The Ring of Fire Network had an excellent interview with Molly Dorozenski, of Greenpeace USA discussing their analysis of the contributions made to Hillary’s campaign and to the Super Pacs that support her.
The issue was brought to a head as a result of Clinton exploding “I’m sick of the Sanders Campaign Lying About me” in response to a Greenpeace activists asking her about the contributions she receives from the fossil fuel industry and requesting that she make a pledge to not take money from their executives or lobbyists, a pledge that both Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley had already made.
Although Clinton cannot directly coordinate with her Super Pac, Greenpeace would like her to publicly ask that her Super Pac refuse to take donations from the fossil fuel industry.
Subsequent to Clinton’s outburst, this issue has become muddied by misleading and dishonest statements by her and her campaign about the contributions she receives, as well as misleading reports on cable news networks. As pointed out by Greenpeace, Clinton’s campaign has directly received over $300,000 from executives and employees of oil companies. In addition, her campaign has received $1.3 million, including bundled contributions, from registered lobbyists who represent the fossil fuel industry. An additional $3.25 million was given to her Super Pac. For some reason, a number of news outlets, including NPR, MSNBC and The Washington Post choose to solely focus on the monies received directly by the Clinton campaign from executives and employees of the Fossil fuel industry, as if the other money would not influence her. NPR even states as it’s source The Center for Responsive Politics, whose analysis clearly details all of the funds that have benefitted the Clinton campaign.
Hopefully the table below will help to clarify this issue:
Campaign Contributions from the Fossil Fuel Industry
|Campaign||Employees and Executives||$309,107||$53,760|
|Super Pac||All sources||$3.25 Million||0|
CNN points out that, in 2008, Clinton had run an ad attacking him for taking $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies. In fact, according to Center for Responsive Politics, although Obama had taken
$222,309, Clinton actually had accepted $309,363, even more than Obama.
The elimination of contributions from corporations and rich donors has become a corner post of Sanders campaign. Although Sanders has not stated that these donations have directly influenced Clinton in particular, it is clear that they have a significant impact on American politics.
I’ll leave it to each of you to decide if the contributions from the Fossil Fuel Industry influence Clinton, but consider the following from Greenpeace:
• Clinton signed off on the Enbridge pipeline (the alternative to the Keystone XL pipeline), while Secretary of State. Three Enbridge lobbyists contribute to Clinton’s campaign.
• Fracking lobbyists also contribute to Clinton’s campaign. Clinton has said she would not ban Fracking as President, and has a pro-fracking track record which has been well-documented by numerous groups, including pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record.
• While Secretary of State, Clinton pushed fracking in countries around the world.
• Although Clinton has said she supports an investigation into Exxon’s early concealment of what it knew about the risks of climate change and subsequent financing of climate denier front groups, her campaign has taken contributions from at least seven lobbyists working for Exxon.
An article in Mother Jones adds that Clinton was paid $990,000 by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and $651,000 by TD Bank for speaking engagements, both of these banks with an interest in Keystone XL.
Greenpeace also points out that as of 3/21Clinton has taken more from lobbyists in general than any other candidate besides Jeb Bush for a total of $919,477
Hillary Clinton should be honest about the source of funds financing her campaign whether from the fossil fuel industry or lobbyists in general.
A YouGov.com poll has Clinton with the lowest honesty rating and highest dishonesty rating of any candidate.
A Washington Post poll shows that 52% of individuals leaning Democrat have an Unfavorable impression of Clinton and 59% of voters find her not honest and untrustworthy.
Maybe it’s time for Clinton and her campaign to try a new approach – Honesty