Hillary Clinton has been asked twice since December why her campaign is accepting donations from the oil and gas sector, and if she would stop. The first time was 2 months ago at a town hall in Iowa, the second was last Wednesday in New Hampshire. Both questioners were working with 350 Action, the global warming awareness group founded by author & environmental activist Bill McKibben.
Here is the gist of the question and answer from Iowa in December 2015, bold mine. The video is linked below as well.
Question: ...I’d like to know if you would be willing to sign a pledge that you will not take money from the fossil fuel industry and you will stop immediately.
Secretary Clinton: “Well I don’t know that I ever have, I’m not exactly one of their favorites, I’ll have to check into that ...individuals who might have some connection to whatever industry, I’m not gonna do a litmus test on them, I don’t think there’s a lot that support me… I’m gonna take a look and see what I have, your’e asking me a question I never paid attention to because they actually never come and talk to me.”
350 Action video from Iowa town hall December 2015
And here is the question and answer from the town hall last Wednesday in Dover, New Hampshire, bold mine:
Question: ...You’ve also said that you support renewable energy in our country but have taken over $150,000 from the big oil and gas industries. These are industries which are in direct conflict with your interest in renewable energies, and I’m wondering if you’d be willing to take one step further away from the Republicans and take a stand against any more campaign contributions from them?”
Secretary Clinton: "Yeah, I don’t even know what you’re referring to, but ah, big oil knows I’m not their friend, so I can’t imagine, they must have put it in the wrong envelope, because I’ve been very clear about that, and I want to take away all their subsidies, I’ve been public about that. We’re going to move those $6 billion a year into clean renewable energy. Ah, you know, I will certainly take a hard look at that. It is not something that I’ve paid any attention to, because they know where I stand, and they know what I will do.”
350 Action video from Hew Hampshire on 02/03/16:
After two months and a promise to “check into that”, because she hadn’t been paying attention, answering the woman in New Hampshire with "Yeah, I don’t even know what you’re referring to” rings pretty darn false. It is hard to believe Secretary Clinton doesn't know that she is receiving a lot of money from lobbyist bundlers for the fossil fuel industry. Open Secrets has the number now at $226,804, third behind Cruz and Jeb! www.opensecrets.org/…
This got some coverage back in December, when the number being quoted was a little over $160,000. Apparently, after saying two months ago in Iowa that she would “look into it”, the campaign is still accepting donations bundled by fossil fuel sector lobbyists.
To be perfectly clear, these are not donations from oil & gas companies, that is illegal, and Clinton has not taken any PAC money from the industry. These donations to the Clinton campaign come from oil and gas company executives and employees, and are perfectly legal. So lets not apply a “litmus test” to them, and assume every penny came from hardworking roustabouts for Clinton.
But what about the bundlers who wrangled all the checks from those steel toe clad, everyday Americans just trying to frack out a living? Like the private prison industrial complex donations activists forced the campaign to acknowledge and return last year, having these guys on your team just looks bad no matter how you slice or hydraulically fracture it:
Hillary Clinton's Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists
...Clinton, the former secretary of state, has called climate change the most “consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world” and says it would be a major focus of her administration if she wins the White House. But having so many supporters who have sold their services to fossil fuel companies may complicate her emphasis on pro-environment policies.
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…
Aside from lobbyists currently working to advance fossil fuel interests, there is one Hillblazer bundler -- the name for Clinton boosters raising more than $100,000 -- who stands out. Bundler Gordon Giffin is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company working to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin sits on the board of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, an investor in the pipeline. The Canadian bank paid Clinton $990,000 for speeches in the months leading up to her presidential announcement. Another Canadian financial institution with an interest in Keystone XL, TD Bank, paid her $651,000 for speaking engagements. www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Now lets spot Secretary Clinton on the huge Canadian speaking fees mentioned above, and assume they were easy money from suckers, or went to the Clinton Foundation, etc. Well played. But how many times can a candidate claim they don’t have any idea their biggest bundlers work for the likes of the private prison industry and fossil fuel extractors? Or that a former lobbyist for TransCanada put over $100,000 in bundled donations in “the wrong envelope”? Or that they haven’t been paying attention to the issue?
Answers like this insult people’s intelligence, alienate a big chunk of the base, and stretch the limits of the benefit of the doubt folks are inclined to offer. It may be perfectly legal, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t stink like heavy crude.
Does the campaign really need that 260K so badly they can’t forgo the lobbyists’ envelopes? Wouldn’t it be better to at least acknowledge this is how the sausage gets made instead of feigning ignorance twice in two months when called out by an environmental group? Secretary Clinton used the question in New Hampshire to pivot to dark money in politics, which is fine, but what about the cash her campaign collects in the light of day?
At least we can hope the campaign’s oil & gas lobbyist bundlers misdirect an envelope to us. Make those checks out to Allegheny Tuna, fellas, care of Daily Kos. If anybody complains, I’ll tell them I’m looking into it.