This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
There Is Officially No Difference Between Jeb And Hillary, Whose Biggest Donors Are The Same
What many have tacitly known for a long time was finally confirmed overnight when an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast found that of the 60 or so ultra-rich Americans - aka the mega-donors - who have contributed to both Jeb Bush’s and Hillary Clinton’s federal campaigns, seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush’s and Clinton’s 2016 ambitions.
None of this is a surprise: back in March, when showing the support of what may be the most important backer for any future president, Goldman Sachs, we explained as much. In "As Jeb Bush Pounces On The Hillary Email Scandal, The Real Winner Is... Goldman Sachs" we wrote:
"Goldman likes to play both sides of the fence and that’s especially true of a race like this where either of these two candidates — Bush and Clinton — could ultimately be helpful to them,” said Charles Geisst, a Wall Street historian at Manhattan College. Campaign finance experts say Goldman is hoping another President Bush or President Clinton would both push for Wall Street-friendly policies and draw on Goldman’s executive ranks for expertise, a practice that has fallen out of favor in the years following the financial crisis.
Today, we get confirmation that what Goldman is doing is precisely the same tactic employed by all the other super-donors: "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.
Some examples of bet "hedgers" include David Stevens, CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association, whose chief economist Larry Yun has been the butt of jokes for decades:
David Stevens, the CEO of the real estate lobbying group the Mortgage Bankers Association, was in the government himself. Stevens served in the Obama administration as the assistant secretary for housing and as Federal Housing Administration (FHA) commissioner at the Department of Housing and Urban Development from July 2009 to April 2011.
But that doesn’t mean he’s completely onboard with his fellow administration alum.
His résumé reflects dual political loyalties. He’s served every Republican president since Richard Nixon and in 1997 was appointed to a task force by President George W. Bush to help study the best way to overhaul social security.
However, he also advised then-President-Elect Obama as part of the Economic Transition Team in 2008. Parsons did not return attempts for comment.
“I want to focus on candidates who best represent issues of housing and issues important to me and are not extreme, especially on the social issues that are important to me,” he said. Stevens has given $2,700 to Hillary For America and $1,000 to Jeb 2016. He said he has watched with great concern about the increased polarization of both parties.
But at the end of the day, Stevens conceded it’s also about access. “While [Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush] don’t make commitments, obviously, I want to make sure my views are presented to them, because they are considered more center-left or center-right,” he said.
Richard Parsons, the former head of Time Warner and now a senior adviser at Providence Equity Partners Inc., has donated the maximum $2,700 to both the Clinton and Bush presidential campaigns.

James R. Borynack, the owner of Wally Findlay Galleries — is another supporter of both sides, although he prefers to keep a low profile:
“[Borynack] has no detailed comments at this time, other than to support both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush equally as presidential candidates,” a spokeswoman said.
Curiously, another such ambi-supporter is The other is Robert Foresman, head of Barclays’s business in Russia. Foresman’s Russia ties include the state-owned energy company that is one of Putin’s biggest levers against the West. Russia’s state-owned Gazprom provides critical gas to nearly two dozen European countries—and has shut off energy to countries in dispute with Russia. In the early 2000s, Foresman was nominated as a candidate to the board of directors of Gazprom, but was never actually appointed to the board, according to the company’s website.
Some unmasked donors prefer to remain in the shadows: "one Wall Street donor, who asked to remain anonymous because he considered the donation to Hillary “embarrassing,” said he gave money to her Senate race after a bundler friend asked him for a contribution. He noted he asked the bundler friend to donate to a Republican in return."
There are many more such donor,s who like Goldman Sachs are all about "hedging" their bets, and the full list can be found in he original Daily Beast piece, a summary of which is shown below:
... and while none of this will come as a surprise to our readers, it may be a shock to the rest of America.
Or maybe judging by the surging popularity of such anti-establishment candidates as Donald Trump, the realization that the left and the right all serve the same masters, has finally seeped out.
- 28836 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -




because voting matters
(Diet Dew spews from nose)
LOL!
No shiat Sherlock
Yes they are different. Hillary is a cunt and Jeb is bigger cunt.
They are both cunts for the banksters.
If voting mattered, it would be declared a national security risk.
Of course, there is no difference between Jeb and Hillary. They are from the same happy "family"!
George W.: Jeb Could Beat 'Sister-In-Law' Hillary
https://youtu.be/CBOdvNWNz2E
Tyler, this might make an interesting thread: Last night, while combatting a particularly foul-mouthed progressive, we came across this quote from Karl Marx: "Democracy is the road to socialism." Well, add that to Lenin's "the goal of socialism is communism" and you get "democracy leads inexorably towards communism"!!! Now, during at least the first century of its existence, the US gov was NEVER referred to as a democracy. But then, it started creeping into the vernacular right around the time (100 years ago) that the communist party USA, realizing that the word "communist" was toxic, began calling themselves "progressives". So McCarthy was right, we WERE being infiltrated by commies on every level. Take a look at Hollywood, many were/are card-carrying red diaper babies. We have Weather Underground scum in the White House. If Jeb/Hil/Sanders win it is game over not just for the middle class, but anyone who cherishes liberty.
Quick story from Delaware County, PA. Note: this is NOT Philadelphia. This is "the burbs" that are generally solidly conservative or at least Republican.
The Republican party put up a guy by the name of Tom Mullen for the 161st state congressional district. Only thing is, he's a DEMOCRAT. He supported Obama in both his presidential bids and Democrat Tom Wolf when he ran (successfully) for governor in PA in 2014.
Tom is also a union boss. And he said he wouldn't give up his union position (pasying $200K/yr) even if he is elected, which he probably will be.
If you are having trouble getting the concept of "there is do difference between the parties" through your head, perhaps this will help you understand.
Exactly...unbank, don't validate a corrupt system by voting, and spread the word
No more Bushes in the White House including Hillary
No more Bushes in the White House including Hillary
No more Bushes in the White House including Hillary
No more Bushes in the White House including Hillary
No more Bushes in the White House including Hillary
Just say NO to the banksters, and have the courage to keep saying NO.
Jebillry Bushton for President!!!!
Campaign motto: If you liked the last 28 years, your gonna love the next 8!!!
Too true. *Sigh*
The price office rental is going up......
"With the Republicans and the Democrats, it's like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two."
––George C. Wallace, 1968. (Eerstwhile Presidential Candidate, Governor and FIrst Gentleman of Alabama, and inveterate racist who repented in his old age).
and what happened to George?
The votes that matter have mostly been cast already, with a confirmation in January. My contacts back in Iowa say that the establishment wants Bush vs. Clinton, so while I support neither I expect both to win their caucus votes.
I want the Establishment hung by their short 'n curlies.
To give you an idea of how uphill the battle is, the establishment has a fully-equipped call center with a paid supervisor in Story County, where I used to live. When I had to set one up in 2014 for Liberty iowa my budget was $50. Fortunately a friendof mine gave me space in a basement on Main Street.
That said, one positive thing I saw was that it takes only 0.5-1% of the population to 'take over' a major polictical party in terms of internal elections. The votes are on paper and I counted them once; trickery has to be much more overt and is harder to hide. However, in my experience it's like pulling teeth to get the ~50 people our county needed to swing the internal elections, and even then the establishment people will resort to childish actions like cutting the lights or pulling the fire alarms. I guess I would too if people were going after my $200k+ of annual "political consultant" fees.
Welcome to the Fascist Corp/Gov State of America
#votingmatters/sarc
I think Trump called it a business transaction.
Double post
It's just business.
http://albainternazionale.blogspot.it/2015/08/notizie-sulla-vicenda-siri...
Syria and Yemen, US, CIA, Obama etc ... War
$2700?
Yawn. Come back with an article if we're talking real money.
These are the publicly traceable amounts.
Donations to 501(c)4's are not included, and typically are not required to report who donated to them. I know this b/c I volunteered for a 501(c)4; there are plenty of people who would be ruined if they donated to an org, an activist group found out, and then pestered that man's boss or customers. But for ZH the more exciting parts is that plenty of dark money moves through these + super PACs.
I'll bet you a shiny shekel that Saban and Addleson are tossing millions at these shabbos goy turds.
America's rulers are financing two sides of the same coin. So, no matter which one wins, they win too.
We'll get stuck with either Jeb of Hellery. No way would the NWO psychopaths allow anyone but one of those two into that lead acting role.
Trump is clearly leading the pack but he will not get the nomination. They will hand it over to Jeb as planned.
Unless they find a photo of Hellery eating a baby she will get the nom. Otherwise Joe will cover for her but she will still run the show.
Even if Trump goes third party one of the other two will pick up the prize, it was planned that way all along.
The rest is a juvenile Kabuki matinee to entertain the masses to make them think they can affect the outcome.
I got to count the votes for my precinct at the Iowa 2012 caucuses, and something that really surprised me was how much support Romney got even though he did 0 campaigning and had only 1 visible supporter in the three neighborhoods I worked in. Ron Paul's campaign managed to get someone into ~95% of the vote counting stations, so we did confirm the vote independently (IA caucuses are done on paper). Later on, at the conventions, I asked people about it, and a lot were scratching their heads and literally asking "Why did I vote for him? He seemed like a great guy at the time but I wish I voted for someone else."
At least my precinct didn't back him. Not that it matters.
My only thought is media manipulation, they were cramming "But Romney can winnnn!" in our face constantly, along with Santorum as a vote drain from Ron Paul. We saw similar action in the gubernatorial election, where Branstad's main opponent lost because another minor opponent suddenly tripped over a million in donations. The 2014 Senate nomination was the same way; Joni Ernst's main opponent got a nomination from the lieutenant governor for a lesser (but still significant) state position after he generously bowed out of a race he was close to winning.
Keep in mind these were all internal to the poiltical party, done with paper ballots, with the votes confirmed by Liberty people who participated in the vote counting. The corruption, trading elections, trumped up charges against opponents, etc. are all part of a very eleborate show to get people to willingly vote for the 'right' person. My main conspiracy theory is that 'you can't affect the outcome' is another part of the game, because they know that 1-2% of the population could turn the whole show over, so keeping everyone convinced that they shouldn't try is the last-ditch method of preventing said 1-2% of people from taking the concrete actions that would absolutely shut all of them out, or force them to go full retard.
Both will take their orders from the NSA without any questions. So they will be the nominees. The Deep State always wins
There is one difference: Jeb has a pussy and Hillary has a dick. Put them together and we have Caitlyn running (well pretend to run) the country.
"running" or "ruining" the country. One letter makes a big difference.
It makes one wonder: if you are a prominent businessman, and you DON'T give money to all the top candidates, will you make their shit list if one you didn't fund wins? Could this simply be self-preservation on display?
a political hedge, sorta like a calendar spread, but not quite
These are the top donors with a war chest of 100b? Oh ya, corporations are people now...
Two Party Fraud.
They will vote exactly the same anyway.
Let's call these donations what they really are....bribes for future favors.
If the U.S. is ever going to be a no-shit banana republic with street cred, Americans need to start "disappearing" some folks. You can't have healthy civil strife without all sides participating in this important and entertaining activity. Fuck Jesus... What would Saddam do?
we need another idiot like Dick Parsons to pop this bubble, like Time Warner/AOL in 2000...
this guy should be selling insurance after that... instead he's some kind of Uncle Tom business genius? wtf??
Zion's funding of their theater.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
Can I get donations for my guillotine?
At least this tells you who the oligarchy supports. Vote accordingly.
"The only thing dumber than a Democrat or a Republican is when those pricks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this. A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, "I've got a really bad idea." And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, "And I can make it shittier." -Lewis Black
minus one cuz he's a not so funny kike
plus one because he talks like I think.
Read my lips, no new Bushes (or new Clintons either).
Oligarchy for president.
Plutocracy for vice president.
Your vote is useless.
How much proof or arguments pre-programmed US electorate has to be confronted with before they snap out of their torpor.
All politicians are just puppets with oligarch hand up their asses. Take your pick: Clinton or Bush Again? Are we insane?
REPEAT: THERE IS NO CHOICE PRESENTED TO AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR 2016 ELECTIONS BUT CONTINUATION OF OLIGARCHIC STATE AS IT IS NOW, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
US ELECTIONS DO NOT WORK FOR ORDINARY PEOPLE FOR AT LEAST 40 YEARS NOW. THAT'S THE FACT.
Gullibility of most of American people never ceases to amaze me. Time and again, another political ploy, a phony candidate that “hates” establishment that brought him to prominence and undeserved, wealth will save us and leads us to Promised Land, a pledge to be broken as soon as we cast our votes like sheep. What a shit. How many times may we believe in the same political trickery devoid of merit until we are declared insane or retarded?
Only boycott has any political weight or visible expression in this corrupt system. Let them be elect themselves by 10% of population then we could claim that their illegitimacy to rule and demand their departure from political realm.
Whole establishment must go!!!. Let's not prostitute our vote no more!!! Let's not be corrupted this time around. Enough is enough!!!
Neither Trump nor well-mannered Greens or anybody who suck tit of establishment won't make any difference if they run or not.
As Stalin once said. It is not important who's being elected or
who votes for who. What matters is who is counting the votes (Bush-Gore 2000,Bush-Kerry 2004).
For those who still think they can organize and win "their" election. Here is a gem. The fallacy of this sort of democracy is nowhere better illustrated than in case of Italy where for over 30 years after WWII Italian communist party alone or communist/socialist coalition WON EVERY SINGLE NATIONAL ELECTION and was never asked by president to form government resulting in 39 minority governments all under watchful eye of American protectors of democracy and US navy.
Idea of boycott is the only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from the ballots.
It was already successfully done in other countries via establishment shadow or alternative political system with free elections and establishment of institutions that serve people.
I think this just means that Democracy is still in effect in the land of the free. Like a game of roulette they are just hedging their bet by playing both blue and red. The actual outcome of the popularity contest then becomes quite inconsequential.
In the words of a company that benefited modestly from ethanol related mandates in the 90's, Archer Daniels Midland, they funded both parties because they "support the political process". So don't be hatin' on these people. They're goddam patriots.
It's called hedging
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw9EhjyU3JU
Better Headline in my humble opinion: There Is Officially No Difference Between Bush IVth & Clinton IIIth, Whose Biggest Donors Are The Same
Obviously the shit-for-brains who wasted resources on this post does not understand that the outcome of elections is determined by counting the votes of the proletariat entitlement-tit-sucking masses, NOT by donations to election campaigns.