fbpx

Type to search

His Respected Friend: But What Does Bernie Really Think Of Hillary?

Editor's Blog Featured Post Politics White House

His Respected Friend: But What Does Bernie Really Think Of Hillary?

Share
Democratic U.S. presidential candidates Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrive on stage ahead of the PBS NewsHour Democratic presidential candidates debate in Milwaukee

What does Bernie Sanders really think of Hillary Clinton?

When they meet in debate, the Senator from Vermont usually refers to the former Secretary of State as his “friend” – not in the polite Congressional-speech sense of someone that he actually despises, but in what is presumably his authentic, Brooklyn-born candor. He speaks frequently of his “great respect” for Clinton. And he has said more than once that “on her worst day” she would be a far better president than any of the potential Republican candidates “on their best day.”

Even more often, however, Sanders suggests that Clinton has sold out to the financial industry for campaign contributions, or for donations to her SuperPAC, or perhaps for those big speaking fees she has pocketed since leaving the State Department. Certainly he has fostered that impression among his supporters, who excoriate Clinton in the most uninhibited and sometimes obscene terms on social media.

But if Sanders believes that Hillary Clinton is “bought by Wall Street” — as his legions so shrilly insist — then how can he say, “in all sincerity,” that she is his respected friend?

To date, his criticism of Clinton on this point is inferential, not specific. He hasn’t identified any particular vote or action that proves her alleged subservience to the financial titans she once represented as the junior senator from New York. As Sanders knows, Clinton’s actual record on such issues as the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ran opposite to the banksters.

Back in 2007, eight years before she could ever imagine facing the socialist senator in debate, she spoke up against the special “carried interest” tax breaks enjoyed by hedge-fund managers. Her proposals to regulate banks more strictly have won praise not only from New York Times columnist and Nobel economist Paul Krugman, but from Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the populist Pasionaria, as well.

Still, to Sanders the mere act of accepting money from the financial industry, or any corporate interest, is a marker of compromise or worse. Why do the banks spend millions on lobbying, he thunders, unless they get something in return? The answer is that they want access – and often donate even to politicians who don’t fulfill all their wishes. They invariably donate to anyone they believe will win.

Meanwhile, Sanders doesn’t apply his stringent integrity test to contributions from unions, a category of donation he accepts despite labor’s pursuit of special-interest legislation– and despite the troubling fact that the leadership of the labor movement filed an amicus brief on behalf of Citizens United, which expanded their freedom to offer big donations to politicians. (That case was rooted, not incidentally, in yet another effort by right-wing billionaires to destroy Hillary Clinton.)

By his own standard, Sanders shouldn’t take union money because the AFL-CIO opposed campaign finance reform, which he vociferously supports. Or maybe we shouldn’t believe that he truly supports campaign finance reform, because he has accepted so much money from unions.

Such assumptions would be wholly ridiculous, of course – just as ridiculous as assuming that Clinton’s acceptance of money from banking or labor interests, both of which have made substantial donations to her campaign, proves her advocacy of reform is insincere.

Political history is more complex than campaign melodrama. If critics arraign Clinton for the decision by her husband’s administration to kill regulation of derivatives trading, it is worth recalling that she was responsible for the appointment of the only official who opposed that fateful mistake. She had nothing to do with deregulation — but as First Lady, she strongly advocated on behalf of Brooksley Born, a close friend of hers named by her husband to chair the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. One of the few heroes of the financial crisis, Born presciently warned about the dangers of unregulated derivatives.

So it is fine to criticize Clinton’s big speaking fees from banks and other special interests, which create a troubling appearance that she should have anticipated. It is fine to complain that politicians are too dependent on big-money donors. And it is fine to push her hard on the issues that define the Sanders campaign, which has done a great service by highlighting the political and economic domination of the billionaire elite.

But it is wrong to accuse Clinton of “pay for play” when the available evidence doesn’t support that accusation. And if Sanders wants to hold her to a standard of absolute purity, he should apply that same measure to himself.

 

Tags:
Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers. Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003). Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1

70 Comments

  1. JohnJ February 14, 2016

    No news here to speak of, just a Hillary ad, and a rather poor one:

    “Or maybe we shouldn’t believe that he truly supports campaign finance reform, because he has accepted so much money from unions.

    Such assumptions would be wholly ridiculous, of course – just as
    ridiculous as assuming that Clinton’s acceptance of money from banking
    or labor interests, both of which have made substantial donations to her
    campaign, proves her advocacy of reform is insincere.”

    They both accept money from unions, which reasonable people see as a good thing. Clinton takes a lot of money from the banking interests, which almost everybody thinks is a bad thing. Great ad, Joe. Way to score!

    Reply
    1. Matforce February 15, 2016

      The major difference, as I see it, between Inc. businesses and the Financial sector and Wall Street, is that these corporations and financial institutions draw from capital derived from commerce, which has recently evolved into internationalism/multinationalism/globalism answerable to a board of directors and their CEO, where Unions draw from their people, their board of directors an their CEO.

      The fact that corporations have evolved into international entities that pool their capital from international commerce, and capriciously park it in offshore tax havens, inversions, and every other tax dodge practice on the books to boost their profit margins, gives them not only unfair access to a broader swath of capital, but brings into question, through actions taken by their own governing body (board and CEO), their loyalty to the USA. Where Unions, I think, are more representative of the PEOPLE in the labor force whose interests they serve (more or less) through that representation… Unions represent workers and serve as a bargaining entity on behalf of USA workers to sell labor to a firm in exchange for compensation, and that compensation is, in turn, used to fuel our consumer economy with investments in the goods and services that businesses are selling; an economic feedback loop that has been by-passed with over 35 years of “supply-side” economics that favors corporations. That Unions are on their deathbed, and that our middle class’ prosperity is in decline, while corporations’ worth, and their CEO pay are at record highs, IMHO, is no coincidence…

      Reply
      1. A_Real_Einstein February 15, 2016

        Well said. I never thought I would see the day when the Democat establishment would denounce the support of Unions. Clearly these are the beginning of the end times for the Establishment and the all too powerful Donor class. God Bless you for stepping up.

        Reply
    2. MichaelC February 15, 2016

      As reported above: “It’s important to understand that the vast majority of this money comes from employee’s personal donations, most of whom happen to live in New York where the financial industry is located. The amount of money coming from the institutions themselves is limited. For example, between 1999 and present day, Clinton received a total of $824,402 from Citigroup, which makes that her top contributor. But $816,402 of that came from individuals who work for Citigroup…Only $8,000 was actually contributed by Citigroup itself (and that’s over a seventeen year period.”

      Reply
      1. A_Real_Einstein February 15, 2016

        Amount of money Bernie received from Citigroup? ZERO!!!!!!!!
        bernbabybern

        Reply
  2. Otto Greif February 14, 2016

    He probably hates her, like everyone else.

    Reply
  3. dtgraham February 14, 2016

    JohnJ hit it right on. I thought that the progressive left was supposed to support what organized labour stood for. What they may later want from a candidate is supposed to be what we stand for. No? Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, is a very different matter. You should be able to accept union money and still call out those taking money from the big banks without a charge of hypocrisy.

    Will Bernie also be charged with hypocrisy for accepting money from that special interest group, the working poor? You know, they have a secret agenda (food, medicine, shelter) and may later call on a President Sanders to help with that agenda. Is that next?

    From the National Memo. The home of incremental, don’t-rock-the-boat, corporate liberalism.

    Reply
    1. yabbed February 15, 2016

      Sanders has SuperPACS. He just lies about it. He actually has people from the SuperPACS traveling with his campaign. He’s not a man of integrity. Until the press found him out, he had two paid staffers in his office who were on AIPACs payroll.

      Reply
      1. Matforce February 15, 2016

        He should be relegated to hammer, chisel, and stone tablets to get his message out!

        Reply
    2. MichaelC February 15, 2016

      https://medium.com/@zacharyleven/the-case-for-hillary-3564233d524f#.qlioqyq80

      But I will take just a moment, as briefly as I can, to address the issue of Wall Street donations, since that is getting the most attention these days. It’s important to understand that the vast majority of this money comes from employee’s personal donations, most of whom happen to live in New York where the financial industry is located. The amount of money coming from the institutions themselves is limited. For example, between 1999 and present day, Clinton received a total of $824,402 from Citigroup, which makes that her top contributor. But $816,402 of that came from individuals who work for Citigroup. One of those individuals probably includes my friend Julie, a Unitarian feminist who also just happens to work for that company (I don’t know if she actually contributed to Hillary, but she is a supporter). Only $8,000 was actually contributed by Citigroup itself (and that’s over a seventeen year period — far less than what they could have contributed).

      These numbers are on par with what we see donated to the other senator of New York, Chuck Schumer. Now, Schumer is a very moderate democrat, but he’s the only other senator in New York from which we can draw a comparison. It’s not really fair to compare her to Bernie Sanders who represents a state where the entire population is equal to that of Memphis, Tennessee. Vermont comes in 50th in state economies. So he can boast that he doesn’t take money from big banks, but that’s kind of like me boasting that I refuse to go on dates with Hollywood celebrities.

      Reply
      1. A_Real_Einstein February 15, 2016

        These cover only what came in to her campaign. You are mysteriously forgetting to mention the hundreds of millions that went into Super Pacs that supported her over the years and now. Care to explain all the speeches that her and Bill gave translating into millions of PERSONAL income? Care to explain why she will not release the transcripts of the speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs? This is her 47% moment. Feel the Bern and reject the establishment. Bernie is exposing Hillary and the establishment for the frauds they are. He is taking on the greatest political machine of our time and is winning. God Bless Bernie Sanders.

        Reply
        1. MichaelC February 15, 2016

          https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tax-returns/

          As for winning, let’s see what happens in the upcoming primaries and caucuses.

          Reply
          1. A_Real_Einstein February 15, 2016

            Wow this is really damaging. I did not realize how much they were making of off those speeches. Talk about incredible and uncredible. WOW. Bernie is going to mop the floor with her just like in NH. Do you think that the tie in IA and a 20+ victory in NH was a fluke. Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Feel The Bern.

            Reply
          2. JustaGurlinseattle April 2, 2016

            Richard Branson, Tim Cook.. George Clooney….. they are give paid speeches and are also paid HUGE amounts of money.
            It is NOT at all corrupt…. It is COMMON and it’s a TAX Write off…. so, being it’s a business expense…. they are NOT out that kind of money, as people seem to think.

            Reply
      2. Jim Sylvester February 15, 2016

        may I take the opportunity to give you my take on Wall Street donation. THEY SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. ..

        Ban political contributions ‘pretend people,’ legal persons. The oxymoronic invention of a 19th century Supreme Court. It was thought that the Constitution did not give the Gov the authority to tax non-people. Well they wanted the money, so they convinced SCOtUS to make corporations people. And so here we are. And SCOTUS and the repubs are determined that here we stay.

        Reply
        1. MichaelC February 15, 2016

          I agree completely with President Theodore Roosevelt: “All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” The irony is that in 1904, 73% of Theodore Roosevelt’s presidential campaign funds were raised from corporate contributions, for which he was widely criticized. His response, delivered in his 2005 State of the Union report, included the following statement:

          “All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders’ money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts. Not only should both the National and the several State Legislatures forbid any officer of a corporation from using the money of the corporation in or about any election, but they should also forbid such use of money in connection with any legislation save by the employment of counsel in public manner for distinctly legal services.”

          President Roosevelt repeated this sentiment in his 1906 State of the Union report to Congress: “I again recommend a law prohibiting all corporations from contributing to the campaign expenses of any party. Such a bill has already passed one House of Congress. Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly.”

          Finally, in his 1907 State of the Union report, President Roosevelt proposed public financing of elections: “There is a very radical measure which would, I believe, work a substantial improvement in our system of conducting a campaign, although I am well aware that it will take some time for people so to familiarize themselves with such a proposal as to be willing to consider its adoption. The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided an appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties, an appropriation ample enough to meet the necessity for thorough organization and machinery, which requires a large expenditure of money. Then the stipulation should be made that no party receiving campaign funds from the Treasury should accept more than a fixed amount from any individual subscriber or donor; and the necessary publicity for receipts and expenditures could without difficulty be provided.”

          The following is from http://www.hannaharendtcenter.org/?tag=teddy-roosevelt

          What resulted was not public financing but the Tillman Act that made corporate contributions to political campaigns illegal. But there was no enforcement mechanism, so little changed until the elections of 1968 and 1972 when Richard Nixon’s presidential campaigns received millions of dollars in contributions from W. Clement Stone who wanted an ambassadorship. It was this “scandal” that moved Congress

          The key moment of modern campaign finance reform is the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1974, and the Supreme Court’s partial upholding and partial overturning of that law in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. In the wake of Watergate and the loss of trust in government, the Congress passed FECA which: limited individual contributions to individual candidates to $1,000; limited the amount candidates could spend on a campaign; established a system of public financing of campaigns that required a voluntary limit on campaign expenditures; required that candidates, parties, PACs and groups engaging in express advocacy disclose their fund-raising and spending; and created the Federal Elections Commission, to regulate and enforce the new rules.

          In a landmark decision that still controls all legal approaches to the regulation of campaign financing, the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo upheld the disclosure requirement and the limits on individual contributions. It also upheld the limits on campaign spending when those limits were voluntary and in conjunction with the decision to accept public financing. But the Court struck down compulsory limits on spending both by individual candidates and by PACs and other groups.

          Reply
          1. Matforce February 15, 2016

            It would seem that any candidate running for a national office that shuns corporate donations, odious as the candidate and many of us think it is, would be akin to lopping off three of their horse’s legs as the gates open for the running of the Kentucky derby against steeds that have no such impediments.

            Difficult as it may be to go against the grain of the power and money, it still needs to be done! Corruption of our political system has reached epidemic proportions, and IMHO, will lead to our downfall if nothing is done.

            Reply
          2. MichaelC February 15, 2016

            I am happy to enthusiastically agree with you.

            Reply
          3. JustaGurlinseattle April 2, 2016

            YES!!!! exactly, especially when the Koch Bro’s have a $880 MILLION dollar Super Pac…
            that is just ONE of the Republicans Super Pac’s
            and does not even include donations to the individual candidate.

            How would Bernie compete with a BILLION dollars, right out of the gate?

            Reply
      3. dtgraham February 16, 2016

        Clinton reported raising 15 million dollars in the last reporting period from the big banks. That was for her Pac. Five of her biggest donors were Wall St banks. In contrast, all ten of Sander’s biggest non-individual donors were labor unions. Labor is a Democratic constituency whose beliefs line up with the values on the left side of the Democratic party. Wall St banks, not so much.

        Reply
  4. itsfun February 15, 2016

    After watching the debates, I have the impression that Bernie is a very honest man. He stands by his principles and doesn’t change his ideas according to which way the wind is blowing. He is one of a very few honest politicians. He is a person of character. That alone make him a better candidate than Hillary. I just don’t believe in an economic system that just gives and gives and gives. What happens when you run out of the other guys money?

    Reply
    1. FT66 February 15, 2016

      Do you think Sanders is honest? Please think again. I was watching CNN during the weekend, I was surprised they showed a chart Sanders has a PAC, though not much money as Hillary but he has it. I don’t understand why he keeps telling people he has no PAC supporting him. How can you still continue to call him an honest man. Sorry, he isn’t.

      Reply
      1. itsfun February 15, 2016

        You can’t believe everything you see on CNN, FOX or any TV news show.

        Reply
        1. MichaelC February 15, 2016
          Reply
      2. yabbed February 15, 2016

        Bernie has several SuperPACS. And being that he is a toadie for the NRA and AIPAC he has them as sources of funds and support, neither of which are working in the best interests of the USA.

        Reply
        1. FT66 February 15, 2016

          Agreed. He must stop telling people what is not true.

          Reply
      3. A_Real_Einstein February 15, 2016

        Sorry for you and Hillary he is. He has denounced any Superpacs that have attempted to support him . What CNN did not tell you of this group of nurses who refuse to respect his wishes and have raised a couple of million dollars for his benefit. All he can do is denounce it which he clearly has done. Unfortunately the corporate media are very scared and continue to act in desperation as they attempt to protect their corporate interests. Bernie will show us the way and gives voice to the voiceless and teaches us how to speak. Looking forward to the results in NV.

        Reply
      4. Jim Sylvester February 15, 2016

        Easy. No candidate can STOP someone from opening a PAC in the candidate’s name. There in’t much money in Bernie’s PAC because he has asked them to disband, and he does not want their money. With this simple, verified, information, it is easy to see that someone has been misleading you. Read it here:

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

        Reply
    2. MichaelC February 15, 2016

      Really? Perhaps you aren’t aware that Bernie Sanders has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in special interest money. Quoting from the article linked below:

      For years, Bernie Sanders has been asking Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and other financial institutions to donate to the Democratic party — money that has benefited him directly.

      In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s retreats for the “Majority Trust” — an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year — at Martha’s Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011.

      The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.

      Sanders has based his presidential campaign on a fire-and-brimstone critique of a broken campaign finance system — and of Hillary Clinton for her reliance on big-dollar Wall Street donors. But Sanders is part of that system, and has helped Democrats court many of the same donors.

      He got a hand from the party in 1996, when Rob Engel, then the political director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, pushed a Democratic contender out of the race for the House seat Sanders held as an independent.

      In 2006, when Sanders ran for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into his race and included him in fundraising efforts for the party’s Senate candidates.

      The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party — which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.

      Among the DSCC’s top contributors that year: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.

      During that 2006 campaign, Sanders attended a fundraiser at the Cambridge, Massachusetts home of Abby Rockefeller — a member of the same family whose wealth he had one proposed confiscating.

      http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html

      Reply
      1. Matforce February 15, 2016

        The elevation of our rhetoric and divisive squabbling to this level of parsing minutia, is beginning to resemble the GOP campaign with charge and counter-charge that leads to nowhere. Thanks alot, MichaelC!!!

        I’m the type who fritters countless hours away researching claims for some solidity of bedrock truth, who’s penchant for overturning rocks in search of conspiracies has my beautiful wife leering petulantly in the doorway to our computer room, with- “You know; you’re getting pretty boring!!!

        Here’s another article that brings to light, yet more minutia on our bunny trail to the truth… Touché!

        http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/bernie-sanders-super-pac/420930/

        Reply
        1. MichaelC February 15, 2016

          The basis of Bernie’s campaign against HRC is “corruption.” So when we find out he’s played the same game he’s accusing her of it’s hardly minutiae. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Bernie’s integrity is not in question, neither should hers be. That’s the challenge for Bernie World.

          Reply
          1. Matforce February 15, 2016

            Can we agree that our whole Representative form of government; “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” has been corrupted by money for influence, thanks to a narrow, partisan 5-4 vote by our Supreme Court?

            Let’s talk solutions:

            Creating a blind trust fund by charging a fraction of 1% from every paycheck, every sale, every Wall Street transaction (a higher % from speculative, high risk investments), and on the hidden money; this would include carried interest, capital gains, long term capital gains, and even gains realized on tax deferred annuities, etc. so everyone has skin in the game, come election time.

            Then, each caucus gets an equal share (transparency of the use of campaign funds would be rigidly accounted for) of the fund to select their candidate, and fund their campaign; may the best candidate/message win.

            Reply
          2. MichaelC February 15, 2016

            Interesting ideas. Which Congress is going to adopt them? What so many in Bernie World seem unable to comprehend is that the only way to change the equation in Congress is to elect solid majorities of Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. HRC understands this and is helping to rise funds for Democratic candidates in down ticket races. Bernie? Not so much. BTW, no one has condemned the
            SCOTUS Citizens United ruling more vociferously than HRC, not surprising since Citizens United was and is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

            Reply
          3. Matforce February 15, 2016

            Which Congress, indeed?

            I understand the real need to think, “electability,” an argument that HRC supporters, and the Democratic establishment have been bringing to the fore.

            However, I’m not sure that, given the divisiveness that the Clintons bring to the table (NAFTA, The Gramm, Leach, Bliley, Act and financial sector deregulation; even though they were Republican Bills passed with Clinton’s approval, against the will of a majority of Democrats), rumors of nods for Bill from The Bilderberg, Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc.), her perceived connections to Big Money & Wall Street, combined with Trump’s anti-establishment appeal to disenfranchised Democrats and Republicans, alike, a HRC would provide plenty of red meat rhetorical soundbites to be used in a Presidential election, given the shallowness of today’s electorate.

            With all that in mind, if Sanders can first of all, educate a duped populous about just what the hell hit them over the past 35 years, then rally a revolution of the people, by the people, and for the people, I’m not sure he’s not the true crier that can unite and mobilize our nation back from the brink of the largest economic bubble since the Great Depression.

            Reply
          4. MichaelC February 15, 2016

            “passed with Clinton’s approval, against the will of a majority of Democrats” — Rewriting history is one of the fascinating phenomena of Bernie World. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall was adopted by a vote of 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House of Representatives. These are what we call veto-proof majorities.

            Reply
          5. Matforce February 15, 2016

            I don’t know where you got that information, but here’s the vote count and the source:

            Senate vote: 54 yea, 48 nay
            -Republicans: 53 yea, 0 nay
            -Democrats: 1 yea, 44 nay

            House vote was tighter: 362 yea, 57 nay
            -Republicans: 207 yea, 5 nay
            -Democrats: 155 yea, 51 nay

            Reply
          6. MichaelC February 15, 2016

            November 4, 1999: The U.S. Senate voted 90-8 today to approve S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
            http://www.banking.senate.gov/prel99/1104grm.htm

            Reply
          7. Matforce February 15, 2016

            This is a perfect example highlighting the difficulty of getting to the bottom of an issue, if one’s concerned about the truth, not that I’m inferring that you are not.

            Here we have two websites, one from Gramm, the other from the govtrack.us.

            The discrepancy between the two accounts can be explained by a Wikipedia examination of the :

            “When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241–132 (R 58–131; D 182–1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as “robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities” (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).”

            “The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[16][17] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90–8,[18][note 4] and by the House 362–57.[19][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.”

            Govtrack reported on the first vote, my mistake, but the second vote, the final vote you correctly cited in the Gramm article, was a vote taken after Republicans sweetened the deal by throwing the Dems a bone in the form of anti-redlining, practice of denying services, either directly or through selectively raising prices, to residents of certain areas based on the racial or ethnic makeups of those areas, and the Dems went for it!
            See what you’ve done, MichaelC?!? You’ve had me slumped over my computer on this issue for far too long. (No, actually, thanks for causing me to look it.). Still, I was partially right… Gramm, Leach, Bliley WAS a Republican Bills responsible in large part for, Too Big To Fail.”

            Reply
          8. A_Real_Einstein February 15, 2016

            1,000 up votes!!!

            Reply
      2. Jim Sylvester February 15, 2016

        Insanity is an epidemic among Bernie haters. What will happen to them when they finally finish losing.

        Reply
        1. Ken Walker February 15, 2016

          We’ll live under a Republican-led government for the foreseeable future. Sanders will lose the general election, badly.

          Reply
          1. harleyblueswoman February 16, 2016

            that’s what they said about Barack also….Feel the Bern!!!

            Reply
          2. Ken Walker February 16, 2016

            Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama.

            Reply
          3. JustaGurlinseattle April 2, 2016

            No, actually they did NOT…. People KNEW Obama could be elected, but it would be harder for the FIRST African American President.
            and as was already pointed out, Bernie is NOT Obama.

            Reply
  5. yabbed February 15, 2016

    Who cares what Bernie thinks. He’s a total fraud and the GOP negative ads will expose him in short order should he win the nomination. Nothing in his personal life indicates any integrity in the man. He has lived a disreputable life, a life of lassitude and fakery. Read his misogynistic, chauvinistic, pornographic sex essay and you’ll see why women of all ages will run for the hills before voting for this creep. Wait until the GOP puts out the commercials showing his Burlington office walls with photos of Karl Marx, Eugene Debs, and a USSR flag. Wait until the GOP runs ads of one of Bernie’s honeymoons to the Soviet Union during the Cold War with the Soviets were threatening to annihilate us, his attempt to meet with Castro (but was rebuffed by Castro as a lunatic), his support for the Sandinistas. He’s a freak. He once ran on the Socialist Liberty Party on a platform to nationalize the banks, give utility companies “to the public”, and to confiscate the Rockefeller fortune. Of course he lost that election as he did all elections until the NRA put him in office where he has languished on the government payroll doing nothing for decades.

    Reply
  6. A_Real_Einstein February 15, 2016

    Just another hit job by the the elitist establishment who are now in full panic mode. If the question is does Bernie believe Hillary is influenced by the massive amount of corporate contributions coming to her super Pac. The answer is YES. Will he say it. No. That is not how he campaigns. He speaks about himself and what he wants to do. He will keep it positive and leave it up to the voters decide whether or not these millions and millions of dollars are affecting a banking system that gets fined billions of dollars ruins the lives of millions and nobody gets charged or has a criminal record. They give that money to Hillary because they like her? Right. The fact is Bernie walks the walk and cannot be bought by these special interest groups. That has the establishment hacks like Joe Conason very very very scared. Feel The Bern and reject the political machine and corporate media that feed off this political machine. Welcome to the revolution.

    Reply
    1. Ken Walker February 15, 2016

      Maybe some corporate contributors do expect access for their contributions, or maybe they simply think that a Democrat-led government would be better than a Republican-led government. The economy certainly does a lot better under Democratic control than under Republican control. FACT!

      Reply
  7. paulyz February 15, 2016

    The ONLY candidate NOT being influenced or bought off by Special Interest money is Trump.

    Reply
    1. stcroixcarp February 15, 2016

      Trump breaths the air of Special interest money. He IS special interest money. He has reaped the benefits of special interest money of others and has been the source of special interest money in politics. He is the poster child for the 1%. Did you watch his special broadcast that supposed raised money for veterans? It was a gala for rich old farts to show off their boob-jobbed trophy wives to throw special interest money around. By the way, what happened to that chunk of “veterans” money?

      Reply
      1. paulyz February 15, 2016

        Nice try, but Trump is using his own money, & has given to the Veterans & other Charities for a long time. You should like him, he wants to bring jobs back by fair trade, keep parts of planned parenthood, will enforce our Immigration Laws, & many other common sense issues.

        Reply
        1. harleyblueswoman February 16, 2016

          wow…what kool aid are you drinking?

          Reply
          1. paulyz February 16, 2016

            Never taste the stuff because I don’t only read leftist propaganda as you .

            Reply
    2. nana4gj February 15, 2016

      And the ability for anyone who is a billionaire to self finance is just as bad for the country as political financing by special interest money.

      It as corrupt and as damaging to democracy. Any fool, any maniac, anyone can purchase his campaign and election with his own special motives, and that’s pretty frightening, too.

      Trump has neo nazis and white supremacists endorsing him and his own monies spreading the vitriole that attracts them.

      There should be a limited amount of money alloted to a limited number of candidates left after the others are ferreted out, and in the ferreting out process, there should be no monies allowed to be spent, just all of the free interviews, coverage, that Trump received prior to the debates.

      In fact, why does there need to be money involved at all? There are many ways to “advertise” yourself and your platform today. Anytime there is a critical issue before Congress or SC, there are always solicitations for money to help, as if money will convince opponents or make it happen.

      Reply
      1. paulyz February 15, 2016

        Point is, Jeb Bush & others in both Partys have spent MILLIONS more than Trump has with Special Interest money.

        Reply
      2. paulyz February 15, 2016

        No, Trump has a majority of supporters in ALL demographic groups, and it is Bernie that has the support of Leftist Socialists and worse.

        Reply
        1. bjbstarr11 February 16, 2016

          No I beg to differ. One person Trump does not have support from and this is ME. I will never vote for him. You people better wake up and stop the nonsense.

          Reply
          1. paulyz February 16, 2016

            Why, who do you want to see as President?

            Reply
          2. bjbstarr11 February 16, 2016

            Truthfully speaking, I am not that crazy about any of the candidates. Kasich is ok. I have to give it some serious thought.

            Reply
          3. paulyz February 17, 2016

            I respect your choice, as for me, as far LEFT as our Country has gone, I believe we need a forceful, non-political, experienced Leader like Trump. My other choices in order are: Cruz,Carson, Kasich, Rubio then Bush, but would vote for anyone of them over the choices in the Democrat/Socialist Party.

            Reply
          4. bjbstarr11 February 17, 2016

            We can agree to disagree. Good luck with Trump.

            Reply
  8. FT66 February 15, 2016

    Bernie is a spoiler. Thats why Super Delegates don’t fall to his side. If he thinks he can be in the White House with the support of young voters only, let him go and hit the hard brick wall. Am sure he will feel the pain if not the Bern.

    Reply
    1. Ken Walker February 15, 2016

      So What if Sanders IS for everything he espouses, he CANNOT get it done.

      Reply
    2. harleyblueswoman February 16, 2016

      Take a look at his rallies….it is hardly just the young folk….I am 62 and will vote for Bernie as will millions of others….but vote Blue….no matter who wins….

      Reply
  9. Jim Sylvester February 15, 2016

    This is just a silly hit piece. Does anyone think Sanders is NOT for campaign finance reform, or the progressive policies he espouses? The Hillary folks are really desperate.

    Reply
  10. Ken Walker February 15, 2016

    When we have 535 members of congress who will gladly accept donations from Wall Street and Billionaires it doesn’t matter that Sanders wants campaign finance reform or doesn’t have a Super PAC, or that Trump is self-funding his campaign.

    Reply
  11. harleyblueswoman February 16, 2016

    It is pretty obvious that the Natl Memo is pro Clinton with all the articles bashing Bernie….guess they are not as Progressive as I thought….

    Reply
  12. JustaGurlinseattle April 2, 2016

    Brilliant article!!!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.