story on the Koch Brothers and their tea-party connection.

Lee Fang is a journalist with a longstanding interest in how public policy is influenced by organized interest groups and money. He was the first to uncover and detail the role of the billionaire Koch brothers in financing the Tea Party movement. His interviews and research on the Koch brothers have been featured on HBO’s “The Newsroom,” the documentaries “Merchants of Doubt” and “Citizen Koch,” as well as in multiple media outlets. He was an investigative blogger for ThinkProgress (2009-2011) and then a fellow at the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute and contributing writer for The Nation.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/staff/leefang/

Think I just found another news site to check out. Thanks!

[840high]

114. Thanks.

[Bubzer]

151. No problem

[Fawke Em]

7. The Intercept is hardly right-wing. eom

[MaggieD]

8. Of course it is

[AgingAmerican]

10. is Daily KOS right wing?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/24/1405229/-Private-Prison-Corporations-Stand-With-Hillary-Clinton#

[MaggieD]

14. DU is not supposed to be right wing either

But I sure see lots of right sources used against HRC. I am sure the same thing happens at DKos.

The bottom line is this story is BS.

[AgingAmerican]

15. So Daily Kos is RW?

Cuz they don't fit your narrative?

[MaggieD]

19. Again, do DKos posters use right wing talking points to smear HRC?

Yes. Just like posters here have done in the past.

[MaggieD]

34. Don't read DKos

But people do it here so it wouldn't surprise me if they do it there as well.

[John Poet]

163. DailyKos is Right-Wing because the owner backs Hillary! LOL

[MaggieD]

122. Asked and very unambiguously answered

Why do you keep asking the same thing? I've given you two identical responses already. Why ask a third time?

Yes, so called liberals use right wing talking points there just like they do here. One would hope they are not astroturfing right wingers engaging in that, but we have no way of really knowing. Also, again, I do not read DKos.

[Fawke Em]

120. No - it really isn't.

They expose government overreach and spying no matter who is in office. Period.

[leftofcool]

170. Yes dear, it really is.

[AgingAmerican]

9. So her fundraisers are lobbyists for private prisons?

Thanks for the info.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/24/1405229/-Private-Prison-Corporations-Stand-With-Hillary-Clinton#

[DisgustipatedinCA]

11. The article looks correct to me. Do you have an issue with it?

[AgingAmerican]

17. It exposes Hillary's donation sources, so yes she has issues with it

All she is doing is shining sunlight on it.

[MaggieD]

24. It's a typical right wing fabrication of the truth

And yes, I'm calling it out.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

27. Then call out the inaccurate part in the space just below this.

You say the article is inaccurate, so you should be able to point out the inaccuracies, one would guess. Let's hear them.

[MaggieD]

29. I did

[AgingAmerican]

32. ...not answer DisgustipatedinCA's question

nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

33. You're not a serious person.

You did not. You said something vague about inference. You said NOTHING specific. Get quoting or get laughed at.

[MaggieD]

37. Absolutely I did

In the OP and again in post #13.

And what do you mean when you state I'm "not a serious person."? Are you trying to marginalize me because you approve of these kind of ridiculous smears on her? Or is it just because I don't support your favorite candidate? Or something else?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

41. Post 13 is not yours. You answered 13 with 16, and you said nothing.

If you want to be taken seriously, you will quote from the article the part you find inaccurate, and you'll explain why you feel it's inaccurate. That is all.

[MaggieD]

51. You are correct - it is #16 in response to #13

Thanks for catching that. It's difficult on an IPAD sometimes. However my point remains.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

58. You have no point. You can't back up your claim.

Have a good evening.

PS: here's how you could have played this. You could have acknowledged that the article itself was correct (and yes, it was), but that some people have twisted the report in order to claim that Hillary was taking direct donations from private prison companies. You would have been onto something there, but it seems like your obsession with Greenwald blinded you to where the actual word twisting was happening.

[MaggieD]

60. I think you need to read the OP again

The whole point is how those at DU have turned that article into the specious claim that HRC is funded by prison corps. It's a bullshit inference by Greenwald and a false accusation in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=526601

[DisgustipatedinCA]

66. You need to read the article again yourself. It wasn't written by Greenwald, nor is he the editor.

And no, your OP isn't what you claim it is. Sure, you're pissed at a lot of DU--you have been since you re-joined. But right out of the gate, you made accusations about the accuracy of the article in the Intercept. You've done absolutely nothing to prove it was inaccurate in any way. And that is what I asked you about. And you took the bait and talked about the Intercept article. But you can't back up your claim. Your post is a (disruptive) meta thread. It's not really about the Intercept at all, except that you want to throw them into the mix for a twofer it won't work.

[MaggieD]

69. The article is right wing BS

Call me up once you do the 6 degrees of separation nonsense on Bernie's donations.

[Vattel]

87. And yet you can find nothing inaccurate in it. Interesting.

[George II]

38. Go back and read Maggie's OP.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

45. I asked her to quote the inaccurate part. She hasn't been able to do that yet.

But now you're here. And you see the inaccuracy too. Surely you'd be kind enough to point it out for me in the article. If not, gosh, what are the odds that two strident Hillary supporters in a row can't back up their impassioned accusations. But I know that won't be the case with you, if you'll just go through the simple process of quoting the inaccurate parts of the article below. Thanks.

[MaggieD]

64. And I've very clearly stated....

It's a bullshit inference by Greenwalds crew, and people have used it here to make a very specious argument. Not sure how I can be more clear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=526601

[George II]

92. Exactly. The article for the most part is intrinsically correct but there are implications...

....in the article that there is a link between some of the bundlers' clients and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Those implications are totally false.

There is also the hint (maybe less than vague) that the companies the bundlers' also represent are contributing money to the Clinton campaign. That is not only false but to do so would be illegal.

[840high]

116. No it's not.

[Vattel]

13. Does the intercept article make any false claims? If so, please quote and debunk.

[MaggieD]

16. Absolutely it does

It makes the claim that HRC takes money from for profit prison corps by inference. Lobbyists work for all kinds of different clients, and as I said in the OP, that doesn't translate into her being a supporter of or taking money from prison corps.

Bernie gets a lot of money from Act Blue. Have you investigated everyone that donated and where they work in order to smear him with the 6 degrees of separation nonsense?

Ridiculous, IMO.

[Vattel]

36. You should read more carefully.

It claims that some of Clinton's bundlers are lobbyists for private prison corps. It doesn't say that the money they have raised as bundlers was donated by private prison corps.

Truth is a wonderful thing.

[MaggieD]

39. But people here ARE claiming that

It's the smear du jour today. Sorry you missed it but it's still on the front page. You can still catch it easily enough.

[Vattel]

47. So you concede that you can't find any errors in the article. Thanks for your honesty.

[MaggieD]

48. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=526601

THAT is the thread where this specious claim is being made. Sickening.

[Vattel]

53. Um, my interest was the intercept article.

As for the suggestion that HRC has received donations from private prison corps, I have no idea whether that is true.

[MaggieD]

56. I thought your interest was in denying he's a right wing libertarian?

Never seen a lefty work for Cato.

[Vattel]

72. I did join in on that question as well, but I don't find it all that interesting.

I do find left libertarianism interesting though.

[MaggieD]

76. He's not a leftist

"It was in Greenwald’s professional frustration that he found Townhall, then a conservative politics forum on CompuServe sponsored by National Review and the Heritage Foundation, via his roommate’s boyfriend’s Republican mother."

You need to get over that fiction.

[Vattel]

84. I didn't say that he was a leftist.

I thought that maybe you were assuming that because he is a libertarian he must be right wing. My point was that libertarians can be left or right. As for Greenwald, he is left on many issues, but I am not sure how far right he is on economic issues. You never answered my questions about whether he favored the sort of things that right libertarians favor, e.g., eliminating the social safety net, privatizing most government services, etc.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

68. My interest is also in the Intercept article (see above).

As with you, the OP has completely failed to back up her claim. Also as with you, she seems to misunderstand the nature of her own claim. Is it about DU, or is it about the Intercept article? I truly don't believe she's grasping the difference, based on her replies to you and to me.

[MaggieD]

94. I've backed it up repeatedly

You just don't want to admit it. Hell, the headline alone backs up what the inference is meant to be.

[AgingAmerican]

42. It states that her chosen fundraisers work for a private prison lobby firm

And you don't dispute that. You claim it's 'right wing' but you do not dispute anything in the article.

[Doctor_J]

18. debunking facts is pretty hard work

And calling Greenwald. Dk, and the intercept "right wing" makes you sound like an idiot.

[MaggieD]

20. No, it makes me informed

Glenn Greenwald is on the exact same ideological plane as Ron Paul. They are both libertarians. I'm not sure how you can deny that fact.

[Doctor_J]

25. I guess presente is right wing too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251526601

[MaggieD]

49. Frankly I doubt most of us here have a clue who they are

Never heard of them myself. I have worked with groups like La Raza before but never heard of presente - have you?

[davidpdx]

174. That's hilarious because even I know who they are

You and the other Clinton supporters are too busy running around screaming that Sanders supporters are racists. Presente is a group that supports Latino concerns and has been around for many years. Why would I know that? Because I am a member.

If it comes down to believing a snot nosed self-involved internet "activist" or Presente, I'll trust Presente twice a day everyday and five times on Friday.

[MaggieD]

179. Define "been around"

My research shows that they are an online only group that started in 2009. Their Facebook page has 23k likes. Their "about" page does disclose anything about who founded it or who works there.

Maybe they are just trying to get noticed. But I'd advise them that making up stuff is not the way to do it.

[davidpdx]

186. So you are now smearing a progressive group that has been around for 6 years that supports Latinos

I understand.

Reading is fundamental. Here is their information off their Wikipedia page you claim you read:

Presente.org is an American advocacy group that "exists to amplify the political voice of Latino communities" in the United States. It was co-founded by journalist Roberto Lovato. In 2009 the group coordinated "BastaDobbs.com, a Latino-led coalition" critical of TV anchor Lou Dobbs' xenophobic commentary; Dobbs resigned from CNN under public pressure.[1][2][3] Also in 2009, during the confirmation of chief justice Sonia Sotomayor, the group disseminated a positive visual portrait of Sotomayor[4][5] In 2011 the group has campaigned against the U.S. government's deportation program "Secure Communities."[6][7]

[davidpdx]

177. Actually I want to make an addendum to my post above because you CLAIM you have no idea

who Presente is, yet you yourself responded to a thread where Presente was clearly discussed. It goes to show you didn't even bother to read the OP, you came in heavy handed with your knee jerk reaction and attacked. Good show! This really makes you look intelligent!

Here is a link to the thread and your exact post at 6:22 am (KST) the above post was at 10:52 am (KST):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251526601#post92

[enough]

26. Try reading a little ancient history, like the past 15 years.

The more you say about this, the more you demonstrate what you do not know.

[MaggieD]

30. Well by all means tell me

LOL! I can't wait.

[Vattel]

43. You should read up about left libertarianism. It is about as far from being right wing as one can

get. Most libertarians are right libertarians and so the failure to recognize a spectrum here is not unusual. Does Grenwald want to eliminate social safety nets? Does he want to privatize most government services? Those are the sort of things that would make him right wing.

[MaggieD]

46. He is not a leftists - LOL!

[enough]

23. Truly. The sense of history doesn't go back very far, apparently.

You could call Greenwald a lot of things, but "right wing" is purely ignorant.

[MaggieD]

44. Again you're wrong

Cato loves the guy. http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/glenn-greenwald

http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

[WillyT]

21. Wake Up Maggie...

Wake up Maggie I think I got something to say to you
It's late September and I really should be back at school
I know I keep you amused but I feel I'm being used
Oh Maggie I couldn't have tried any more
You lured me away from home just to save you from being alone
You stole my heart and that's what really hurt.

[uponit7771]

28. They demonize Hillary cause she's a threat

[MaggieD]

31. Clearly, but this one reeks of desperation

[SonderWoman]

40. My God, Lawyers donating to Democrats??? I'm shocked!

[Armstead]

50. You lost me at "right wing journalist Glen Greenwald"

You mean that guy that wrote the story that at leasst but some rrins on the government's ability to spy on us?

God he's a real right wing nutjob. I WANT the government to spy on us.

Those horrible, horrible muckracking investgatuve journalists.

And that horrid right wing rag The Guardian was complicit?

Oh wait a minute. The Guardian is a historically left wing British newspaper. ...WEll that must be a ruse.

[MaggieD]

54. Would you agree the Cato Institute is right wing?

Not sure how you can deny it is. That's who he worked for.

[Armstead]

61. I would. Since you're in a researching mood....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

Greenwald's own explanation at link above. And what he wrote for them below. Not exactly Rissh Limbaugh subjects:

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies

The Digital Surveillance State: Vast, Secret, and Dangerous

The Conversation: The Surveillance State Thrives on Fear

[MaggieD]

71. Yes, he doth protest - I know

And writing for Cato isn't "working" for Cato. Except they paid him to do it. But it's not work because Greenwald says it's not work.

So we should not infer anything about his work for Cato, but we CAN infer Hillary got donations from for profit prison corps (who do not typically donate to Dems) because some lobbyists and lawyers that have helped her get donations have them on their client list.

Ridiciculous.

[okasha]

127. Cato is about as right-wing libertarian as it gets.

Homophobic, misogynist, hypercapitalist Randian bullshit.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Who knew that Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore, and Bill Moyers were right-wing Libertarian stooges?

"Glenn Greenwald is not just the American Left's most fearless political commentator; his fearlessness is such that he has shifted the expectations for everyone else, too. His rock-ribbed principles and absolute disregard for partisan favor have made U.S. political discourse edgier, more confrontational, and much much better."
- Rachel Maddow

"The first thing I do when I turn on the computer in the morning is go to Glenn Greenwald's blog to see what he said. He is truly one of our greatest writers right now."
- Michael Moore

"The most important voice to have entered the political discourse in years."
- Bill Moyers

Thank you for opening our eyes, MaggieD.

[Armstead]

54. Bill Moyers! That proves it. This is all a right wing plot!

[MaggieD]

59. He worked for Cato

That's a right wing org. He's a long time right wing libertarian. I'm pleased to know that I'm better informed than those you cite. They didn't do their homework.

[MannyGoldstein]

62. No, you don't know more than Maddow, Moore, and Moyers

It's just that they're just plants in the Libertarian war to pollute our precious bodily fluids.

Thank you for your good work here.

[MaggieD]

65. Read up on Cato - it was founded by the Kochs

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

So yes, I'm afraid I do appear to know more than they do.

[frylock]

95. Read up on Cato

comedy fuggin gold!

[MaggieD]

96. Do you deny it was founded by the Koch brothers?

[frylock]

98. bwahahahaha!!

[MaggieD]

99. Okey dokey then

Have a nice evening.

[malokvale77]

150. Do you deny that the Kochs funded the DLC? nt

[Scuba]

166. Oooooh, that's gonna leave a mark!

[Armstead]

63. I'd suggest you stop digging andd admit that you made a mistake

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

[MaggieD]

67. Oh he wrote for them but didn't "work" for them

You know what? Everything out of that guy reeks of Ron Paul style right wing libertarianism.

[rock]

70. "... right wing talking points are being used here ..."

As there are no legitimate criticisms against Hillary, one must resort to making them up. And, of course, repeating them nauseatingly.

P.S. Keep up the excellent work!

[MBplayer]

73. GEO lobbying info from 2008 is tough to stomach

Special 'f you' goes out to Bill Richardson, who took in around $25k from GEO.

[MaggieD]

80. But none to HRC

Right?

[MBplayer]

82. Probably walking into a trap here, but...

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000022003&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2008

[MaggieD]

90. You appear to be looking

At people who worked at Geo and/or donated to PACs both she and Obama got donations from. Not the same thing. Your employer cannot tell you who to donate to or not donate to. Thankfully.

[BlueStateLib]

74. Hillary's bundler Richard Sullivan & Capitol Counsel LLC

Hillary's bundler Richard Sullivan was Dick Gephard deputy campaign manager
and former finance director of the Democratic National Committee. Richard Sullivan
was a top fund-raiser for Vice President Al Gore. Richard Sullivan was national
fundraising director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).
Counsel to the House Majority Leader. Treasurer and finance chairman for the
Democratic Governors Association (DGA).

Capitol Counsel LLC, two of the most experienced Democratic tax lobbyists in Washington have joined forces with a team of Democratic fundraisers and operatives to form what likely will emerge as one of Washington’s premier boutique lobbying shops.

The firm, Capitol Counsel LLC, will focus almost exclusively on two of the most powerful committees in Congress: the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance panels. At least that is the initial strategy — the company may follow clients’ interests to other committees or to the House and Senate Democratic leadership.
http://www.capitolcounsel.com/team/richard-sullivan/
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/2262-lobbyists-team-to-form-powerhouse-shop
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Y0000011438L

[MaggieD]

78. Yes, lobbyists exist

Thanks for letting us know. What you may not know is that every major progressive group has them too.

[MBplayer]

75. Going through CCA and GEO on open secrets...DWS name shows up WAYYY too often.

[MaggieD]

77. But HRC's does not

[MBplayer]

79. 6k in 2008

[MaggieD]

81. Where is the link?

[MBplayer]

88. here:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000022003&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2008

[MaggieD]

93. You appear to be looking....

At people who worked at Geo and/or donated to PACs both she and Obama got donations from. Not the same thing. Your employer cannot tell you who to donate to or not donate to. Thankfully.

[ismnotwasm]

83. I've been reading far too many RW talking points here.

It's freaking weird

[fbc]

85. Glenn Greenwald is one of the finest journalists of our time...

...and this might be the worst topic I've ever seen on this site. It's riddled with inaccuracies, so many that to attempt to address them would be a Herculean task.

Glenn Greenwald is further left than most democratic politicians, that's for sure.

And he didn't even write the article in question.

[MaggieD]

91. He's in charge of the content

And he loathes both Obama and HRC. NOT an unbiased source by any measure.

[Gothmog]

86. Another great post

[NCTraveler]

89. A right winger was used to do...

A right wing investigation was used as opposition research against Gutierrez. When I asked that op multiple times how the right wingers investigation was going, I got nothing but deflection. It's just a bunch of Gowdy/Starr/Conaway cheerleaders.

[frylock]

97. oh man, how I missed this shit!

Welcome back!

[MaggieD]

100. Why do you feel the need to personally attack people?

I'm just curious. It shouldn't be too much burden to offer a substantive comment if you're going to frequent a discussion group, should it? I just don't get the reason for these kind of comments.

[hrmjustin]

102. To bait you.

Don't take the bait.

[frylock]

105. The entire premise of this OP is to bait people..

it IS the bait.

[hrmjustin]

107. See that is your problem.

You see defending HRC as flaimebait.

[MaggieD]

108. Seems so

[frylock]

103. This entire thread is filled with substantive comment that you prefer to ignore or dismiss..

How much substantive comment are you looking for when you post twaddle like "Right Wing libertarian Glen Greenwald"? You post this crap knowing full well what kind of response you're going to receive. Let's get real here.

[MaggieD]

106. He's on the same ideological plane as Ron Paul

.... IMO. And I think his background is pretty clear on that. You can disagree without being rude.

[frylock]

110. No, he's not..

You've been linked to several pieces by Greenwald himself explaining his position, yet you continue to misrepresent his views. As I said, you ignore and dismiss.

[MaggieD]

111. Thanks for the substantive comment

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[frylock]

115. ignore and dismiss

[Garrett78]

171. You're confusing 2 versions of libertarianism.

Noam Chomsky is probably best described as a left wing libertarian. Ron and Rand Paul are right wing libertarians. Greenwald falls in the former camp, not the latter. Or are you going to tell me that Chomsky is a right winger? LOL.

[99th_Monkey]

104. Since when are Right-Wing ReThuglicans against Private Prisons?

news to me.

[MaggieD]

109. Right wing libertarians

[99th_Monkey]

123. Libertarians also support legalizing weed

so OOOOOOoooow ... that must mean if I want weed
legalized, that I'm spouting a "right wing talking point" ...

FAIL.

are you kidding me?

[MaggieD]

125. Sure that's great

I also agree with him on Snowden for the most part. But he's still a right leaning libertarian in my book based on some of his previous actions, and writings. And frankly the specious article proves it.

[99th_Monkey]

134. D-E-S-P-I-R-A-T-I-O-N

is no excuse for accusing a Democratic Socialist with an impeccable
progressive record of being a Libertarian.

This is the same swarmy smear some on DU have used against Glenn Greenwald
and it's even more misplaced against Bernie than it was against Greenwald.

Is that all you got? Really?

Gee, if Sanders isn't a racist .. well then, he MUST be a Libertarian.

I know it must suck to be a Hillary supporter about now, but I had no idea
it had gone this far. my sympathies.

[MaggieD]

135. Funny you should mention the word "desperation"

That's exactly how I see this latest attempt by Bernie supporters to smear HRC with this unbelievably specious argument.

Clearly they are running out of fake stuff to say about her.

[99th_Monkey]

152. Are you throwing all these other progressive websites under the bus?

Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/24/guess-who-else-fundraising-clinton-private-prison-lobbyists

Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/24/1405229/-Private-Prison-Corporations-Stand-With-Hillary-Clinton

TruthDig
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/private_prison_lobbyists_are_fundraising_for_hillary_clinton_20150724

MotherJones
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-lobbyists-campaign-staff-keystone-lehman

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/08/private-prison-lobbyists-are-fundraising-for-hillary-clinton-2471060.html

Last I heard, NONE of them are "Libertairan" websites.

[MaggieD]

153. They are entitled to their opinion

I feel no compelling need to "throw them under a bus."

[99th_Monkey]

157. You can't have it both ways

either you agree there is SOMETHING to this story, or there isn't

I posted about Hillary taking Private Prison Bucks long ago, so long
ago I haven't found it yet, but may yet.

Till then, good luck defending Hillary's shameless money-grubbing
from the private prison industry, aka Cheney's gold mine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. Before it is news can be seen that way

and it is the last place I go for actual well... news. But she is.

[davidpdx]

175. Add Presente too that list will you please

They are a VERY progressive site that supports Latino issues

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251526601


Latino group demands Hillary Clinton and DNC cut ties with private prison industry

http://presente.org/press/releases/2015/8/17/latino-group-demands-hillary-cut-ties-private-pris …



“We demand Hillary Clinton return and reject any and all donations and financial support from the private prison industry. Clinton can’t claim to be working to end mass incarceration while accepting donations from the very people who are bankrolled by it. Hillary Clinton claims to be the ideal candidate to represent Latinos, but that can’t be trusted if she is accepting money from the very people who have made billions of dollars destroying the lives of millions of immigrants and Latinos. For far too long, black and brown people have been arrested and imprisoned for minor crimes they commit at rates far lower than white people— all the while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and millions of lives.

“If Clinton wants our votes, she must return, and stop accepting, dirty money from private prisons.”

About presente: With more than a quarter million members, Presente is a major national organization dedicated to amplifying the political voices of Latino communities in the United States.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. Lee Fang is Glen Greenwald

that is the author of the article

[MaggieD]

144. Greenwald has editorial control of the site

That means he green lights all articles. Glad I could educate you on that. Have a nice evening.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. Editors do not green light articles

this is not a movie studio. Glad I could educate you on this. Have you worked in Media? Because I do.

Nice to know you are going to tell me how this works.

[MaggieD]

146. Yes they do

I've published over 200 articles in my career. I know you fancy yourself a journalist, but you can't actually be more than a blogger if you don't know this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. No they do not

http://www.thewrap.com/hollywood-greenlighting-power/

It is also a term common in MARKETING, where you might work as well

Reporters PITCH a story, and write a story and fight for their stories. Editors accept a story idea, it is not green lighted, I am sorry, I guess you work in MARKETING. But this is hardly a common term in actual journalism.

And with that, have a wonderful day in this fantasy of yours.

Your obsession is your obsession, and go argue with the FEC ok. For that matter go correct Presente while at it.

[MaggieD]

155. Yes they pitch a story

And editors either approve or they don't. And no, I don't work in marketing. I do health care policy analysis.

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. Thank you, so you have no idea how this works

inside a news room. Some terms are used like a B Roll (applies to video), others are not, like green lighting,

Perhaps in your field it is... I would not claim to know the first thing of how the articles i eat with breakfast are actually approved. Or for that matter how you call that process. I know how it works in my little corner of the universe.

And I know that this is not a term used in my field.

And with that, really have fun. Right now trying to work on a piece... and by the way you still debunked nothing from Lee Fang's reporting.

And these are his bona fides

Lee Fang
[e-mail]

Lee Fang is a reporter for The Intercept. He has a longstanding interest in how public policy is influenced by organized interest groups and money. He was the first to uncover and detail the role of the billionaire Koch brothers in financing the Tea Party movement. His interviews and research on the Koch brothers have been featured on HBO’s “The Newsroom,” the documentaries “Merchants of Doubt” and “Citizen Koch,” as well as in multiple media outlets. He was an investigative blogger for ThinkProgress (2009-2011) and then a fellow at the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute and contributing writer for The Nation. In 2012, he co-founded RepublicReport.org, a blog to cover political corruption that syndicates content with TheNation.com, Salon, National Memo, BillMoyers.com, TruthOut, and other media outlets. His work has been published by VICE, The Baffler, The Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Progressive, NPR, In These Times, and The Huffington Post. His first book, “The Machine: A Field Guide to the Resurgent Right,” published by The New Press, explores how the conservative right rebuilt the Republican Party and its political clout in the aftermath of President Obama’s 2008 election victory. He is based in San Francisco.

- See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/author/lee-fang/#sthash.ODviJM73.dpuf

[MaggieD]

158. What magazines or publications have you worked for?

I mean other than your own blog? I'm sincerely curious because you don't seem to understand the editorial process of a real publication.

The editor green lights the article and then reviews the article and approves or disapproves the actual content. In fact writers do not even have control over the headline. I've written for 5 different mags and that is how it works.

There is an excellent article about this from Grantland that explains the editorial process. Do you need me to find it for you and provide a link? You're sadly mistaken about how real journalism functions, sorry to say.

[MaggieD]

160. East County Magazine

Sounds like our local weekly here. Real publications have a much more rigorous editorial process than it appears you have been exposed to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. Another personal attack

And with that, I am done and deleting my post to you

Suffice it to say it's standards are so weak that it's won 88 journalism awards.

But I am deleting my response to you and adding you to my soft ignore list, You are special and not in a good way.

[MaggieD]

162. No, just a response based on my experience

I truly don't think you really understand the editorial process at a major publication. I do wish you well in your journalistic endeavors though! Sincerely.

[Raine1967]

112. This is the same author who is trying to say that

the person I support is in bed with bank lobbyists…

See this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=527977

I am not in the mood for outside agitators making up lies.

This was my response to that post:

You might want to take a closer look at the *pro-business* group that they are talking about in the link:

http://www.newdealleaders.org/about

The NewDEAL is a national network of rising state and local elected leaders who are pro-growth progressives. Our mission is to bring together leaders focused on expanding opportunity and to help them develop and spread innovative ideas to spur economic growth that is broadly-earned and sustainable. We do this by connecting the NewDEAL Leaders with each other to exchange ideas, and connecting them with other pro-growth progressive political, policy, and private sector leaders.

The network is led by our Honorary Chairs, Delaware Governor Jack Markell and U.S. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, as well as our Honorary Regional Chairs: Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, U.S. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, U.S. Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman, former Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, and Houston Mayor Annise Parker.

We hope you’ll take a moment to nominate innovative leaders you’ve met and sign up to stay connected as we add more of their pro-growth progressive ideas to our site.

I do not believe for a minute that that site is liberal or progressive.

it is just manipulating things and that is a really shitty thing to do when it comes to us electing our next president.

[MaggieD]

117. I agree - it's just over the top nonsense

And it's sad to see it here. Like I said up thread I don't support Bernie but I would never post made up nonsense about him like was done here.

[Fawke Em]

121. They're not progressive or right-wing

They are investigative reporters who drill into stories and try to untangle messes.

Remember when reporters used to do that no matter who was hurt or who benefited?

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. If you are going to say something is false you should link to it

by the way... you could have gone to Open Secrets and found that the PAC is not listed by name... that is not evidence of anthing and it does list the donors. You would be shocked i suppose that banking interests are her three top donors there.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019&type=I

I personally hate that open secrets does not list actual PACs, but the Intercept got that info from the FEC... they might be toothelss as hell, but at least they have to list this shit.

Here link to Richard Sullivan contributions

And the FEC detailed record

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?27931403444

Or at least one of a few. If you want to ahem DEBUNK something, you'd better know how to find this information.

And this took me all of three minutes, but I work with this crap regularly. We only do it with local pols though. Hell, today I had fun looking at the donations from Qualcomm for a local pol who voted to fast track the TTP... follow the freaking money.

[MaggieD]

119. You're late

I've already addressed this multiple times in the thread. The OP posted here today claiming she gets donations from prison corps is simply false.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. No Maggie you are wrong

the bundler is real, I linked to him, and he does bundle from them,

The fact that it is a small percentage of what she is getting is real too. And there is an increasing chorus among Latin activists, among them Presente, for her to stop it. And you might want to go argue with the FEDERAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. The data is out there.

I am not giving you innuendo, I am giving you links to the ACTUAL SHIT.

You might want to be humble and walk away from this. Or not... hyper partisans usually do not do that.

[MaggieD]

128. Sorry, I won't play 6 degrees of separation with you

That "bundler" is a democrat that supports HRC. You guys don't seem to understand that lawyers and lobbyists are running businesses. They don't automatically hold deep ideological feelings for every client they work for. To think that is simply politically naive. It does not work that way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Of course you won't

because you cannot argue with the PRIMARY sources, in this case the FEC.

Am I blaming her for it? No, it's politics, and bundlers do what they do usually though PACS. which is PART OF THE PROBLEM with citizens united. That is the real issue here. CU.

And as of now, whether she deserves it or not, she has a problem with one of the largest latino organizations in the country. Congrats, that is the reality.

No six degrees of separation needed.

Congrats. Now please proceed with this bullshit of yours. I must say, it is quite entertaining.

[MaggieD]

131. Already did

Sorry you missed it. But you can certainly go back and read the thread if you'd like.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. And you can argue with the FEC

and primary material. This is like taking a horse to water, and the horse refusing to drink that water.

you claimed they lied. Took me literally three minutes to find one of the records at the FEC website. Proves that no, they are not lying. And yes, he has raised money for HRC. So you keep that fantasy ok. I s'pose the federal government and their pesky records are part of the vast right wing (and now libertarian) conspiracy.

It is hilarious, comedy gold in fact.

[MaggieD]

139. No I'm arguing with the ridiciculous accusation....

That because a Democratic lobbyist has Geo for a client that translates into HRC getting campaign cash from for profit prison corps. Is that clear enough for you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. And you are wrong in making that claim

and it is not a ridiculous claim. You have no idea where a PAC is getting funds for any candidate, For all you know every one of the candidates, both D and R is getting money from the eat your kittens for breakfast corporation that wants this a normal practice in the United States.

The part you are not getting though your skull is that none of us can actually find out because of how PACs help to hide where the money is coming from. This is frustrating to all who actually have looked under the hood. So no, it is far from a ridiculous claim.

If you have a lobbyist bundling funds for any candidate, you have to assume that they are bundling from ALL THEIR CLIENTS. That is the problem with Citizens United and Dark Money. This is not a HRC problem, it is a SYSTEMIC problem. So no, it is not ridiculous at all. Why this current election will be over 5 billion.. capiche now?

And for the moment, she is having a problem with the largest Latino group in the nation. Enjoy.

And you do go argue with the FEC. I gave you one of the ACTUAL FUCKING DOCUMENTS, I did not link to DKOS, I linked to the FEC for christ sake. And yes, it took me all of three minutes because I know how to look for this shit. In short, you debunked nothing. And the fact that you are still digging them heels as a good partisan hack is truly hilarious.

[MaggieD]

141. You got nothing

But keep trying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. I got nothing

that is hilarious, I do hope some day you realize that you are arguing with the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION and their fracking records, not me.

[RufusTFirefly]

126. Go Maggie Go! I was with you all the way until the sixth word this time

That's progress, at least.



As everyone knows, socialism is just a more virulent form of libertarianism.

Honestly, I don't know how you manage it. But I sure hope there's money involved.
If not, I'd worry.

[MaggieD]

132. So you're implying I'm a paid operative?

Wouldn't I get a hide if I said that to a Bernie supporter? Bet I would.

For the record, I'm simply a Democrat that supports the Democratic front runner and does not support the "not a Democrat" in the race. Oddly, that's not popular on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.

[RufusTFirefly]

137. I'm just trying to understand how someone could consider GG a RW Libertarian

The alternative explanations for your specious accusation are just too unpleasant to ponder.

I'd pray for you if I were a believer.

[MaggieD]

138. Well maybe try it without making....

... Insulting accusations next time, huh?

[Cha]

133. Jury results..

This OP has "simple-minded Manichean" written all over it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=529106

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I know that juries here seldom hide a Bernie supporter no matter what they post, but this is just uncivil.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 19, 2015, 03:36 AM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It is time for civil debate rather than personal attacks. Substance in debate, pro, or against matters...
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Insipid personal attacks.. I don't care who it supports.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Probably not a good idea to call out Bernie supporters in your alert, but it seems insulting to me, lobs some spit at some other DUer and basically adds nothing to the discussion.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The alerted post has "simple-minded personal insult " written all over it.

[Dawson Leery]

149. The left's strange hatred of the Clinton's is yet again

rearing it's ugly head.

Thank you for debunking the "Hillary takes cash from private prison corps" libel.

[Garrett78]

169. Neoliberalism is worthy of hate

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton#

[ericson00]

164. Maggie D, thank you! KNR

but also, I am left wondering why Hillary hasn't started a fightthesmear.com thing like Obama did in 2008? These lies go around way to easily

[freshwest]

178. There's a correct the record youtube channel and website. Her campaign doesn't push it, IDK why. n/t

[Garrett78]

165. Greenwald

Greenwald, formerly of Salon and a regular contributor to Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, is far more of a leftist than neoliberal Clinton. Just because the Cato Institute agrees with him on a few issues (drug and prison reform, ending citizen surveillance), issues with which leftists also agree, doesn't make Greenwald "right wing." No more than Rand Paul is "left wing" simply because he has some views with which leftists agree.

[Scuba]

167. +1 and welcome to DU.

[Scuba]

168. Maggie, you've gotten your ass handed to you on this thread.

Blind loyalty is not a desirable trait.

[MoveIt]

172. I will predict the response

"Nuh uh"

[MaggieD]

181. No I haven't

But thanks for your opinion.

[MoveIt]

190. I think I nailed it, ^^^^

[uponit7771]

192. Neither is baseless hyperbole

[Autumn]

173. Saying something is bullshit inference is

not debunking. Did I miss the debunking post? By the way, thanks for the link, I missed that OP.

[Fred Sanders]

176. You are taking away the one mass media Clinton Hunters "issue" the left wing is still clinging to, Maggie.

By introducing properly the layers of complexity behind the simple minded Pavolian headline response what you are doing, you rebel, is forcing folks to think things through....that always is painful for some.

[William769]

180. Kick & highly recommended!

[last1standing]

182. Your first sentence started with a fabrication and set the tone for the many that followed.

You're using the same "I didn't do it, that corporate structure I just happen help run did" dodge that repubs have used for years on end.

The people who make the decisions to run these private prisons and those who make the decisions on how to exploit prisoners, many of whom are the people of color you claim to fight for, are the people donating to Hillary. And they do so with the expectation that she will help them continue that exploitation.

You can spin it for the partisans and try to befuddle the ignorant, but I like to believe that most here understand that this OP is no more than an attempt to justify very bad decisions on the part of Team Hillary.

[MaggieD]

183. Lobbyists do not "run" corporations

[last1standing]

184. They act on the direct orders of those who do.

Why are you trying to pretend they don't?

[MaggieD]

185. Every lobbyists has dozens of clients

This idea that they hold deep ideological beliefs that match every client on their client list is naive in the extreme. And again, its ridiculous in the extreme to try to pretend that equates to HRC taking money from prison corps.

The idea the Hillary haters club is trying to float here reeks of desperation, IMO.

[last1standing]

187. As I said, that is the exact line repubs have used for years to avoid accountability.

If you want to argue for letting a candidate be in the pocket of an industry that makes billions off of destroying the lives of countless young people of color, go ahead.

But at least be honest about it.

[MaggieD]

188. Let me know when you've delved....

Into the employment history of everyone who donates to Bernie. Lol.

[last1standing]

189. Let me know when you stop supporting politicians taking money from the private prison industry.

I expect that will be the exact moment Team Hillary finally realizes what a colossal mistake it wast to take the cash in the first place.

Until then, I fully expect you to support politicians taking money from corporations that are destroying the future of millions of young people of color.

[Zorra]

191. Taking dirty money, by any other 'splain, is still taking dirty money.

Bundling is a great way to let corrupt politicians take money from malicious sources so that they can claim "We Didn't Know!"

No human being with any shred of integrity would ever knowingly accept bundled money from lobbyists who take money from such unspeakably wicked incarcerate for profit operations.

The only people you are going to fool with your Third Way propaganda 'splain are fools.

QUESTION (to Hillary Clinton, asked by BLM Activist): But your—you and your family have been personally and politically responsible for policies that have caused Health and Human Services disasters in impoverished communities of color (inaudible) the domestic and international War on Drugs that you championed as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. And so I just want to know how you feel about your role in that violence and how you plan to reverse it?
snip---
We’re in a meeting about drugs. America’s first drug is free black labor, and turning black bodies into profit and the mass incarceration system mirrors an awful lot like the prison plantation system. It’s a similar thread, and until someone takes that message and speaks that truth to White people in this country so that we can actually take on anti-Blackness as a founding problem in this country, I don’t believe that there is going to be a solution.

Because what the conversations that are happening now and why there is so much cohesion across the divide, the red side and the blue side, it’s because of money, right, we are spending a lot of money on prisons. We’re spending more money on prisons than we are on schools, but if we look at it from lens of let’s solve this financial problem, and we don’t look at the greater bottom line that African-Americans who are Americans are suffering at greater rates than most other people, every other people, for the length of this country then it’s not going to go away. It’s just going to morph into something new and evolved. You know, I genuinely want to know, you, Hillary Clinton, have been in no uncertain way, partially responsible for this. More than most. There may have been unintended consequences.

But now that you understand the consequences, what in your heart has changed that’s going to change the direction of this country? Like what in you—not your platform, not the things you’re supposed to say—like, how do you actually feel that’s different than you did before? Like what were the mistakes, and how can those mistakes that you made be lessons for all of America for a moment of reflection on how we treat black people in this country?

Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton

Last week, Clinton and other candidates revealed a number of lobbyists who are serving as “bundlers” for their campaigns. Bundlers collect contributions on behalf of a campaign, and are often rewarded with special favors, such as access to the candidate.

Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit.

As we reported yesterday, fully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.

Hillary / DNC: Cut ties with private prisons!

The Clinton campaign recently engaged two sets of such bundlers from the private prison industry's lobbyists.

Private prison companies make billions from our broken and discriminatory criminal justice system by disproportionately locking up Black and brown people in the country's most dangerous prisons, for profit. Furthermore, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is required to keep at least 34,000 immigrants locked up to meet a draconian federal quota at a cost to taxpayers of $2 billion per year, much of this going to enrich private prison companies. And nearly 20% of immigrant detainees are locked up for traffic offenses. Imagine the devastation we'll suffer if the industry's lobbying power determines and influences the next president.

Join us in urging Secretary Clinton to disavow the private prison industry and demand that the Democratic Party oppose private prisons in their 2016 platform.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

194. Great post. Thanks.

No human being with any shred of integrity would ever knowingly accept bundled money from lobbyists who take money from such unspeakably wicked incarcerate for profit operations.

So true.

[lawexpert]

193. Debunking Private Prisons Donations to Hillary Clinton

Corrections Corporation of America gave 78% of donations to Republicans and 22% to Democrats: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00366468

List of Recipients for Corrections Corporation of America: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00366468&cycle=2016

GEO Group Summary of donations: (0% to Democrats, 100% to Republicans): https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00382150

Recipients of GEO Group donations: They are all Republicans: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00382150&cycle=2016

Federal Election Commission: Summary for Hillary Clinton: http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=P00003392&tabIndex=1

Itemized Individual Contributions: http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do