SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Clinton's nominating convention "not only embraced the military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that neocon-style interventionism creates," wrote one commentator. (Photo: Disney/ABC Television/flickr/cc)
Arms Industry Donating to Hawkish Clinton Over Incoherent Trump
'My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense industry than Trump is'
Aug 24, 2016
Employees of 25 of the nation's largest defense companies--such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon--are choosing to fill the coffers of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over those of her rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump.
That's according to a new analysis by Politico, published Wednesday and based on federal campaign finance filings.
Indeed, Politico found that Clinton--whose hawkish tendencies have been front-and-center during the 2016 campaign--is leading Trump "by a ratio of 2-to-1 in campaign donations from employees working for defense giants like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. That's a sharp turnaround from 2012, when defense contractors gave more to then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney than to President Barack Obama."
Specifically, employees of those 25 firms have donated $93,000 to Clinton, compared with $46,000 for Trump. "Clinton's donor rolls also include more than two dozen top defense executives, while Trump's show just two," Politico adds.
It's no wonder why defense giants prefer Clinton.
"My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense industry than Trump is," Linda Hudson--who ran the U.S. branch of British defense firm BAE Systems, the Pentagon's eighth largest contractor, from 2009 to 2014--told Politico.
And an anonymous lobbyist told the publication: "With Hillary Clinton we have some sense of where she would go, and with Trump we have none."
Signs abound pointing to "where she would go." As commentator JP Sottile wrote earlier this month of Clinton, "she's weaponized the State Department. She really likes regime change. And her nominating convention not only embraced the military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that neocon-style interventionism creates."
Or, as investigative journalist Robert Parry declared in June: "Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes."
Parry quoted the New York Times as calling Clinton "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."
And defense contractors, too, it seems.
On January 20th, it begins...
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Employees of 25 of the nation's largest defense companies--such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon--are choosing to fill the coffers of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over those of her rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump.
That's according to a new analysis by Politico, published Wednesday and based on federal campaign finance filings.
Indeed, Politico found that Clinton--whose hawkish tendencies have been front-and-center during the 2016 campaign--is leading Trump "by a ratio of 2-to-1 in campaign donations from employees working for defense giants like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. That's a sharp turnaround from 2012, when defense contractors gave more to then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney than to President Barack Obama."
Specifically, employees of those 25 firms have donated $93,000 to Clinton, compared with $46,000 for Trump. "Clinton's donor rolls also include more than two dozen top defense executives, while Trump's show just two," Politico adds.
It's no wonder why defense giants prefer Clinton.
"My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense industry than Trump is," Linda Hudson--who ran the U.S. branch of British defense firm BAE Systems, the Pentagon's eighth largest contractor, from 2009 to 2014--told Politico.
And an anonymous lobbyist told the publication: "With Hillary Clinton we have some sense of where she would go, and with Trump we have none."
Signs abound pointing to "where she would go." As commentator JP Sottile wrote earlier this month of Clinton, "she's weaponized the State Department. She really likes regime change. And her nominating convention not only embraced the military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that neocon-style interventionism creates."
Or, as investigative journalist Robert Parry declared in June: "Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes."
Parry quoted the New York Times as calling Clinton "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."
And defense contractors, too, it seems.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Employees of 25 of the nation's largest defense companies--such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Raytheon--are choosing to fill the coffers of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over those of her rival, GOP nominee Donald Trump.
That's according to a new analysis by Politico, published Wednesday and based on federal campaign finance filings.
Indeed, Politico found that Clinton--whose hawkish tendencies have been front-and-center during the 2016 campaign--is leading Trump "by a ratio of 2-to-1 in campaign donations from employees working for defense giants like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. That's a sharp turnaround from 2012, when defense contractors gave more to then-Republican nominee Mitt Romney than to President Barack Obama."
Specifically, employees of those 25 firms have donated $93,000 to Clinton, compared with $46,000 for Trump. "Clinton's donor rolls also include more than two dozen top defense executives, while Trump's show just two," Politico adds.
It's no wonder why defense giants prefer Clinton.
"My view is Hillary is far more aligned with the types of issues that are important to the defense industry than Trump is," Linda Hudson--who ran the U.S. branch of British defense firm BAE Systems, the Pentagon's eighth largest contractor, from 2009 to 2014--told Politico.
And an anonymous lobbyist told the publication: "With Hillary Clinton we have some sense of where she would go, and with Trump we have none."
Signs abound pointing to "where she would go." As commentator JP Sottile wrote earlier this month of Clinton, "she's weaponized the State Department. She really likes regime change. And her nominating convention not only embraced the military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that neocon-style interventionism creates."
Or, as investigative journalist Robert Parry declared in June: "Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes."
Parry quoted the New York Times as calling Clinton "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."
And defense contractors, too, it seems.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.