Wednesday, August 5, 2015

HRC or Jeb Bush? For Some It Makes No Difference...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

It is not at all surprising actually. Wealthy donors, and there are many of these in both the republican and democratic camps, really do not care whether a fellow wealthy candidate is a republican or a democrat as long as the candidate is all in for supporting the wealthy donors interests, business or otherwise. In fact some will donate heavily the republican and democratic party candidates they feel is most likely to favor their interests.

It is no secret that big money rules and when it comes to politics big money influences election outcomes. In other words while people think they have a real choice the truth is the choices are pretty much picked for you and really there much that can be done about it.

For some wealthy donors, it doesn’t matter who takes the White House in 2016—as long as the president’s name is Clinton or Bush.

More than 60 ultra-rich Americans have contributed to both Jeb Bush’s and Hillary Clinton’s federal campaigns, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast. Seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush’s and Clinton’s 2016 ambitions.

After all, why support just Hillary Clinton or just Jeb Bush when you can hedge your bets and donate to both? This seems to be the thinking of a group of powerful men and women—racetrack owners, bankers, media barons, chicken magnates, hedge funders (and their spouses). Some of them have net worths that can eclipse the GDPs of small countries.

Larry Noble, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, told The Daily Beast that it’s a common practice among a small number of people.

“Some of them will say they believe in the process, but the truth is you usually see them giving to people who will be most helpful to them if [the politician] gets into office,” he said. “They are not necessarily Republicans or Democrats, they are business people first.”

Some of them said personal connections are driving the double donations. Many work in industries that depend on the federal government for their continued operation. A few have had brushes with the law. One donor said he’s soured on Hillary, and is now on Team Jeb. Another claimed that he gave to Clinton by mistake.

John Tyson, chairman of Tyson Foods, is a long-time—and promiscuous—political player. This year alone, his company spent half a million dollars lobbying Congress on everything from immigration reform and fuel taxes to food safety regulations. He himself has given $25,000 each to the political action committees supporting Clinton’s and Bush’s 2016 candidacies, according to the data parsed by Vocativ.


Via: Memeorandum


  1. That just shows you that Clinton is neither a liberal or progressive. In fact she is almost as republican as Bush.

  2. This just shows that the liberals are deep in the big money also.

    Despite Hillary being liberal and Jeb conservative, they are similar as you have noted, Les. Add onto this their sense of being entitled to the position and the dynastic stench.

  3. None of the Bush clan is a conservative and neither is Jeb. Once the trumpmania dies down we can sort through the candidates that are relevant. The republicans will sort through the masses and find a somewhat acceptable candidate. Unless HRC is indicated and given the same fate as Petraeus for doing the same thing, HRC is the anointed one from the DRC.

    No matter who runs or who wins little will change and the hate goes on.

  4. No matter who runs or who wins little will change and the hate goes on.

    Clinton is a fiscal liberal in that she leans to big spending on the domestic side and is apparently quite tolerant on social issues.

    Bush is somewhat more conservative on social issues but on the spending side he would merely flip spending to heaving on defense and security and lesser on domestic. Still a liberal fiscal spender.

    Now, as to skudrunner's quoted statement, yes the hate will go on, fueled almost exclusively by the right-wing fringe element such as seen on right-wing reactionary sites linked to recently.

  5. Yup. The two individuals being discussed are one liberal, to the left. And one conservative, to the right.

    That others are much further to the left/liberal side, or much further to the right/conservative side does not negate the proper identification found in my first sentence, which is pretty close to what RN said in the above comment.

  6. I would like to point out that while spending may continue, there is a BIG difference on the impact to the common citizen between big spending on the domestic side and heavy spending on defense and security.

  7. The two individuals being discussed are one Conservative, to the Left. And one Conservative, to the Right. Add onto this JEB's sense of being entitled to the position and the dynastic stench coming off him, unlike Hillary, who is only related to a former president by marriage. Unlike JEB, who has a fomer president as a father and another former (anointed/not elected) president as a brother.

    1. Let us not forget Prescott Bush, a Wall Street executive and U.S. Senator.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.