Clinton Supporters! How come you fail to realize that she accepts the most money from special interest groups?

Question

All Hillary supporters I have come across are either women who simply want a woman president, no matter what her views are OR liberals who believe she is the one who will purge the "evil" republicans.

But, she has accepted the most money from special interest groups, or lobbyists. That is what Liberals hate about Republicans, at least last time I checked.

Want proof? http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

If you still support Clinton EVEN after reading this. Please, tell me why? I have done my research here. Have you?

To the first 5 answerers: I gave you the link! Clinton accepts the most from lobbyists. Obama is very low on that list. I could bring in more links that show that Obama and Edwards (REAL DEMOCRATS) have continued not accepting this dirty money.

And Clinton is the only one qualified to lead this country? Get out there and do your research. Obama is much better, and doesn't get swayed by the public. Clinton will do anything to be president. Does that not scare you?

Wow, I am not getting any good answers! NO ONE has actually read the link i sent, or what I wrote. I just get a bunch of idiot Hillary supporters who provide false info.

Answer 1

Well, to be honest a lot of the money that goes to politicians are from 'special interest groups.'
I think Democrats dislike Republicans for a myriad of reasons, this is probably far down on the list. Really, it's the 3rd party groups that have always been the ones upset with this, granted that the smaller parties tend to be special interest groups in themselves.

'Liberal' represents a huge group of ideologies these days and should not be confused with any particular party. All of the candidates currently support both liberal and conservative ideas in varying degrees.

Answer 2

And can you point out another major 'serious' candidate who is -not- financed mostly by special interests?

I agree that this isn't good. The real problem is not Hillary, it's that money has become the most important thing in elections, and candidates are judged by how much money they've raised. So before you even -see- the candidate they have already sold out, they have to sell out just to get into the game.

This was the case with GW Bush and before that with Hillary's husband. Both came into the race with the most money and were treated by the media as the presumptive winner, and all the other candidates were treated as also-rans. Which turned out to be self-fulfilling prophesies.

But even considering this, I have my reasons for voting Democratic. Democratic presidents are kept in line by the Republicans. The Democrats don't do as good of a job keeping a Republican president within the limits of his office. Bush is the most corrupt, most out-of-control president we've had in at least 100 years, maybe ever. As much as you might hate Bill Clinton, he at least didn't act like a dictator.

Hillary wouldn't either. She would be much more pragmatic than Bush, and will be concerned with her legacy as the first female president. The Republicans will fight her tooth and nail, as they did Bill, and will keep her in control.

What bothers me is that none of the Democratic candidates have denounced Bush's flouting of the Constitution and categorically promised not to do any of that stuff themselves. Everything Bush does, and gets away with, is precedent. So the great irony is that Hillary could well end up being the most powerful president in US history just by following Bush's lead.

Answer 3

Texas has 222 delegates, I have no idea how many Ohio has, I think Mississippi only has a few. Hillary may still surprise us yet. I wish Ron Paul would realize, he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. I also think Huckabee should go ahead & admit defeat. Wasn't there a Democrat in the last election, who had a case of sour grapes and made Florida recount their votes, twice because he couldn't believe that he lost. I do hope that Hillary gets the nomination. Just because a candidate has all these changes in mind, doesn't mean they are going to happen. They still have to go before the House & the Senate before they can be passed.

Answer 4

Here are some links to see how Obama and Hillary vote based on special interest group ratings
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=55463

Answer 5

They all accept money from lobbyists whenever offered. That post only proves that she's the most popular. I still support her because she is the most capable, intelligent & sincere and she makes the most sense.
Edit: Did I mention that she's also very strong? Strong enough to withstand all the bashing of the last 16 years & still remain on top.

Answer 6

its not that she accepts the most money from interests groups. its that most believe in her and want to give her money.

not sure why people think obama doesnt take from special interest groups. obama and others also accept money from interests groups. im sure they would accept a lot more if others would be willing to fund them. http://www.whitehouseforsale.org

Answer 7

It's really quite simple....she's the only one running who is truly qualified to be president. Period....the end.

Answer 8

Quit trying to change people's vote. It's undemocratic.

Answer 9

At least she's up front about her contributions unlike your candidate Senator Obama.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/aug/21/Obama-lobby/

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obamas-k-street-project-2007-03-28.html


EDIT: Did you even bother to read the links I posted?

Senator Clinton isn't the one running on a anti-establishment platform, Senator Obama is, the least he could is keep his word.

That link doesn't even show all of his corporate/special interest influence.

His donation policy has many loopholes..

From www.blackagendareport.com:
"Obama's presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama's top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as "a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry." Eight of Obama's top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Meanwhile, Obama's presidential run has been "assisted" by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c). His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, was until a recently a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273, 618 in 2006 (Sweet 2007).

And Obama's sixth largest contributor is Exelon, the proud Chicago-based owner and operator of more nuclear power plants than any entity on earth (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Go figure.

As for his "lobbyist ban," last August the Los Angeles Times reported that Obama "raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital." Campaign finance expert Stephen Weissman observed that this raised troubling questions about the practical relevance of Obama's much-ballyhooed pledge to turn down donations from "federal lobbyists."

"Obama's rise to national prominence and presidential viability, Helman discovered, depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money."

As Los Angeles Times reporter Dan Morain explained, "some of the most influential [lobbyist] players, lawyers and consultants among them, skirt disclosure requirements by merely advising clients and associates who do actual lobbying, and avoiding regular contact with policymakers. Obama's ban does not cover such individuals."

Thus, to give one example, Obama received $33,000 in the first quarter of 2007 from the Atlanta-based law firm Alston & Bird, which maintains a large lobbying division in Washington. Obama's $33,000 came bundled from a number of "consultants" employed by the firm.

Also deleted from Obama's "ban" are state lobbyists. Obama took $2000 from two Springfield, Illinois lobbyists for Exelon, which spent $500,000 to influence policy in Washington in 2006 and gave $160,000 directly to Obama (Morain 2007).

An especially big dent in the armor of Obama's effort to sell himself as the noble repudiator of lobbyist, PAC, and special interest money generally was inflicted in early August of 2007. That's when the Boston Globe published a widely circulated article titled "PACs and Lobbyists Aided Obama's Rise: Data Contrast With His Theme." Globe reporter Scott Helman reviewed campaign finance records to find that a "more complicated truth" lurked "behind Obama's campaign rhetoric." Obama's rise to national prominence and presidential viability, Helman discovered, depended significantly on PAC and lobbyist money, including large sums from "defense contractors, law firms and the securities and insurance industries" to his own powerful PAC "Hopefund." Of special interest was Helman's determination that Obama was retaining close and lucrative funding relationships with leading Washington-based lobbyists and lobbying firms while technically avoiding direct contributions from those key campaign finance players (Helman 2007)".

Answer 10

HALLIBURTON ?