There have been numerous diaries today calling Senator Sanders a “liar” and claiming that he is “smearing” Hillary Clinton and calling her “corrupt.” Yet none of them provide any support whatsoever to back up their claims. I keep asking for a link, a quote, anything...crickets.
In one rec listed diary, the diarist accused Sanders of telling a “massive lie” about Secretary Clinton, with the “massive lie” consisting of a link to yet another DKos diary. That diary complains about "smears" against Sec. Clinton (although none of these smears that are linked to are actually from the Sanders campaign!) Putting that little technicality aside (details, shmetails), the “reason” this diary puts forth that it’s unfair to say Clinton is taking money from the fossil fuel industry is because...
These aren’t donations from fossil fuel companies, they are donations from employees of fossil fuel companies….That sounds more like “contributions from employees scared to tell their bosses they are Democrats” than “SHE IS BOUGHT!” If this counts as “fossil fuel industry” donations to Clinton, why doesn’t the $53,760 Bernie Sanders has raised from fossil fuel employees count as “fossil fuel industry donations” to him? I put both totals in the same category — contributions from Democrats working in an industry whose aims they don’t agree with because they have to pay the bills and support their families.
So this is the “evidence” that Clinton is being “smeared!”
Because to this diarist, it “sounds like” these are “Democrats working in an industry whose aims they don’t agree with because they have to pay the bills and support their families.”
So...that’s a nice story, thank you for sharing. The question is (I think? shouldn’t it be?) does have any basis in, you know, fact?
Judge for yourselves. Following are a few of these working stiffs in the fossil fuel industry who have personally donated to Hillary Clinton’s campaign:
Judith Batty (a lawyer for ExxonMobile, based in Washington, DC)--$2700
Mary Streett (former VP at Exelon, now at BP America, VP for US Government Affairs)--$2700
Richard Lapin (lawyer for Anadarko Petroleum)--$2700
Amanda McMillan (lawyer for Anadarko Petroleum)--$2700
Theresa Fariello (ExxonMobile’s top D.C. lobbyist—but this a personal donation)--$2700
Celia Fischer (America’s Natural Gas Alliance representative)--$2700
Martin Durbin (American Natural Gas Alliance lobbyist)--$1,000
Sarah Venuto (American Natural Gas Alliance lobbyist)--$2,700
Yes, I’m sure all of these peons are terrified that their “bosses” will find out they made these donations.
“But,” you’re saying, “what about the unfair attack about lobbyists bundling for her? The Washington Post said some of those so-called ‘lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry’ also lobby for other companies” (shocker!), “how smeary can you get?”
First of all, not all of the bundlers with ties to the fossil fuel industry are lobbyists. Like this guy:
Ankit Desai, vice president for government relations at top LNG exporter Cheniere Energy, bundled $82,000 to the Clinton camp, with much of it coming from Cheniere Energy executives.
Included in this bundling:
Cheniere executives, including Desai, have [personally] donated $38,800 to Clinton's campaign.
As for saying that it’s somehow “disingenuous” to claim that it’s “fossil fuel lobbyists” who are bundling for Clinton’s campaign? Give me a break.
Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, have been registered to lobby for the Southern California-based oil giant Chevron since 2006, with contracts totaling more than $3 million. The two bundled Clinton contributions of $24,700 and $29,700, respectively. They have helped Chevron over the years resist efforts to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks and to impose regulations to reduce carbon emissions.
So, am I saying that Clinton is somehow “corrupt” because her campaign has received these donations? No, I’m not. And neither is Bernie Sanders. Talking about the role of money from special interests in political campaigns is not a lie, and it is not a smear. It’s a discussion about access and influence, not “corruption.”
Let’s talk about climate change. Do you think there’s a reason why not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real, and that we need to transform our energy system? Do you think it has anything to do with the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil pouring huge amounts of money into the political system?
That is what goes on in America. I am not — I like …
(APPLAUSE)
… There is a reason. You know, there is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country.
Sanders has made this point again, and again, and again in his speeches, in the debates, in the town halls...many here ridicule him for it, and yet they still seem to be incapable of grasping his basic point. It’s a pretty straightforward argument, whether you agree with it or not, and it has nothing at all to do with corruption, which is defined as “showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.” We’re not talking about kickbacks in return for awarding contracts here! No one is making that argument, or even implying anything of the sort.
If you don’t think the role of special interest money in politics is important--fair enough. That’s a decision for each voter to make him- or herself.
Everyone has a right to his or her opinion. You do NOT have a right to make up your own facts. I thought we were the party who believed that.