Posted on 04/13/2015 12:57:07 PM PDT by Jack Black
I was looking at Hillary's largest contributors at Open Secrets. This is a good resource for Freepers interested in doing their own research on candidate funding.
Information for Hillary is broken up by her Senate races, which can be found here and her Presidential race, which can be found here.
Let's take a little deeper look at Hillary's contributor's in her last successful race, the 2006 Senate run.
| Contributor | Total |
| Citigroup Inc | $236,610 |
| Goldman Sachs | $205,670 |
| MetLife Inc | $156,060 |
| Time Warner | $146,390 |
| Corning Inc | $135,750 |
| Morgan Stanley | $123,560 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $122,715 |
| Skadden, Arps et al | $112,530 |
| Credit Suisse Group | $111,850 |
| Ernst & Young | $98,250 |
| Cablevision Systems | $96,150 |
| New York Life Insurance | $95,200 |
| International Profit Assoc | $90,400 |
| Sullivan & Cromwell | $84,350 |
| News Corp | $77,325 |
| Kirkland & Ellis | $75,850 |
| Lehman Brothers | $72,160 |
| National Amusements Inc | $71,000 |
| Akin, Gump et al | $70,350 |
| Patton Boggs LLP | $64,388 |
Overall we see Hillary raised an amazing $51 Million to her opponents $5 million.
Looking at the Summary tab for the race shows us what outsides organizations spent money on the race. Hillary dramatically dominated this category. There were only a few Conservative leaning groups cotributing, the largest of them the Life and Liberty PAC contribued about $600. In contrast here are four of the big labor supporters and their expenditures on Hillary's 2006 campaign.
| American Federation of Teachers 401C | $1,981,247 |
| American Federation of Teachers | $1,812,791 |
| American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees PAC | $2,334,997 |
| American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees | $9,256,392 |
In 2008 the added category of "Independent Expenditures" was created. Under current law an individual run adds supporting a candidate, if they am not coordinating with them the official campaign. There are not a lot of people falling into this category, but one that did bears a legendary name: Lynn Forester De Rothschild. in 2008, she contributed $32,210 to supporting Hillary.
Hillary likes to pretend she has something in common with the middle class, but her campaigns have been financed almost exclusively by the the very-rich, the super-rich, and the banking-elite. Captive public employee union kickbacks have also been a significant source of funds.
Here are some details from the Wikipedia page on Lady de Rothschild:
Lynn Forester, Lady de Rothschild (born Lynn Forester; July 2, 1954) is the chief executive officer of E.L. Rothschild, a holding company she owns with her third husband, Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild, a member of the Rothschild family.[1] The company manages investments in The Economist Group, owner of The Economist magazine, Congressional Quarterly and the Economist Intelligence Unit, Bronfman E.L. Rothschild LP, a leading independent wealth management firm in the United States, as well as real estate, agricultural and food interests.[2] By virtue of her marriage to a knight, she is known socially as Lady de Rothschild.Lynn Forester de Rothschild was introduced to Sir Evelyn de Rothschild by Henry Kissinger at the 1998 Bilderberg Group conference in Scotland,[8] and they married on November 30, 2000 in London, England, after Rothschild (almost 23 years older than Forester) had left his wife and three children.[1] She is his third wife.[1] On the announcement of the marriage, the de Rothschild couple were invited to spend their honeymoon at the White House.[9] The couple splits their time between New York and London. In response to a reporter's question about her wealth, Forester said, “Is that said about me? I hope not. I mean, I’m just who I am. I don’t think being rich is that important. I think not being boring is really important.”
Yep, just another average American who loves Hillary's go get-em attitude and plucky style.
That seems impossible to me. There aren’t that many Jews in the US, and they’re not that much richer than everyone else. The ones I know are mostly Dem, but only modestly well off and too cheap to move the needle percentage-wise on political contributions.
Yep. Pretty much impossible. Of course, certain circles have a loose definition of Jew, such as anyone with a ‘k’ or ‘z’ in their name, or any financial services company must be Jews.
Well billionaires and people with hundreds of millions of dollars can afford to donate huge amounts of money.
Like Tom Steyer? He isn’t Jewish.
This sounds like an anti-semitic conspiracy meme. Don’t fall for it without researching it further,it, unless you are predisposed to find it satisfying.
Sure, Jews are silly in voting Democrat maybe 75%, but they aren’t controlling the party to the degree of providing the majority of support. One Sheldon Adelson, the gambling magnate and a big conservative, outweighs many liberals.
Tom Steyer is half Jewish (I checked) and unless you consider the Washington Post to be part of some anti-semitic conspiracy more than half of Democrat political donations come from Jews.
Tell you what. Show me some evidence that it isn’t true. I looked and couldn’t find any.
You’re throwing up one article as fact, and asking me to do the research.
How about thinking about it this way. Jews are not a unified group, as far as I can tell. I was brought up with a lot of Jewish influence, but don’t count myself as Jewish. If there’s some inner, rich club that controls US politics through donations, I wish someone had told me about it.
Jews aren’t a unified group. In fact, I can’t figure out why they have supported the Democrats in the past 20 years with such a majority, when it’s obvious they are anti-Israel and wish it would disappear. It doesn’t make any sense. I can’t believe that Jewish interests are shaping Democrat policies when it seems obvious that Democrats don’t like them.
The best I can figure is that many political affiliations become lasting choices, like your favorite coffee brand. In the past, a couple of generations ago, the Dems supported labor (and many Jews were poor and hoped unions would help them) and Israel. Once the decision was made, it wasn’t rethought, even though it’s clear today’s Democratic Party isn’t what it used to be.
As to the money, if what you say is true, Jews would have to have an extremely outsized portion of the available money in the US relative to their percentage of the population, and be rather unified in their beliefs and application of that money, and moreover, it would seem to be contrary to their interests. That seems shadowy and paranoid to me. In any event, none of my relatives ever spoke about that special club or invited me into it.
She's a "Managing Director", it's one step under Partner, which is the ultimate Brass Ring at the firm.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the average salary for Managing Directors is $500,000, but notes "though many will collect more than that in annual bonuses".
If you were making $500,000 + bonuses as a regional sales manager (with a chance to get bumped up to full partner that is very good!.
Partners have a base pay of $900,000 a year, plus bonuses. Here's an article about them, 400 of of GS's 32,000 employees.
Heidi's current role doesn't really compare with, for instance Carly Fiorina's gig at HP, which left her a centi-millionaire. So to some extent, you are right.
But it's not like working at McDonalds, either.
She is currently head of the Southwest Region in the Investment Management Division of Goldman, Sachs & Co.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
Where do you see “Managing Director” in that sentence?
Per WIkipedia:
Steyer was born in New York City in 1957. His mother, Marnie (née Fahr), was a teacher of remedial reading at the Brooklyn House of Detention, and his father, Roy Henry Steyer, was a partner in the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell.[9][10] His mother was Episcopalian and his father Jewish (a member of the Reform Jewish Congregation Emanu-El of New York).[11]I guess it depends, but he's clearly not "not-Jewish".
I made over $300,000 several years, back in the 80’s, as a mere salesman. Would you rather we emulate Cuba or the DPRK?
Heidi Cruz
Managing Director at Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Houston, Texas Area Financial Services
Fear the Vampire Squid!
Could that be hacked? And why does Wikipedia describe her position that way? Again, what is wrong with having a good job? I thought that was nearly everyone’s goal here. I wish I had the health to go back to sales. My late father told me that the people who had money to feed their families during the Great Depression were mostly salesman.
Goldman-Sachs played a huge roll in the financial crisis, they manipulated things like the bail-out of AIG, they were one of the top three recipients of bailout funds, they lied to their clients, repeatedly, and referred to them as Muppets. Other notable Goldman-Sachs alumni include former NY Gov and Sen. Jon Corzine, and Bush Treas. Sec Paulson (who rammed through TARP with threats of chaos and marital law if the banks didn't get it.)
Please don't accuse me of being a Communist because I hate one of the worst Crony Capitalist investment banking firms in the world.
Perhaps you and I just have different ideas about what capitalism means To me it doesn't mean: gaming the system, bribing leaders, screwing customers, paying billions in fines but laughing it off cause you made hundreds of billions in the swindles, and other things GS has been caught doing, repeatedly.
If you read about Wall Street you will find that Goldman is one of the firms that has the most to do with the transformation of the culture there, into the current "wolf of Wall Street" style model that is disgusting. (I'm not implying the movie was about Goldman, it was not. Just that the Goldman unlimited greed has displaced the older 'white shoe crowd', who managed to live good lives but not become corrupt plutocrats)
Go back and look at what started this posting. Goldman contributed mightily to Clinton. And to Obama. So, yes, it's worrisome.
Nothing, but I'm sure most FReepers understand the role of GS money in electing Democrats. They were #2 behind Univ of California in contribs to Obama.
I’ve worked for companies that were accused of crimes or unethical behavior. Sometimes it’s true, sometimes it’s envy or your competitors or others trying to pull you down.
Unlikely. Linked-in has more safeguards than most other social media.
And why does Wikipedia describe her position that way?
Perhaps that's what the campaign wants it to say. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. You could go make it say she was the Wizard of Oz right now if you wanted to.
Besides, that fact has been widely reported in the mainstream and business press for years, as a plus, not as an invective.
Again, what is wrong with having a good job?
Nothing. It's great. I do, everyone should!
I thought that was nearly everyone’s goal hereYes, probably.
The problem comes if you have a good job with a bad organization. As an example I have an acquaintance who was a labor organizer for a local building trades Union. He described to me what they did, which was basically shake down public building projects to get his union members ridiculous salaries. After years of this corruption he got a tidy pension at 53 and retired. Not rich, but pretty damn comfortable. To me that's a racket, so having a good job with an unethical organization is not admirable.
I realize there are wobblers. I have a friend who worked for Enron. He did useful work, adding capacity to the electrical grid. Enron had some bad apples at the top, and ultimately paid the price, but that doesn't make everyone who worked there a bad person. Most knew nothing about that, and didn't have anything to do with enabling it.
Looking at Goldman in it's totality I can't give them the benefit of the doubt. They are an organization with deep systematic moral failures, which they have not confronted, in my opinion. I would not work there, even for $500,000 a year.
I would say at the level she is working at she is benefiting from patterns and culture that are probably unethical. Maybe she has personally kept her hands clean, like my friend at Enron. He, however was not even aware of the wrong-doing till it blew up in the press, and he and other co-workers pretty much lost everything a short while later.
Federal Reserve Consent Decree for lying on many mortgage papers, a main cause of systemic failure in the sub-prime market, cause of the crisis of 2008. THey were the 23rd largest originator of home loans through a subsidary. They then sold the subsidary without informing the buyer that they were getting junk, which the buyer could not easily discover because of all the lies and bogus documents they created.
$135 Million settlement.
Goldman vs. SEC Consent Agreement.Lying in descriptions of securities, double dealing (selling stuff you represent as good, while making your money betting it's going to fail, or dumping it.)
$535 Million in Fines.
There are many more, many in the hundreds of millions in fines because the wrong doing was blatent and widespread. I'm tired of typing, I'm going to have a beer now. Night!
Results from Google search: Goldman Sachs Consent Order". Many of the results are actual PDF's from various local and state agencies, as I've linked above.
It's not a disqualifier for Ted, but neither is it something to be waved away with a sweep of the hands, in my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.