SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency of the United States is powered by a lot of fossil fuel money. How can this be, when nearly all of the industry's contributions are going to Republicans? For one, the oil and gas giants are very, very wealthy, so just a small Democratic leak from the pipeline adds up quickly. Moreover, Clinton has a lot of support from the nation's corporate lobbyists, many of whom represent fossil fuel companies.
Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency of the United States is powered by a lot of fossil fuel money. How can this be, when nearly all of the industry's contributions are going to Republicans? For one, the oil and gas giants are very, very wealthy, so just a small Democratic leak from the pipeline adds up quickly. Moreover, Clinton has a lot of support from the nation's corporate lobbyists, many of whom represent fossil fuel companies. Finally, Clinton's wealthy backers come primarily from the world of finance--hedge-fund billionaires, investment bankers, and Wall Street executives.
As it turns out, there's a dirty secret in the world of wealth--bankers finance the oil, gas, and coal sectors. This uncomfortable truth has come to the fore thanks to the growing divestment movement: university endowments, pension funds, foundations, and institutional investors who claim concern about climate change are being challenged to end their catastrophic investments and instead invest in a clean future.
Those with great wealth almost invariably have dirty investments. There are very few billionaires not actively invested in destroying our planet's climate. (In fact, there may be only one: hedge-fund-manager-turned-climate-activist Tom Steyer divested in 2014.)
And Clinton has more billionaire supporters than any other presidential candidate. Nine in ten dollars raised for Hillary Clinton's campaign have come from large donors--a mere 22 people have contributed $43 million.
In recent years, the domestic fracking and oil-shale boom has been a prime area for investment by Wall Street tycoons, including the financiers on Team Hillary. If the no-compromise climate platform of Bernie Sanders were to be implemented, these investors would lose billions. In fact, they need a resurgence of the industry--in line with Clinton's proposed pro-fracking platform--to recoup their investments.
Team Hillary's Big Bets on Fracking
The examples are easy to find, even in New York City's backyard. Wall Street lost big in 2015 when New York banned fracking, but the fossil fuel industry has hardly been exiled from the state. One of the most contentious fights in New York today is over the construction of the Constitution Pipeline, which is intended to bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New York and New England. Williams Co. has been using eminent domain to cut through landowners' properties to build the pipeline.
While Bernie Sanders has come out in opposition to the project, Team Hillary is invested in the pipeline's success: hedge-fund billionaire Richard C. Perry, who hosted Clinton's very first campaign fundraiser at his Manhattan penthouse apartment, has over $207 million invested in Williams, among other fossil fuel gambles. Hedge-fund billionaire David E. Shaw, a $1.5 million contributor to Clinton's Super PAC, has a $237 million stake. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton superdelegate Tonio Burgos is a top Williams lobbyist for the pipeline.
Another key Hillary Clinton billionaire is Marc Lasry, who gave Chelsea Clinton her first job out of college at his hedge fund. Lasry is bullish on Hillary--and on the fracking industry. He has a $1.3 billion fracking junk-bond fund that has lost most of its value as natural gas prices have plummeted, but he's confident in the long-term future of fracking. Don't worry too much for Lasry--he's betting other people's money on this, including $200 million in Pennsylvania schoolteacher pensions.
Follow the Money
These are hardly outlier examples--pick a fossil fuel project or company, and it's easy to follow the money back to a Clinton financier.
Sometimes you find a corporate lobbyist, like bundlers Ankit Desai of liquid-natural-gas giant Cheniere Energy and Theresa Fariello of ExxonMobil.
Sometimes you find a mega-billionaire, like coal and oil-train profiteer Warren Buffett.
Sometimes it's a multi-millionaire investment banker, like Roger C. Altman, CEO of Evercore Partners, one of the top advisors to fracking industry mergers and acquisitions deals.
Sometimes you find an oil-soaked Democratic-politician-turned-lobbyist, like Hillary Clinton's former fellow senators Evan Bayh (on the board of Marathon Petroleum) or Mary Landrieu (a FutureGen lobbyist).
What's the Big Deal?
Clinton has chastised and laughed at young climate activists asking her to stop taking fossil fuel money. Bolstered by media fact-checkers who have rejected analyses of her campaign fundraising by environmental watchdogs, she has called claims of significant contributions "absolutely an incorrect false charge."
It's a matter of opinion how deep Clinton's dirty-money billionaires are in with the fossil fuel industry. For example, six percent of George Soros' $5.4 billion hedge fund is invested in coal, oil, and gas. Now, that six percent equals $315 million, which most people would consider a lot of money. Soros has pumped $8 million into Clinton's Super PACs (six percent of that is $480,000, the equivalent of two Hillary Clinton speeches).
Team Hillary has a complex financial structure reflecting our nation's byzantine campaign finance situation--in addition to the official campaign committee (Hillary for America) and a primary Super PAC (Priorities USA), there are also coordinated messaging Super PACs (Correct the Record/American Bridge) and a soft-money campaign fund which funnels large contributions through the national and state Democratic parties (Hillary Victory Fund), to name just a few.
Hillary Clinton also has directly received millions in speaking fees from corporate America (and foreign interests), as has her family's Clinton Foundation, a 501c(3) that has received contributions from governments such as Kuwait and corporations such as ExxonMobil.
Greenpeace researchers tie $4.5 million in contributions from fossil fuel interests to Clinton; the Washington Post and the New York Times recognize dramatically smaller figures. The difference largely turns on whether one considers bankers with fossil fuel investments and corporate lobbyists with fossil fuel clients to be sources of fossil fuel money--Greenpeace does, and the Washington Post does not.
The reality is unavoidable: Hillary Clinton's presidential run is fueled by carbon financiers.
Pro-Clinton, Anti-Climate
Here's an incomplete list of the fossil fuel financiers behind the Clinton campaign:
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency of the United States is powered by a lot of fossil fuel money. How can this be, when nearly all of the industry's contributions are going to Republicans? For one, the oil and gas giants are very, very wealthy, so just a small Democratic leak from the pipeline adds up quickly. Moreover, Clinton has a lot of support from the nation's corporate lobbyists, many of whom represent fossil fuel companies. Finally, Clinton's wealthy backers come primarily from the world of finance--hedge-fund billionaires, investment bankers, and Wall Street executives.
As it turns out, there's a dirty secret in the world of wealth--bankers finance the oil, gas, and coal sectors. This uncomfortable truth has come to the fore thanks to the growing divestment movement: university endowments, pension funds, foundations, and institutional investors who claim concern about climate change are being challenged to end their catastrophic investments and instead invest in a clean future.
Those with great wealth almost invariably have dirty investments. There are very few billionaires not actively invested in destroying our planet's climate. (In fact, there may be only one: hedge-fund-manager-turned-climate-activist Tom Steyer divested in 2014.)
And Clinton has more billionaire supporters than any other presidential candidate. Nine in ten dollars raised for Hillary Clinton's campaign have come from large donors--a mere 22 people have contributed $43 million.
In recent years, the domestic fracking and oil-shale boom has been a prime area for investment by Wall Street tycoons, including the financiers on Team Hillary. If the no-compromise climate platform of Bernie Sanders were to be implemented, these investors would lose billions. In fact, they need a resurgence of the industry--in line with Clinton's proposed pro-fracking platform--to recoup their investments.
Team Hillary's Big Bets on Fracking
The examples are easy to find, even in New York City's backyard. Wall Street lost big in 2015 when New York banned fracking, but the fossil fuel industry has hardly been exiled from the state. One of the most contentious fights in New York today is over the construction of the Constitution Pipeline, which is intended to bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New York and New England. Williams Co. has been using eminent domain to cut through landowners' properties to build the pipeline.
While Bernie Sanders has come out in opposition to the project, Team Hillary is invested in the pipeline's success: hedge-fund billionaire Richard C. Perry, who hosted Clinton's very first campaign fundraiser at his Manhattan penthouse apartment, has over $207 million invested in Williams, among other fossil fuel gambles. Hedge-fund billionaire David E. Shaw, a $1.5 million contributor to Clinton's Super PAC, has a $237 million stake. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton superdelegate Tonio Burgos is a top Williams lobbyist for the pipeline.
Another key Hillary Clinton billionaire is Marc Lasry, who gave Chelsea Clinton her first job out of college at his hedge fund. Lasry is bullish on Hillary--and on the fracking industry. He has a $1.3 billion fracking junk-bond fund that has lost most of its value as natural gas prices have plummeted, but he's confident in the long-term future of fracking. Don't worry too much for Lasry--he's betting other people's money on this, including $200 million in Pennsylvania schoolteacher pensions.
Follow the Money
These are hardly outlier examples--pick a fossil fuel project or company, and it's easy to follow the money back to a Clinton financier.
Sometimes you find a corporate lobbyist, like bundlers Ankit Desai of liquid-natural-gas giant Cheniere Energy and Theresa Fariello of ExxonMobil.
Sometimes you find a mega-billionaire, like coal and oil-train profiteer Warren Buffett.
Sometimes it's a multi-millionaire investment banker, like Roger C. Altman, CEO of Evercore Partners, one of the top advisors to fracking industry mergers and acquisitions deals.
Sometimes you find an oil-soaked Democratic-politician-turned-lobbyist, like Hillary Clinton's former fellow senators Evan Bayh (on the board of Marathon Petroleum) or Mary Landrieu (a FutureGen lobbyist).
What's the Big Deal?
Clinton has chastised and laughed at young climate activists asking her to stop taking fossil fuel money. Bolstered by media fact-checkers who have rejected analyses of her campaign fundraising by environmental watchdogs, she has called claims of significant contributions "absolutely an incorrect false charge."
It's a matter of opinion how deep Clinton's dirty-money billionaires are in with the fossil fuel industry. For example, six percent of George Soros' $5.4 billion hedge fund is invested in coal, oil, and gas. Now, that six percent equals $315 million, which most people would consider a lot of money. Soros has pumped $8 million into Clinton's Super PACs (six percent of that is $480,000, the equivalent of two Hillary Clinton speeches).
Team Hillary has a complex financial structure reflecting our nation's byzantine campaign finance situation--in addition to the official campaign committee (Hillary for America) and a primary Super PAC (Priorities USA), there are also coordinated messaging Super PACs (Correct the Record/American Bridge) and a soft-money campaign fund which funnels large contributions through the national and state Democratic parties (Hillary Victory Fund), to name just a few.
Hillary Clinton also has directly received millions in speaking fees from corporate America (and foreign interests), as has her family's Clinton Foundation, a 501c(3) that has received contributions from governments such as Kuwait and corporations such as ExxonMobil.
Greenpeace researchers tie $4.5 million in contributions from fossil fuel interests to Clinton; the Washington Post and the New York Times recognize dramatically smaller figures. The difference largely turns on whether one considers bankers with fossil fuel investments and corporate lobbyists with fossil fuel clients to be sources of fossil fuel money--Greenpeace does, and the Washington Post does not.
The reality is unavoidable: Hillary Clinton's presidential run is fueled by carbon financiers.
Pro-Clinton, Anti-Climate
Here's an incomplete list of the fossil fuel financiers behind the Clinton campaign:
Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency of the United States is powered by a lot of fossil fuel money. How can this be, when nearly all of the industry's contributions are going to Republicans? For one, the oil and gas giants are very, very wealthy, so just a small Democratic leak from the pipeline adds up quickly. Moreover, Clinton has a lot of support from the nation's corporate lobbyists, many of whom represent fossil fuel companies. Finally, Clinton's wealthy backers come primarily from the world of finance--hedge-fund billionaires, investment bankers, and Wall Street executives.
As it turns out, there's a dirty secret in the world of wealth--bankers finance the oil, gas, and coal sectors. This uncomfortable truth has come to the fore thanks to the growing divestment movement: university endowments, pension funds, foundations, and institutional investors who claim concern about climate change are being challenged to end their catastrophic investments and instead invest in a clean future.
Those with great wealth almost invariably have dirty investments. There are very few billionaires not actively invested in destroying our planet's climate. (In fact, there may be only one: hedge-fund-manager-turned-climate-activist Tom Steyer divested in 2014.)
And Clinton has more billionaire supporters than any other presidential candidate. Nine in ten dollars raised for Hillary Clinton's campaign have come from large donors--a mere 22 people have contributed $43 million.
In recent years, the domestic fracking and oil-shale boom has been a prime area for investment by Wall Street tycoons, including the financiers on Team Hillary. If the no-compromise climate platform of Bernie Sanders were to be implemented, these investors would lose billions. In fact, they need a resurgence of the industry--in line with Clinton's proposed pro-fracking platform--to recoup their investments.
Team Hillary's Big Bets on Fracking
The examples are easy to find, even in New York City's backyard. Wall Street lost big in 2015 when New York banned fracking, but the fossil fuel industry has hardly been exiled from the state. One of the most contentious fights in New York today is over the construction of the Constitution Pipeline, which is intended to bring fracked gas from Pennsylvania to New York and New England. Williams Co. has been using eminent domain to cut through landowners' properties to build the pipeline.
While Bernie Sanders has come out in opposition to the project, Team Hillary is invested in the pipeline's success: hedge-fund billionaire Richard C. Perry, who hosted Clinton's very first campaign fundraiser at his Manhattan penthouse apartment, has over $207 million invested in Williams, among other fossil fuel gambles. Hedge-fund billionaire David E. Shaw, a $1.5 million contributor to Clinton's Super PAC, has a $237 million stake. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton superdelegate Tonio Burgos is a top Williams lobbyist for the pipeline.
Another key Hillary Clinton billionaire is Marc Lasry, who gave Chelsea Clinton her first job out of college at his hedge fund. Lasry is bullish on Hillary--and on the fracking industry. He has a $1.3 billion fracking junk-bond fund that has lost most of its value as natural gas prices have plummeted, but he's confident in the long-term future of fracking. Don't worry too much for Lasry--he's betting other people's money on this, including $200 million in Pennsylvania schoolteacher pensions.
Follow the Money
These are hardly outlier examples--pick a fossil fuel project or company, and it's easy to follow the money back to a Clinton financier.
Sometimes you find a corporate lobbyist, like bundlers Ankit Desai of liquid-natural-gas giant Cheniere Energy and Theresa Fariello of ExxonMobil.
Sometimes you find a mega-billionaire, like coal and oil-train profiteer Warren Buffett.
Sometimes it's a multi-millionaire investment banker, like Roger C. Altman, CEO of Evercore Partners, one of the top advisors to fracking industry mergers and acquisitions deals.
Sometimes you find an oil-soaked Democratic-politician-turned-lobbyist, like Hillary Clinton's former fellow senators Evan Bayh (on the board of Marathon Petroleum) or Mary Landrieu (a FutureGen lobbyist).
What's the Big Deal?
Clinton has chastised and laughed at young climate activists asking her to stop taking fossil fuel money. Bolstered by media fact-checkers who have rejected analyses of her campaign fundraising by environmental watchdogs, she has called claims of significant contributions "absolutely an incorrect false charge."
It's a matter of opinion how deep Clinton's dirty-money billionaires are in with the fossil fuel industry. For example, six percent of George Soros' $5.4 billion hedge fund is invested in coal, oil, and gas. Now, that six percent equals $315 million, which most people would consider a lot of money. Soros has pumped $8 million into Clinton's Super PACs (six percent of that is $480,000, the equivalent of two Hillary Clinton speeches).
Team Hillary has a complex financial structure reflecting our nation's byzantine campaign finance situation--in addition to the official campaign committee (Hillary for America) and a primary Super PAC (Priorities USA), there are also coordinated messaging Super PACs (Correct the Record/American Bridge) and a soft-money campaign fund which funnels large contributions through the national and state Democratic parties (Hillary Victory Fund), to name just a few.
Hillary Clinton also has directly received millions in speaking fees from corporate America (and foreign interests), as has her family's Clinton Foundation, a 501c(3) that has received contributions from governments such as Kuwait and corporations such as ExxonMobil.
Greenpeace researchers tie $4.5 million in contributions from fossil fuel interests to Clinton; the Washington Post and the New York Times recognize dramatically smaller figures. The difference largely turns on whether one considers bankers with fossil fuel investments and corporate lobbyists with fossil fuel clients to be sources of fossil fuel money--Greenpeace does, and the Washington Post does not.
The reality is unavoidable: Hillary Clinton's presidential run is fueled by carbon financiers.
Pro-Clinton, Anti-Climate
Here's an incomplete list of the fossil fuel financiers behind the Clinton campaign: