February 11, 2016

Greenpeace Joins Sanders In Attacking Clinton’s Big Money Donors

After Clinton’s devastating loss in New Hampshire, the last thing she needs is more troubles on her left flank. Yet that’s exactly what she’s getting today from Greenpeace, who like Bernie Sanders, is taking her to task over her campaign donors.

While Bernie Sanders focuses on the tens of millions Clinton has received from Wall Street, Greenpeace focuses on her fossil fuel industry donations, noting that:

“11 registered lobbyists from the oil and gas industry bundled more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton. This does not include contributions to the Clinton campaign made by 37 other oil and gas lobbyists or nearly $160,000 in direct donations received from oil and gas employees.”

Greenpeace also joins Elizabeth Warren in saying that Clinton’s financial ties to industries she claims to oppose compromises her ability to act. Greenpeace faults Clinton for not offering “proof behind her words”:

“It is clear that Secretary Clinton cares about this issue of campaign finance and climate change. What we’re missing from Clinton is the proof behind her words. Clinton recently responded to an audience question about whether she would stop taking money from fossil fuel lobbyists, she responded that she would ‘stop fossil fuels which is much better.‘ Stopping fossil fuels sounds sounds great! But seems like that would be pretty hard to do if you’re still receiving mountains of campaign contributions, right? Clinton can start making the real change in our democracy starting with her very own campaign.”

Greenpeace’s criticism of Clinton should come as no surprise. According to The New Republic, when the League of Conservation Voters Action Fund endorsed Clinton they faced so much backlash they had to write a post defending their decision.

Environmentalists come to the same conclusion as every other group that looks at Clinton’s record: Clinton is a politician who will say or do anything to further her own interests:

“Why are they nervous? It mainly comes down to Clinton’s history and connections. In the past, she supported some of the same policies she’s now against. As secretary of state, she said she was ‘inclined‘ to approve the Keystone XL pipeline permit. As a senator, she once took a different view of offshore drilling, as well, voting with Republicans (pre-BP disaster) to pass a bill that opened up 8 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to offshore drilling.”