181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied Hillary's State Department

181 companies I will no longer patronize. ..

181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied Hillary's State Department
Jonathan Allen

The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking. At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures.

The following chart shows entities that donated to the foundation and lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure. The totals include funding for the foundation from both corporate and charitable arms of listed companies that lobbied State, even though the charities themselves don't necessarily lobby. One exception: The Gates Foundation, co-chaired by Microsoft co-founder and board member Bill Gates, is not Microsoft's charitable arm (that's another group) and does not register to lobby. The chart does not account for contributions made by executives, and it may omit some companies who made contributions or lobbied through subsidiaries.

Clinton Foundation donor Gave between this much* And this much*
Microsoft/Gates Foundation (Gates Foundation co-chair Bill Gates is a co-founder and member of the board of Microsoft, which is a separate entity. Both donate to the Clinton Foundation. Only Microsoft reported lobbying the State Department.)
$26,000,000 No limit reported
Walmart/Walton Family Foundation (Similarly, the Walton Family Foundation is distinct from Walmart and does not lobby. Both are run by the Walton family.)
$2,250,000 $10,500,000
Coca-Cola $5,000,000 $10,000,000
State of Qatar and related entities $1,375,000 $5,800,000
Goldman Sachs $1,250,000 $5,500,000
Dow Chemical $1,025,000 $5,050,000
Pfizer $1,010,000 $5,025,000
Duke Energy Corporation $1,002,000 $5,010,000
ExxonMobil $1,001,000 $5,005,000
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Hewlett-Packard $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Nima Taghavi $1,000,000 $5,000,000
NRG Energy $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Open Society Institute $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Procter & Gamble $1,000,000 $5,000,000
Boeing
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
OCP
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
Nike $512,000 $1,035,000
Google $511,000 $1,030,000
Daimler $510,000 $1,025,000
Monsanto $501,250 $1,006,000
Arizona State University $500,000 $1,000,000
Chevron $500,000 $1,000,000
General Electric $500,000 $1,000,000
Morgan Stanley $360,000 $775,000
Intel $252,000 $510,000
Noble Energy $250,000 $500,000
Sony $175,000 $400,000
AstraZeneca $150,000 $350,000
Bloomberg and Bloomberg Philanthropies $150,000 $350,000
Salesforce.com $125,000 $300,000
Verizon $118,000 $300,000
Yahoo $125,000 $300,000
Lockheed Martin $111,000 $280,000
Qualcomm $103,000 $265,000
TIAA-CREF $103,000 $265,000
JP Morgan $102,000 $260,000
Accenture $100,000 $250,000
American Cancer Society $100,000 $250,000
Applied Materials $100,000 $250,000
CH2M Hill $100,000 $250,000
Corning $100,000 $250,000
FedEx $100,000 $250,000
Gap $100,000 $250,000
Gilead $100,000 $250,000
Hess Corporation $100,000 $250,000
Humanity United $100,000 $250,000
Hyundai $100,000 $250,000
Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $100,000 $250,000
Johnson Controls $100,000 $250,000
Lions Clubs International $100,000 $250,000
Mylan $100,000 $250,000
Pepsi $100,000 $250,000
Sanofi-Aventis $100,000 $250,000
Starwood Hotels $100,000 $250,000
United States Pharmacopeial Convention $100,000 $250,000
UPS $100,000 $250,000
Washington University, St. Louis $100,000 $250,000
Time Warner $75,000 $150,000
Hunt Alternatives $60,000 $125,000
Ericsson $51,000 $105,000
Abbott Laboratories $50,000 $100,000
Anadarko $50,000 $100,000
BT Group $50,000 $100,000
Discovery Communications $50,000 $100,000
Earth Networks $50,000 $100,000
Feed the Children $50,000 $100,000
General Motors $50,000 $100,000
Hilton $50,000 $100,000
Marriott $50,000 $100,000
NextEra Energy $50,000 $100,000
NOUR USA $50,000 $100,000
Novozymes $50,000 $100,000
Oceana $50,000 $100,000
Starbucks $50,000 $100,000
Teck Resources $50,000 $100,000
The American Institute of Architects $50,000 $100,000
Nature Conservancy $50,000 $100,000
Trilogy International Partners $50,000 $100,000
Unilever $50,000 $100,000
World Vision $50,000 $100,000
S.C. Johnson & Son
$50,000
$100,000
Motorola $35,000 $75,000
Enel
$35,000
$75,000
JCPenney $27,000 $60,000
Target $27,000 $60,000
Novartis $26,000 $55,000
Prudential
$26,000
$55,000
3M $25,000 $50,000
AAR $25,000 $50,000
AFL-CIO $25,000 $50,000
APCO Worldwide $25,000 $50,000
AREVA $25,000 $50,000
Bayer $20,000 $50,000
Capstone Turbine $25,000 $50,000
Cemex $25,000 $50,000
CHF International $25,000 $50,000
Eli Lilly $25,000 $50,000
Georgetown University $25,000 $50,000
HBO $25,000 $50,000
Honeywell $25,000 $50,000
Mars, Inc. $25,000 $50,000
McGraw-Hill Financial $25,000 $50,000
MWH Global $25,000 $50,000
New Venture Fund $25,000 $50,000
Partners HealthCare $25,000 $50,000
Rotary Foundation $25,000 $50,000
Shell $25,000 $50,000
Special Olympics $25,000 $50,000
Brink's $25,000 $50,000
United Technologies Corporation $25,000 $50,000
Viacom $25,000 $50,000
Wildlife Conservation Society $25,000 $50,000
Ze-gen $25,000 $50,000
AT&T $11,000 $30,000
BP $11,000 $30,000
SAP America $10,250 $26,000
Actavis $10,000 $25,000
ALFA $10,000 $25,000
American Iron and Steel Institute $10,000 $25,000
Amgen $10,000 $25,000
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. $10,000 $25,000
BHP Billiton Limited $10,000 $25,000
Chesapeake Energy Corporation $10,000 $25,000
ConocoPhillips $10,000 $25,000
Danfoss $10,000 $25,000
Delphi Financial Group $10,000 $25,000
Digital Globe $10,000 $25,000
Dow Corning $10,000 $25,000
EMD Serono $10,000 $25,000
Entertainment Software Association $10,000 $25,000
Herbalife $10,000 $25,000
Hermitage Capital Management $10,000 $25,000
InnoVida Holdings $10,000 $25,000
Levi Strauss & Co. $10,000 $25,000
Life Technologies $10,000 $25,000
Motion Picture Association of America $10,000 $25,000
Nokia $10,000 $25,000
Occidental Petroleum $10,000 $25,000
Sesame Workshop $10,000 $25,000
Siemens $10,000 $25,000
SNCF $10,000 $25,000
Symantec $10,000 $25,000
Tamares Management $10,000 $25,000
Telefonica International $10,000 $25,000
Hershey $10,000 $25,000
NASDAQ OMX Group $10,000 $25,000
The Pew Charitable Trusts $10,000 $25,000
TV Azteca, S.A. DE C.V. $10,000 $25,000
US Chamber of Commerce $10,000 $25,000
Whirlpool $10,000 $25,000
Oneida Indian Nation
$10,000
$25,000
American Public Health Association $5,000 $10,000
EOS Foundation $5,000 $10,000
Florida International University $5,000 $10,000
Girl Scouts of the USA $5,000 $10,000
Gonzalo Tirado $5,000 $10,000
NBC Universal $5,000 $10,000
Santa Monica College $5,000 $10,000
Sensis $5,000 $10,000
Adobe Systems $1,000 $5,000
Boston Scientific Corporation $1,000 $5,000
Bristol-Myers Squibb $1,000 $5,000
Cablevision Systems Corporation $1,000 $5,000
Caterpillar $1,000 $5,000
Chicanos Por La Causa $1,000 $5,000
Deere & Company $1,000 $5,000
Dell $1,000 $5,000
Edison Electric Institute $1,000 $5,000
Eligio Cedeno $1,000 $5,000
Festo Corporation $1,000 $5,000
George Mason University $1,000 $5,000
Laborers Int'l Union of North America $1,000 $5,000
Nestle $1,000 $5,000
Northrop Grumman Corporation $1,000 $5,000
American Legion $1,000 $5,000
Association for Manufacturing Technology $1,000 $5,000
Tohono O'odham Nation $1,000 $5,000
Hara Software
$1,000
$5,000
Oracle (matching grant program) $250 $1,000
Nova Southeastern University
$250
$1,000
* The Clinton Foundation reports contributions in ranges.

That's not illegal, but it is scandalous.

There's a household name at the nexus of the foundation and the State Department for every letter of the alphabet but "X" (often more than one): Anheuser-Busch, Boeing, Chevron, (John) Deere, Eli Lilly, FedEx, Goldman Sachs, HBO, Intel, JP Morgan, Lockheed Martin, Monsanto, NBC Universal, Oracle, Procter & Gamble, Qualcomm, Rotary International, Siemens, Target, Unilever, Verizon, Walmart, Yahoo, and Ze-gen.

The set includes oil, defense, drug, tech, and news companies, as well as labor unions and foreign interests. It includes organizations as innocuous as the Girl Scouts and those as in need of brand-burnishing as Nike, which was once forced to vow that it would end the use of child labor in foreign sweatshops. This list of donors to the Clinton foundation who lobbied State matters because it gives a sense of just how common it was for influence-seekers to give to the Clinton Foundation, and exactly which ones did.

Author Peter Schweizer, whose book Clinton Cash is due out May 5, took his best shot but couldn't prove — or even assert — that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation. I haven't read the book, but even Schweizer concedes that what he's identified is a "pattern of behavior," not hard evidence of corruption.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8501643/Clinton-foundation-donors-State

Clinton Foundation spent only 15 percent of its budget on charitable grants

Wow, look at the lengths this guy goes to to stretch the truth to support the Clintons... Just take this one statement alone: "[T]he foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house" What do the mean by in-house? Clinton's million dollar mansion? Clinton's 2016 campaign?
---
Clinton Foundation spent only 15 percent of its budget on charitable grants

"Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary,"

The Federalist and PunditFact have gone to war over a claim that the Clinton Foundation donates only 15 percent of the cash it raises to charity.

Davis of the Federalist told the Washington Examiner's media desk that the PunditFact rating doesn't hold.

"PunditFact is funded in large part by the Ford Foundation, a significant Clinton Foundation donor and partner. I'll leave it to others to determine why they failed to disclose that fact in their article and how that financial relationship might impact their coverage of the Clinton Foundation," he told the Examiner Wednesday.

"Eighty-five percent of every dollar donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up either with the Clintons or with their staff to pay for travel, salaries, and benefits. Fifteen cents of every dollar actually went to some charitable beneficiary."

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised $500 million, and only 15 percent of that "went towards programmatic grants," Davis reported.

However, although there's a "grain of truth" to the claim, according to PunditFact, which is connected to the Tampa Bay Times' PolitiFact, the statement is nevertheless "mostly false."

"There's a grain of truth here — roughly 85 percent of the foundation's spending was for items other than charitable grants to other organizations, and a large chunk of this 85 percent did go to Clinton Foundation staff for travel, salaries and benefits," PunditFact's Louis Jacobson wrote Wednesday.

But there's more to the story than (by extension, the Federalist) lets on, Jacobson suggested.

"[T]he foundation says it does most of its charitable work in-house, and it's not credible to think that the foundation spent zero dollars beyond grants on any charitable work" he wrote.

A decidedly unimpressed Davis responded Wednesday, accusing PunditFact of "hackery" and "pathetic demagoguery."

First, he wrote, Jacobson told Davis in an email that his "demonstrably factual claim" was both "clearly accurate" and "technically true."

The Federalist "stated that over a four-year period, the Clinton Foundation spent only 15 percent of its budget on charitable grants," Davis wrote.

"Do you know what it takes for that statement to be correct? The demonstration that over that four-year period the Clinton Foundation spent only 15 percent of its budget on charitable grants," he added. "That's it. Nothing else is required. Unless, of course, your goal is to rehabilitate the Clintons rather than to broadcast actual facts."

PolitFact and PunditFact are both funded by the Ford Foundation, which also happens to be a major Clinton Foundation donor, according to Phil Kerpen, head of the conservative activist group American Commitment.

"This is not journalism. This is not fact-checking. This is pathetic demagoguery, and a remarkably unimpressive display of it at that," Davis wrote.

Washington Examiner

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2563810?utm_content=bufferdfbdb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer?utm_content=bufferdfbdb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Dilbert Explains HFT

Dilbert Explains HFT (High Frequency Trading)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-22/dilbert-explains-hft

Not a "shred of evidence"

NY Times:
Team Hillary: Not a "shred of evidence" to suggest that Clinton exerted "undue influence" http://t.co/1W9kjyveyv

Hillary talking to Bill under her breath: "good thing we deleted those emails off our server"

You get ze cash

Quid pro flow.
You get ze cash. I get ze Amerikan uranium suppy. ist wery gut deal!

How Hillary Let Russia Buy 20% of U.S. Uranium Production Capacity

From the New York Times:

The latest revelation comes involves a deal which enabled Russia to own about 20% of the uranium production capacity of the United States for a $2.35 million donation to the Clinton Family Foundation. According to the report a Canadian based company Uranium One, owned the uranium assets was being purchased by Russian state atomic energy agency Rosatom a deal which had to be approved by various U.S. agencies including the State Department.  As the State Department was mulling of the deal, the Chairman of Uranium One donated the $2.35 million from his family foundation to the Clintons.
 

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on her husband's foundation's activities. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating. 

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

Hey, when State Department decisions are for sale, are they cheaper in bulk? Do you get one of those little cards like the ones in the coffee shop, where once you've bought eleven, the twelfth one is free?

Here's Reuters, with a separate scandal for the Clinton Foundation:

Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.

The foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence. Her campaign team calls these claims "absurd conspiracy theories."

The charities' errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.

When you're re-filing your tax returns, that's a concession that this isn't all just "absurd conspiracy theories."

Re: Tweet from Amanda Carpenter (@amandacarpenter)

The drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, the last two items in the Bill of Rights offer an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. "They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers." ^-  Rafael Edward Cruz

Cruz and Paul Ryan team up to make the case for free trade in today's WSJ http://t.co/9tjGaKRtxG

Manipulating the stock market

Rudolf E. Havenstein (@RudyHavenstein) tweeted at 2:04 PM on Tue, Apr 21, 2015:
If they're arresting people for manipulating the stock market, these 4 need to move somewhere with no US extradition. http://t.co/HbDEsSLZ7V
(https://twitter.com/RudyHavenstein/status/590576863019462656)

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

PROS: Strong economy mixed with big city amenities and elements of college town (Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh, Duquesne University, Chatham University). Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. Cost of living 16% below national average, median home price $133,000. High doctors per capita. Good ratings for bicycling, walkability and volunteerism. CONS: Cold winters, high crime rate. NOTED: Average tax climate. Population 306,000. Returnee to list. TRIVIA: River-laced city has 446 bridges.

Verbal Jujitsu : Beat the Press

Well said!

Dear GOP Candidates: Beat the Press

Jon Gabriel, Ed.

This new generation of GOP hopefuls understands what only Newt Gingrich knew in 2012. If you want a chance at the White House, you need to beat the other candidates and you need to beat the press.

Mitt Romney, decent fellow that he is, tacitly accepted the press' claims of objectivity, even if he didn't believe it in his heart. Romney grinned and nodded at reporters from CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC, even though their initials could have been DNC.

Right-leaning partisans watched moderator George Stephanopoulos concoct the fictional "War on Women" and moderator Candy Crowley actively support Obama during live debates. Many of us spent 2012 yelling at our TVs and laptop screens, "the press isn't neutral. They're on the other side!"

Coming of age during the Obama years, the 2016 candidates know all too well that the press is as much of an opponent as the rival campaigns. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker all know that the mainstream media despises them. This new breed acts accordingly by questioning the press and their flawed premises.

After Planned Parenthood spent all yesterday attacking Sen. Paul, two reporters coincidentally asked him if he would accept any exemptions on abortion. Come on, senator: is there no limit to your cruel oppression of women? Paul knew the fix was in and responded accordingly.

"Here's the deal — we always seem to have the debate waaaaay over here on what are the exact details of exemptions, or when it starts," Paul said, moving his hand to one side. "Why don't we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if she's okay with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it's okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me."

Paul knows that Democrats rarely get questions about whether they support partial-birth abortion, if gender selection is acceptable, or if parental consent should be required. The press naturally doesn't want to put their candidates on the hot seat, so why ask them hot-button questions? Instead, just let the Republicans sweat and damage their chances among low-info voters. To his credit, Paul didn't play along with this old game; he questioned the premise and threw it back in the reporters' faces.

Instead of waiting for her newsroom allies, Wasserman-Schultz released a huffy statement. "Here's an answer," the DNC Chair wrote. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story."

She forgot to mention that Obamacare ensures government is intimately involved with this life-or-death decision, but I appreciate the clarity. To use Paul's phrasing, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Democratic National Committee are okay with killing a seven-pound baby in the uterus. She doesn't care when life begins and has no intention of protecting the life of any baby in the womb, even if it's a minute from being delivered. The baby can be killed anytime and for any reason. Period. End of story.

I hope the other GOP candidates are taking notes. They need to stop trying to placate the reporters who hate them and go on offense for a change. Like Gingrich and Paul, use a little verbal jujitsu to trip up the Democrat-Media Complex. Beltway liberals are wildly out-of-touch with the average voter's values and concerns. Use that to our advantage.

In two minutes, I came up with several questions to ask of Hillary Clinton and her supporters. It's only fair that moderate voters know her answers:

"Should we increase immigration while African-American unemployment is at record highs?"
Have at it, press corps; prove your neutrality. And Republicans, prove that you'll be able to handle the hostile press if and when you get to the Oval Office.

https://ricochet.com/dear-gop-candidates-beat-the-press/

The Secret Republicans of Silicon Valley

The Secret Republicans of Silicon Valley - NationalJournal.com

In an industry where only liberal ideas are "allowed," many libertarians and conservatives keep their political views secret.
BY REBECCA NELSON

April 8, 2015 Deep in Silicon Valley, where the free market reigns and the exchange of ideas is celebrated, a subset of tech workers are hiding their true selves. Working as programmers and software engineers, they don't want the stigma that comes with revealing who they really are.

They're the tech company employees, startup founders, and CEOs who vote for and donate to Republican candidates, bucking the Bay Area's liberal supremacy. Fearing the repercussions of associating with a much-maligned minority, they keep their political views fiercely hidden.

"It's a liberal echo chamber," Garrett Johnson, a co-founder of Lincoln Labs, which was started in 2013 to connect the right-of-center outsiders in Silicon Valley, told National Journal. "People have been convinced that Silicon Valley is reflexively liberal or progressive. And so their response is to conform."

Silicon Valley has long been a bastion of liberalism. Since George H.W. Bush won Napa County in 1988, Republican presidential nominees have lost every county in the Bay Area. In 2012, President Obama won 84 percent of the vote in San Francisco to Mitt Romney's 13 percent and raised more for his reelection campaign from Bay Area donors than from those in New York or Hollywood. Political donations specifically from tech workers follow that trend: Google employees collectively gave $720,000 to Obama in 2012, versus $25,000 for Romney. Crowdpac, a nonpartisan political analytics firm, found that between 1979 and 2012, tech companies have overwhelmingly favored liberal candidates.

(RELATED: Is Washington Ready for the Internet of Things?)

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/gop-silicon-valley-20150408?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

read more

White House Easter Prayer Breakfast

This happened during 0bama's speech at the White House Easter Prayer Breakfast...

"On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that as a Christian, I am supposed to love," 0bama said. "And I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned." As the crowd began to murmur, the president backed off, saying, "But that's a topic for another day."

"I was about to veer off," he explained. "I'm pulling it back."

"Where there is injustice we defend the oppressed," 0bama said, returning to his prepared remarks. "Where there is disagreement, we treat each other with compassion and respect. Where there are differences, we find strength in our common humanity, knowing that we are all children of God."