I’m applying just a bit of critical thinking to the supposed overwhelming evidence that Hillary Clinton is owned by huge corporations, especially the big banks. Sorry this is long, but countering any Facebook Meme takes explaining. None will make sense unless you look at these links and see the numbers for yourself.
I’ll start off by saying I plan to vote for her this cycle but did not in 2008. I voted for Kucinich.
Here is the donor data that is also on some memes, though generally using older data.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career
Now let’s break this all down. This is for over 17 years running 2 US Senate races in one of the largest states with the most expensive media market, and 2 Presidential campaigns in which she’s raised hundreds of millions of dollars. Because corporations cannot directly donate to a candidate, this is looking primarily at what organizations a donor like me actually works for. When I donate to a candidate, I have to report who I work for and then that corporation appears to be the donor in these type of tallies, even though they aren’t. The GDP of New York is 48 times that of Vermont. So for any source of funds for any statewide race in NY vs. VT $48 donated in NY is equivalent to $1 donated in VT.
So who is the largest evil corporation that donated to her campaigns? Emily’s list-A feminist organization with the mission of electing women.
2nd is not Citigroup itself, but people who work for them. Let’s imagine incorrectly that Citigroup itself actually donated $850,000 over 17 years. That would mean the largest financial donor gave about $50,000 per year. Remember though, that isn’t true, it’s people that work for Citigroup and they are a huge employer and are based in the state she represented in the Senate. In the current race she’s raised $188 million, and Sanders has raised close to $100 million. The argument that she is owned by Citigroup, or Goldman Sachs, or any other is a joke. Let’s imagine Citigroup actually gave her or her PACs $850,000 this cycle. That would be a whopping 0.45%! But remember, the real percentage is a very small fraction of that because it’s from Citigroup employees to all her campaigns over 17 years.
I have sold produce and banana plants to Republicans (gasp!). I’m a hobbyist banana farmer in Hawaii. I’m quite certain that the percent of my earnings from Republicans is far larger than the share her campaigns have gotten from people who work in the financial industry. Ya got me! I’m owned by and am a shill for the Republican party!
Ok, so the owned by banks argument doesn’t hold up, but she’s owned by Monsanto!!!! Sorry, all employees and Monsanto itself combined don’t even make it into her top 20 donors. So even if you’re one of those “Monsanto is the most evil corporation in history,” you need some better arguments.
So let’s assume for the sake of argument her top 20 donors (except Harvard, UC, and Emily’s list) were actually donated directly by those corporations to her campaigns for the 2016 race, which they weren’t. From the table, that would be $9,210,916 or a whopping 4.9%! But again, it’s not that, it’s actually all her races and virtually all is from individuals who work for those corporations.
Now let’s look at the 2016 race itself.
www.opensecrets.org/...
Oops, Goldman Sachs, Lehman, Citigroup, etc. aren’t even on that list! People that work for Morgan Stanley have donated $211,473, also known as 0.1%!
So all these memes about her being owned by big banks and other corporations because of their campaign donations are patently false and are perpetuating this right wing fantasy about how she can’t be trusted. If you look at that same site for any politician you are going to see people who work for corporations in that person’s state overrepresented and you also need to consider percentage of donations and the GDP of what state that person is from.
Why didn’t even a single one of may liberal friends post pictures of Obama in 2012 with corporate stickers pasted on him? Let’s not forget he immediately appointed many Wall St. people, even in Cabinet positions, as soon as he took office. Check here for his campaign donation sources:
www.opensecrets.org/...
He got $21 million from people who work in the Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate industry. He got over $28 million from lawyers & lobbyists and another $19 million from Communications and Electronics corporations.
The fact is Clinton’s donations for 2016, including to all the PACs that support her come 94% from individual donors and her share of those from large contributions vs. small is just a few points higher than for Obama in 2012.
Now if you look at Romney for 2012 you do see those banking employers, but again, none of them even make the top 20 for Clinton this race. So if you’re trying to argue she’s just like Republicans in this regard you’re spreading nonsense.
Ok, well what about her personal earnings from all those speeches to the big banks? Yes, the Clintons have gotten millions of dollars that way, and the big banks make up a whopping 5% of that total. I don’t feel particularly beholden to a source that is 5% of my income, but if you reach a different conclusion about yourself or about her then I don’t have a problem with that. But again, we’re talking about 5%. www.cnn.com/...;
And that video of Elizabeth Warren saying she changed her vote on a bankruptcy bill because of Wall Street? Dig deeper, (http://billmoyers.com/story/just-how-cozy-is-hillary-clinton-with-wall-street/) as there is a lot more to that story and Clinton voted the same as that far-right extremist Barbara Boxer.
I personally think it was stupid of the Clintons to give paid speeches period. I wish they instead emulated Jimmy Carter in that regard. Please do not hold her to a different standard than any of the dozens of other Democratic Party candidates you supported over the years who earn millions in paid speeches. Please don’t put up posts fawning over Obama while demonizing Hillary Clinton. There is actually more evidence that he’s bought and paid for by corporations because we have the evidence of who he’s actually appointed. Of course, I don’t believe that he is either.
Now there are many legitimate arguments for Sanders and against Clinton. There is no question he’s further to the left (but not much more so than Mondale was in 1984 for his time really). I consider him a moderate liberal, which is fine. Clinton is owned by the financial industry because of their donations to her campaigns? No. That is not supported by the evidence. We are all better served when we are skeptical of and apply critical thinking even about those we support and consider our heroes. I wish Sanders’ supporters were doing that more about their candidate and some of the memes they are liking and sharing on social media.