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
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.