2016 Postmortem

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)

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

Wed Jul 15, 2015, 10:17 AM

Jul 2015

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.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why the "Hillary is owned by banks meme" is NOT debunked. [View all] retrowire Jul 2015 OP

You're looking at her donor list in the NY senate... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #1

emilys list is great, so are the others you mentioned retrowire Jul 2015 #2

Oops, it's actually 91% of donations, not 92%. Here: JaneyVee Jul 2015 #3

thank you retrowire Jul 2015 #5

Nope not the only source, you could have Googled this... but since you didn't I helped you out. Agschmid Jul 2015 #20

thanks for the additional sources retrowire Jul 2015 #31

Except this... Agschmid Jul 2015 #33

disregard the false numbers then. retrowire Jul 2015 #39

Corporations and unions mind you are barred from donating directly to candidates. Agschmid Jul 2015 #46

PACs are how they sidestep that law. retrowire Jul 2015 #58

Good now you get it. Agschmid Jul 2015 #59

She only got $8000 from Citigroup PAC. The REST.... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #61

those donors being... retrowire Jul 2015 #62

NO. She got $8000 from Citigroup PAC. She got.... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #65

And since they are a public company... Agschmid Jul 2015 #75

Are owners not individuals? Agschmid Jul 2015 #73

they are individuals retrowire Jul 2015 #79

Yes but the numbers show contributions from individuals and PAC's separately. Agschmid Jul 2015 #81

no i acknowledge the difference. retrowire Jul 2015 #83

I don't doubt that some are. Agschmid Jul 2015 #85

true. retrowire Jul 2015 #89

So? She's going to be going up against the Koch brothers billions. pnwmom Jul 2015 #41

as long as she fights fire with fire right? retrowire Jul 2015 #42

Vote for whoever you want. We will too. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #44

i respectfully agree. retrowire Jul 2015 #49

She plans to raise $2.5 Billion Dollars. Where will that be coming from? sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #87

Yes, and obviously the way to overturn CU is to... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #88

but money doesn't win elections retrowire Jul 2015 #93

9 out of 10 times it does. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #94

are you okay with that? retrowire Jul 2015 #95

I'm okay with Hillary's plan to overturn it. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #96

9 out of 10 chance? retrowire Jul 2015 #97

Umm, not fear; Math. Statistics. Data. History: JaneyVee Jul 2015 #98

How do you overturn something that the people who pay for your election sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #103

You are against things every day that you participate in. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #105

Yes, it IS the way. If every Democrat refused to take these bribes THEN sabrina 1 Jul 2015 #102

Good luck convincing Republicans. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #104

92% of donations. Not 92% of dollars. jeff47 Jul 2015 #10

this. retrowire Jul 2015 #13

The 3.4% figure you're using is based on her senate contributions. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #16

But did all of those donations that were less than $100 SheilaT Jul 2015 #32

No and the Hillary campaign didn't claim that... Agschmid Jul 2015 #34

Which is, as those who keep on saying it know, very misleading. SheilaT Jul 2015 #37

So when they say EXACTLY what happened they are being misleading? Agschmid Jul 2015 #38

Scrap that statistic, op is referring to her senate contributions, not 2016 campaign. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #36

my second update clarifies it though. retrowire Jul 2015 #55

3.4%. That's the key number here. 3.4% of her money came from financial sector employees. DanTex Jul 2015 #4

Historically, stocks perform better under Democrats. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #6

and thanks to janeyvee retrowire Jul 2015 #7

The list is telling of two things: DanTex Jul 2015 #9

... retrowire Jul 2015 #11

Again, you are conflating 2 separate issues. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #17

Well thats the number DanTex is using. retrowire Jul 2015 #18

Dan is attempting to debunk a meme. You are.... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #21

what? retrowire Jul 2015 #24

Your update made it confusing. So... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #27

i think you may be confused. retrowire Jul 2015 #28

Okay, lets try this again: JaneyVee Jul 2015 #29

alright retrowire Jul 2015 #45

Why would you post the same exact response here? Agschmid Jul 2015 #47

I dunno retrowire Jul 2015 #50

I'm not sure you fully understand how donations work: JaneyVee Jul 2015 #51

you're just repeating your very first post. retrowire Jul 2015 #52

What you're forgetting is that... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #53

if proximity matters... retrowire Jul 2015 #54

No, proximity myth not debunked. Proximity very much intact. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #57

nice change of subject. retrowire Jul 2015 #60

WHAT?? Citibank IS NOT her top donor. Individuals are. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #63

the individuals from... retrowire Jul 2015 #64

All of whom live, work, and raise families in her state. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #66

you got me retrowire Jul 2015 #68

One minute you're saying PACs are the problem "sidestepping",, next you're saying.... JaneyVee Jul 2015 #72

i never said that individual donations were the problem. retrowire Jul 2015 #78

It's mildly offensive to call another poster "not open to reason" Agschmid Jul 2015 #82

PA's? retrowire Jul 2015 #84

PA's = Personal Attacks Agschmid Jul 2015 #86

i figured it out after thinking on it a bit. retrowire Jul 2015 #90

Thanks, keep on keeping on. Agschmid Jul 2015 #91

When I worked in Silicon Valley, Mabus Jul 2015 #92

3.4% is from her senate career. tammywammy Jul 2015 #30

ok retrowire Jul 2015 #43

And again... Agschmid Jul 2015 #48

That post is trying to conflate dollars with donations. jeff47 Jul 2015 #12

It is indeed impossible to debunk that which is not bunk. n/t FlatBaroque Jul 2015 #8

2-5 Leave. Agschmid Jul 2015 #14

I'm sorry? retrowire Jul 2015 #15

It means your post was alerted on, and it survived 2-5. Agschmid Jul 2015 #22

ohhh retrowire Jul 2015 #25

The details DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #99

thanks for the defense retrowire Jul 2015 #100

2 people voted to hide.. frylock Jul 2015 #26

Do we have average and median donation amounts for Hillary? xynthee Jul 2015 #19

K & R !!! WillyT Jul 2015 #23

1%, 3.4%, 9.8%? Really? Geez, Who the Hell Cares??? Gamecock Lefty Jul 2015 #35

All these 'debunking' threads show how unlikely any meaningful campaign finance reform is - PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #40

Since you're updating, you can update that 3.4 is wrong bobbobbins01 Jul 2015 #56

Debunked....debunked from here to Sunday George II Jul 2015 #67

we're taking about the campaign financing retrowire Jul 2015 #69

I'm keeping up just fine....when I talked about campaign financing earlier this week, I got... George II Jul 2015 #71

The remaining 9% could not have donated more than $2700 ea. to her campaign fund. Agschmid Jul 2015 #70

Thank you. I'm not sure OP fully understands donor process. JaneyVee Jul 2015 #74

They clearly do not. Agschmid Jul 2015 #76

Another important thing to mention is that even if the majority of HRC's donors guillaumeb Jul 2015 #77

this is what im trying to convey retrowire Jul 2015 #80

I understood that as your point. I thought you put it very well. guillaumeb Jul 2015 #101