Hillary Clinton Is Backed By Major Republican Donors

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Eric Zuesse,

An analysis of Federal Election Commission records, by TIME, which was published on 23 October 2015, showed that the 2012 donors to Romney’s campaign were already donating more to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign than they had been donating to any one of the 2016 campaigns of (listed here in declining order below  Clinton) Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, or Jim Gilmore. Those major Romney donors also gave a little to two Democrats (other than to Hillary — who, as mentioned, received a lot of donations from these Republican donors): Martin O’Malley, Jim Web, and Lawrence Lessig. (Romney’s donors gave nothing to Bernie Sanders, and nothing to Elizabeth Warren. They don’t want either of those people to become President.)

Clinton is the only Democratic candidate who is even moderately attractive to big Republican donors.

In ascending order above Clinton, Romney’s donors were donating to: John Kasich, Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush. The top trio — of Bush, Cruz, and Rubio — together, received around 60% of all the money donated for the 2016 race by the people who had funded Mitt Romney’s 2012 drive for the White House.

So: the Democrat Hillary Clinton scored above 14 candidates, and below 6 candidates. She was below 6 Republican candidates, and she was above 11 Republican candidates (Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, George Pataki, and Jim Gilmore). The 6 candidates she scored below were: Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, and John Kasich.

This means that, in the entire 17-candidate Republican  field, she drew more Republican money than did any one of 11 of the Republican candidates, but less Republican money than did any one of 6 of them. So, if she were a Republican (in what would then have been an 18-candidate Republican field for 2016), she would have been the 7th-from-the-top recipient of Romney-donor money.

Therefore, to Republican donors, Hillary Clinton is a more attractive prospect for the U.S. Presidency than was 64% of the then-current  17-member Republican field of candidates.

Another way to view this is that, to Republican donors, a President Hillary Clinton was approximately as attractive a Presidential prospect to lead the nation as was a President Graham, or a President Kasich — and was a more attractive prospective President than a President Lindsey Graham, a President Rand Paul, a President Carly Fiorina, a President Chris Christie, a President Rick Perry, a President Mike Huckabee, a President Donald Trump, a President Bobby Jindal, a President Rick Santorum, or a President George Pataki.

To judge from Clinton’s actual record of policy-decisions, and excluding any consideration of her current campaign-rhetoric (which is directed only at Democratic voters), all three of those candidates who were in Clinton’s Republican-donor league — Graham, Clinton, and Kasich — would, indeed, be quite similar, from the perceived self-interest standpoint of the major Republican donors.

As to whether any one of those three candidates as President would be substantially worse for Republican donors than would any one of the Republican big-three — Bush, Cruz, and Rubio — a person can only speculate.

However, the main difference between Clinton and the Republican candidates is certainly the rhetoric, not  the reality. The reason for that Democratic rhetoric is that Ms. Clinton is competing right now only  for Democratic votes, while each one of the Republican candidates is competing right now only  for Republican votes.

Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric is liberal, but her actual actions in politics have been conservative, except for her nominal support for liberal initiatives that attracted even some Republican support, or else that the Senate vote-counts (at the time when she was in the Senate) indicated in-advance had no real chance of becoming passed into law. In other words: her record was one of rhetoric and pretense on a great many issues, and of meaningful action on only issues that wouldn’t embarrass her in a Democratic primary campaign, to attract Democratic voters.

In terms of her actual record in U.S. public office, it’s indistinguishable from that of Republican politicians in terms of corruption, and it’s indistinguishable from Republican politicians in terms of the policies that she carried out as the U.S. Secretary of State for four years. Her record shows her to be clearly a Republican on both matters (notwithstanding that her rhetoric has been to the exact contrary on both matters).

In a general-election contest against the Republican nominee, Clinton would move more toward the ideological center, and so also would any one of the Republican candidates, who would be nominated by Republican primaries and so running against her in the general election, to draw votes from the center as well as from the right. The rhetorical contest would be between a center-right Clinton and a slightly farther-right Republican; but, at present, the rhetorical contest is starkly  different on the Democratic side than it is on the Republican side, simply because the candidates are trying right now to appeal to their own Party’s electorate (Democrats=left; Republicans=right) during the primary phase of the campaign, not addressing themselves now to the entire electorate (as during the general-election campaign).

Only in the general-election contest do all of the major candidates’ rhetoric tend more toward the center. The strategic challenge in the general election is to retain enough appeal to the given nominee’s Party-base so as to draw them to the polls on Election Day, while, at the same time, being close enough to the political center so as to attract independent voters and crossover voters from the other side.

A good example of the fudging that typically occurs during the general-election phase would be the 2012 contest itself. Both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney drew closer to the rhetorical center during the general-election matchup; but they were actually much more similar to each other than their rhetoricever  was. (After all, Obamacare is patterned upon Romneycare.) During the general-election Romney-Obama contest, Romney famously said that Russia "is without question our number one geopolitical foe, they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors.” Then, Obama criticized that statement, by saying, "you don't call Russia our No. 1 enemy -- not Al-Qaida, Russia -- unless you're still stuck in a Cold War mind warp.” But, now, as President, Obama’s own National Security Strategy 2015  refers to Russia on 17 of the 18 occasions where it employs the term “aggression," and he doesn’t refer even once to Saudi Arabia that way, even though the Saudi royal family (who control that country) have been the major funders of Al Qaeda, and though 15 of the 19 perpetrators on 9/11 were Saudis — none of them was Russian — and though 92% of the citizenry in the nation that the Saud family owns and whose ‘news’ media and clerics drum into those people’s heads the holiness of jihad, approve of ISIS (which the Saud family prohibit inside Saudi Arabiua even while supporting and funding the jihadists in Syria and elsewhere), and though the Sauds as the country’s leaders are using American weapons and training to bomb and starve-to-death Yemenis. Instead of calling the Saudi regime “aggressors,” we supply arms to them, and cooperate with them against their major oil-competitor, Russia. (For example, we arm the Saudi-funded jihadists that Russia is bombing in Syria, because Syria is a key potential pipeline route into Europe for Saudi oil and Qatari gas, to replace Russian oil and gas in Europe. So, we support the jihadists, even though Obama’s rhetoric opposes them — and even though Obama killed Osama bin Laden, whose Al Qaeda was funded mainly by the Saud family and their friends. Hillary Clinton is even more hawkish against Russia than is Obama. She would be even better for Republican donors than Obama has been.)

Also regarding such fudging: on 27 March 2009, President Obama in secret told the assembled chieftains of Wall Street, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. … I’m protecting you.” Romney could have said the same, if he had been elected. And President Obama’s record has now made clear that he indeed has fulfilled on that promise he made secretly to them. The reality turned out to be far more like Romney, than like Obama’s campaign rhetoric had ever been. Similarly, on Obama’s trade-deals (TPP, TTIP, and TISA), he has been very much what would have been expected from Romney, though Obama in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primaries had campaigned against Hillary Clinton for her having supported and helped to pass NAFTA. Obama’s trade-deals go even beyond NAFTA, to benefit international mega-corporations, at the general public’s expense.

What Hillary’s fairly strong appeal to Romney’s financial backers shows is that the wealthy, because of their access to leaders in government, know and recognize the difference between what a candidate says in public, versus what the winning public official has said to them (in private) and actually does  while serving in office. They know that she keeps her promises to them, not  her promises to the electorate.

Hillary Clinton is a good investment for a billionaire — even  for the 70% of them who are Republicans. And, based on those 2015 donation-figures, it seems that they would prefer a President Hillary Clinton, over a President Donald Trump. However, their three favorite candidates, in order, were: Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. But, in a Clinton-versus-Trump contest, Hillary Clinton would likely draw more money from Republican mega-donors than Trump would, and, of course, she would draw virtually all of the money from Democratic mega-donors.

In such an instance, Hillary Clinton would probably draw a larger campaign-chest (especially considering super-pacs) than any candidate for any political office in U.S. (or global) history. Hillary Clinton would almost certainly be the most-heavily-marketed political product in history, if she becomes nominated and ends up running against Trump.

*  *  *

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ebworthen's picture

Well that fuckin' figures.

Death to the establishment!

Ignatius's picture

<--- Not surprised, (didn't blink)

<--- Not surprised

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) Ignatius Feb 22, 2016 11:38 PM

Hillary and the Banksters are assholes; yet, they are the best of natural selection. Niceness is as unnatural and fantastical as a unicorn shitting skittles.

"Think about it. We all start out the same way... a single sperm among 50 million other sperm, all desperate to get to one egg. To win. You, me, everyone else on the planet ever in history, we all won that 100-meter in-utero, winner-take-all race to mama's enchanted, life-giving egg. First prize? Life? Second prize? Death. Right. Now, you think we weren't throwing a few elbows? You think you weren't knocking a few other sperm over, stabbing 'em in the back just to get ahead, just to win? Thom, you don't win that kind of race without being an asshole. I mean, a huge asshole. Your problem is you think that assholes are some sort of anomaly, some sort of aberration. Nature is an asshole factory, my friend. If you exist, you're an asshole. You think, therefore you are, but you are, therefore you're an asshole."
Happyish (Showtime, 2015) - Nature is an asshole making factory

DownWithYogaPants's picture

The author of this article wrote a book whose premise is the economy does better under democrats than republicans.  

That should make one skeptical under various theoretical frameworks I have seen explained here in the comment section of ZH.

Another one whose words I have to take as those coming from an enemies mouth for me to be highly skeptical of.

Just vote for Trump and be done with it.  If for no other reason than I want to be entertained by the establishment types twisting on a pike and set up on them in a most unconventional way.

tarsubil's picture

They've been publishing a lot of Zeusse lately right? He's a crappy writer in search of an audience. I got played by this whore!

Keyser's picture

It really doesn't matter any more... The fix is in, the bitch on the broom will be the first female POTUS of the United States... 


wee-weed up's picture

The "good-ol-boy" GOP and RNC and terrified of Trump.

Mr. Universe's picture

When there are only two bets to be made it's easy to cover all the numbers.

Occident Mortal's picture

I'm sure Trump will have a whole team of guys digging through Hilary's past.

Skeletons galore, plus where are the FBI?

VinceFostersGhost's picture



Some of the finest marxists I know are republicans.


And we all love Marco!


We don't need no freakin /sarc badges!!!

nmewn's picture

Filthy fucking marxist vermin have invaded every nook & cranny of everything.

"If I pay you will you keep me safe from da eeebil muslims?"

Oh yes, no problem.

"If I support your candidacy will you heep so many regulatory burdens on my competitors that it drives them out of business leaving me with a monopoly?"

Yes, without a doubt. How much we talkin?

"At least a million but I'll make billions being the sole provider of my products & services and you can tax me at whatever outrageous rates you want for your coffers as I'll just pass that increase on to them."

Sounds like a plan. Soon they will all be dependent on us instead of we being dependent on them.

"But this is starting to feel wrong, almost traitorous."

No problem, we can pass laws that lock people away in jail cells who oppose us.

"No. I meant what we're doing."

mtl4's picture

<-------- Revolution

<---------Sweeping government change


When it becomes this obvious the game is rigged and the public wants out there's only 2 options..........

Given how it's worked out historically I'm thinking we're headed down the second path.

Richard Chesler's picture

Corrupt bitch is for sale to the highest bidder. Come and get it!


Kissy Ass's picture

As always the ZHeeple are being herded down into the shoot that leads to the Trump slaughterhouse.

Bread and circus. You dumb fucks just don't get it.

It's time to start taking action against the jews who are perverting this country!

Banksters, politicos, mediafucks. Find one and sKill it, post the event on jewtube. Bonus points for embedded moooosad and idf.

Donald J. Trump's picture

Will dhe be able to use the money for her defense team or will it be taxpayer funded.

The9thDoctor's picture

This article was totally pointless. Hillary Clinton is unelectable. She has virtually no grassroots support. They all "feel the Bern". She has super-delegates in the bag and the fix is in. The only way she could beat Trump in the general election is through vote fraud.

wee-weed up's picture



"The only way she could beat Trump in the general election is through vote fraud."


Otrader's picture

Hillary will still have the black, hispanic, 1/2 whites, muslim and jewish votes.  You have ~70 million people on gov't assistance and they probably vote dem.  Now, we find out the big $$ republicans are supporting her, too.   Sheesh. 

Mr. Universe's picture

Prediction; Hillary wins Ca in a landslide. In fact I guarantee you won't believe the results across the nation. It will be a mandate for Hillary. Even the Donald will bow to her superior political machine, if he's alive that is. A call to audit the Fed Donald? Really, now it just sounds like more snake oil.

Twee Surgeon's picture

Yes, while we are sleeping, Hillary is working tirelessly, that's why her ankles are swolen, but not just for us but for the halfwit's, illegals and  fucktard people too, reach out and embrace the cankle.



doctor10's picture

Old Hillary will have 110% + of Washington DC behind her-if you get my drift

Just enough to make it work

The D will have to get out numbers UNHEARD of nationwide to counter the powers-that-be. They've spent 8 years consolidating their mess.

detached.amusement's picture

You spelled electoral fraud wrong

jeff montanye's picture

long live is right.  if hillary is nominated trump better pick bernie sanders or ron paul as his v.p. (or similarly elite-hated mind and values in a younger maybe cyborg body).

beware of "lyndon johnson".

r0mulus's picture

Zeusse is a really good writer actually, one of my favorites to see here on the Hedge. This piece was fantastic. What part of Hillary being another Manchurian Banking Candidate Democrat, like Obama, do you seriously doubt?

BigJim's picture

The man can barely assemble a sentence... but I agree, some of his content is good.

BarkingCat's picture

So the old cunt is a Republican in disguise??

Let's examine that on a few of topics.


1) Gun control

2) Regulatory burden

3) Taxation


Just because she likes to bomb other countries does not make her a Republican.

In reality it is the Democrats that started majority of wars since the 20th Century.

Obama is a good example.

.....and if will try to tell me that Obama is a statistical anomaly, the you will have to explain WW1, WW2 and Vietnam.

r0mulus's picture

Did not say she was a Republican- just that she is a Manchurian Banking Candidate Democrat.

Sure shes for gun control, but, that is just an appeal for her base, like religious affiliation sometimes affects willingness of repubs to vote for a particular candidate. Banks don't really care about gun control either way as more gun control means the citizenry will be less able to defend themselves against the central government (and ultimately, from the banks themselves). Less gun control is just a profit opportunity for the banks.

Yea she is for more regulatory burden, but regulatory regimes favor large firms that are able to afford the costs of oversight, so regulation is a net give away to large corporations and the legal system. Banks like that. Centralization is their game, after all.

Shes definitely in favor of taxation, but only so can spend as wildly as the rest of them. Republican presidents spend like their is no tomorrow as well, only, they do it without raising taxes to pay for it (Reagan, Bush I and II). Banks are cool with either as they have strategies to benefit from both, either by speculating or by passing the costs along to consumers.

Shes definitely not a "Republican" when viewed through the lense of the issues you speak of, but luckily, for the banks, they don't really care about any of that shit- they just care that their monetary paradigm is protected in full by the full powers of the USA and it's armed forces. Hillary will guarantee that for them. As far as deep state monetary powers go, shes in bed with the banksters 110%.

sessinpo's picture

DownWithYogaPants     Just vote for Trump and be done with it. If for no other reason than I want to be entertained by the establishment types twisting on a pike and set up on them in a most unconventional way.


You  still haven't figured out that Trump is part of the establishment. The anti backing of other billionaires is simply billionaires in competition. Pretty much the real reason that Bloomberg is considering a run. For them, ideology and values is whatever is good for them. They are all progressives and quite frankly, many on ZH that think whoever becomes president is gonna use government to fix things are also progressive.

The problem is bigger then the presidency. The entire system is corrupt and must be reset. We need not only a purge of the politicians, but a purge of those that support that type of thinking. We need more people to understand that government is the problem and the solution won't come from someone in office in government.


BarkingCat's picture

and you have not figured out that most no longer care.

They are not looking for Trump to save anything. Not really.

They are looking for Trump to give these old political hacks nightmares and strokes.

They like people they can control. They cannot control him.



Jeffersonian Liberal's picture


They have quite a game going. If the "economy" has done better under Dims than under Reps, it is because the propagandists point an Alinsky finger at the Reps as being representative of Capitalism (evil), Corporations (evil), the establishment (evil), and the status quo (evil), condemning all of it as EVIL.

Meanwhile, we haven't had a truly free market since before 1913, when a private cartel of bankers stole our freedom from us in a secret meeting on Jekyll Island.

Once you give someone else control of the value you use as the medium of exchange for "private contracts," an involuntary and third "silent partner" enters into every "private contract between two people" and you leave the basic framework of the free market. That third party is the controlling partner because they control the ultimate satisfaction of the exchange between the other two.

If there is truth to this hack's proposition, it would make perfect sense.

Central banking -- although the left lumps it in with "banking" as the epitome of greedy capitalism -- is a fascistic form of banking. The Dims tend to be more collectivist, more totalitarian, more socialist/communist/fascist, so of course the central bank prefers to have their "own kind" running the show.

What this hack is stating but is either too dim or too propagandist to admit is that the central bank (the Federal Reserve) want Dims to be in control. When they are, the Fed greases the financial skids to pump the markets. This gives the appearance of an improved "economy," but it has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with monetary tricks and manipulation to create the appearance of an improved "economy."

Anyone who studies national debt and its exponential factor and how it ultimately results in war knows this:

The Dims, colluding with both a fascistic central bank and Crony Corporatists are leading this country not only straight into economic hell, but into what will prove to be a very nasty world war, which has already started, regardless of the lies the fascistic media keeps pumping out through the loud speakers.

When that day comes, this hack will know that the entire world knows he was a lying POS and part of the downfall.


noless's picture

I love that you can still take "I think therefore I am" as a universal axiom.


The new reality says that there is no objective truth, even when the choice is a few bullets in the mouth avoided only to state that it would kill you to accept the trigger pull.

StackShinyStuff's picture

I guess it depends on how much of either your father or mother you got.  The egg certainly wasn't throwing any elbows, it was just hanging out waiting.  In any case it would seem that inside of every nice person you meet, there is an asshole trying to get out.

tarsubil's picture

This tells you everything you need to know about the Republican party. The elections are total shams.

wee-weed up's picture

I think Bernie might say the same about the Dim Party.

HowdyDoody's picture

It tells you the the US is a one-party state. The Red-Blue, Repub-Dem dichotomies are classic divide and conquer, and a distraction from the men behind the curtain. And it works, even with the so-sophisticated ZH readership. Tylers even play their part in maintaining the sham.

Otrader's picture

Remember the last spending Bill?  Total sellouts!

BennyBoy's picture

It's one party pretending to be 2: The Greed Party

Himins's picture

(didn't blink)
My favorite comment of the month 

GUS100CORRINA's picture

Everyone should stop and think about this for just a minute. Who better face a republican candidate that Hillary Clinton? Why? Because Hillary Clinton will get slaughtered in the election and a Republican will be president. There is more to this than meets the eye. Berrnie Sanders is more of a threat than Hillary. So ... let's put the loser lady who will soon be in prison to run against a republican and get slaughtered.

GUS100CORRINA's picture

Everyone should stop and think about this for just a minute. Who better face a republican candidate that Hillary Clinton? Why? Because Hillary Clinton will get slaughtered in the election and a Republican will be president. There is more to this than meets the eye. Berrnie Sanders is more of a threat than Hillary. So ... let's put the loser lady who will soon be in prison to run against a republican and get slaughtered.

Thoresen's picture

So whose finger is best on the nuclear button?
Trump or Clinton?
Is either less risky than Obama???

Sandmann's picture

Doesn't matter. Things are moving full steam ahead. 5000 tonnes munitions arrived in Germany from US stockpiles. Maybe Turkey will run out or maybe it has given its stockpiles to Daesh already.

War will have broken out before Obama leaves office in 2017

Skip's picture

ebworthen said: "Death to the establishment!"
The J-Tribe runs both parties, owns and operates the media, .gov and EVERYTHING else!

To understand how this happened to America, Europe and Australia it is all explained here:
Review of 'The Culture of Critique' Dr Kevin MacDonald's masterpiece.
Preface to the First Paperback Edition of 'The Culture of Critique' PDF
Preface to the First Paperback Edition of 'The Culture of Critique' HTML

New Name For GOP: ‘Donorist’ Good. ‘AdelZuck’ Better
By Patrick Cleburne October 25, 2015

But on reflection I think the name invented by our Talk Radio Listener after the cash-dominated North Carolina primaries last year is better:
The AdelZuck party.

In earlier decades, when large donor influence was not merely concerned with seeking squalid commercial advantages, it was devoted to bolstering the party’s stance on issues with which large elements of the base were in fact sympathetic: firm anti-Communism, for instance, reinforcing various aspects of the Christian ethos in society, even hostility to Trade Unions.

The present spenders, however, intend precisely the reverse, as very clearly demonstrated in the 2012 election: Why Did Romney Wimp Out on Chick-fil-A? Follow The Money. After the election I asked Did Jewish GOP Donors Buy Romney`s Immigration Wimp-Out? (The answer appears to be yes).

My view is that every penny Sheldon Adelson spent in 2012 was devoted not to electing a particular President but to preventing the emergence of the GOP as the Generic American Party. He succeeded.

And the pattern has only intensified since as James Fulford noted last year in POLITICO: Paul Singer, Plutocrats Plot To Buy GOP. Do They Think It Comes With Voters? And as I observed this year in Why Was The Republican Jewish Coalition’s Adelson Primary So Secretive?

If these people, like the British aristocracy a century ago, had in their own way the best interests of their countrymen at heart, the issue would not be so alarming.

But they in fact do not believe that “Americans” exist.

retiringteach's picture

scum - you only exist to serve

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) Feb 22, 2016 11:05 PM

She must be ok then. Them bankers have good hearts.


noless's picture

Huh, it's almost like a lot of Republicans are party shills for the Fed, who would have guessed?


National security reasons I'm sure, their never used vacation homes won't wax themselves.

The Saint's picture
The Saint (not verified) Feb 22, 2016 11:13 PM

Hillary for dog catcher 2016!

Ignatius's picture

Sorry, I'm against dog rendition, dog torture and unjustified wars of aggression against dogs.