The Left’s favorite bank
What do Jesse Jackson, ACORN, La Raza, Hank Paulson, and the enviro-lobby have in common?
Citibank.
Matthew Vadum has the lowdown.
Hat tip: Stacy McCain.
***
Four major banks, including one that collapsed, two that received federal bailout money and one that filed for bankruptcy this past September, paid former President Clinton $2.1 million for 13 speeches he delivered on their behalf between 2004-2007, according to Senate financial disclosure statements filed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Citigroup paid Bill Clinton $700,000; Goldman Sachs paid $950,000; Lehman Brothers paid $300,000 and Merrill Lynch paid $175,000 to the former president for speeches during that time period. Sen. Clinton’s 2008 financial disclosure reports are not yet available.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Shocker: Citigroup A Major Supporter of Liberal Causes « Jane Q. Republican
- Will This Ethical Congress Hold Fellow Liberals Accountable For The Citigroup Failure? « The Forum
- Fun With Turkey « Countenance Blog
- The Left’s favorite bank « Top Daily Digest Reading
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: ACORN Watch, Subprime crisis
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
Irresponsible spending of other peoples money? No wonder Leftists flock to Citibank. They’ve found a kindred soul.
I knew there had to be a reason for the abrasive treatment of the big-3 auto makers for 25 billion while at the same time barely blinking to approve 300+ billion to Citi.
As they say, “just follow the money”.
No…All companies donate to both sides of political spectrum…Washington insiders are their bread and butter winners. If not, our republican non-conservative President and his appointees would not have bailed out Citibank.
That says it all.
I am really beginning to dislike the loony left.
Somebody had a good idea when he suggested a condition of a bail-out is a breakup of these mega corporations to remove the excuse of them being “too big to fail”
I can remember when the “BIG 3″ auto manufacturers were about 12 seperate entities and banks could not operate in more than one state.
Any business that has two dimes to rub together is open to a shakedown by the Left, due to our dysfunctional courts. With routine demonization of corporations, they’re left with little choice but to play along, and this lets all sorts of moonbat wankers into their ranks.
The second-last domestic terrorist attack was in Oklahoma.
The last domestic terrorist attack was in New York and Washington DC.
The way things are going, the next one will emanate from Oklahoma and be directed toward New York and Washington DC.
I’m not sayin’, of course. Just speculating about if/when the Moronic Masses ever reach Critical Mass and it thus becomes pitchfork time.
Property damage only, no injuries.
Acorn, La Raza, Nature Conservancy, – where’s the donation to AlohaGuyNuttyCauses?
Too left to fail is exactly right.
So Paulson’s favorite little hobbby, the Nature Conservancy gets money from Citi, then they come begging for a handout and the man with the money doles out the equivalent of $1000 per man, woman and child in America to them. And their CEO goes home to one of his many million dollar mansions and sleeps better. Nice. What’s the Mafia’s phone number – isn’t the government supposed to get competitive bids?
Citigroup is now a government welfare recipient.
David Byrne was phrophetic…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2TyF1CbsDs
Change the “C” to “Sh” in Citi Bank.
For years, Citi has been sending me junk mail encouraging me to get one of their MasterCards. No thanks – the interest rates were as high as 19.8%!
Yup, it’s Bill Clinton secretly running the country while George Bush pretends. Bill decided to bail out Citi but not Lehman. You get a Democrat running the country even if you vote Republican. Time to move to . . . gee, is there a more conservative country?
lgm,
If we find one will you promise to leave? Will you just leave anyway?
yeah bush fits that descrition to a T
No hearings. Midnight hour. I bet Chiti Bank bigshots all have jets as well.
LGM, Who is running congress again? I forget…
I agree that libtards are running congress…but unfortunately this was engineered by republican White House and of course Paulson….Blame lies on not so conservative Bush for starting the whole bailout trend beginning with AIG.
Liberalism kills.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s “Democrat” or “Republican”.
I agree, but LGM was ignoring at least half the picture.
I’ve always wondered why anyone in their right mind would pay Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak. It surely can’t be for the speech itself.
Citibank has a leftist agenda?
Give me a break. Their agenda is to increase profits. That’s it.
sonofdy said:
The Bush administration was supposed to decide which banks to bail out. Maybe they actually decided to save Citibank but not Lehman. Maybe they called Bill Clinton for instructions. Whether of not they called him, the decision was his fault.
Sorry bluesoc – the Citibank agenda is to privatize the profits and have taxpayers assume the risk.
I bet if someone digs deeper more ties will be found.
Gee lgm, you’re carrying on like George Bush was a conservative or something. Let’s face it, other than preventing another terrorist attack on America, George Bush was the best president the Democrats have been able to come up with.
He started a war in a foreign land with out adequately proving how it protected vital US Interests (Just like Truman, Kennedy and Clinton), allowed congress to go on spending like a bunch of drunken sailors just like Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bush 1, and Clinton (until Newt hammered congress into shape) and gave the Democrats free reign to completely destroy the financial markets just a few weeks prior to election destroying “his parties” chances to win.
Come on! Why do you think the Democrats ran such unelectable morons against him?
Don’t forget that Citibank and Bank of America were asked by the feds to stop issuing credit cards, which could be used as ID credentials for further chicanery, to illegals. Both banks refused.
I have decided against tar and feathers.
The Roman technique of decimation is probably the way to go.
::Stokes fire under the Brazen Bull::
Well it seems that the Dem’s might love Citibank, but the Republicans loved taking their money as well. According to information here, the split of Senate and House Seats with concerns to money donated was 54% D to 46% R in the 2008 cycle.
If you look at the 2006 Election Cycle, it was 68% R to 31% D.
Including Bobby Jindal and John McCain.
John McCain
Barack Obama
These lists look very similiar to me. Can you find the connection?
The only connection between the two lists is that you posted them.
Only Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citigroup are similar, however of the three, they donated nearly 2 1/2 times more money to Obama as they did McCain.
Also, while all of McCain’s Top 5 Contributors are private corporations, only 60% of Obama’s are. The University of California is a public institution which donated nearly a million dollars of tuition fees and tax payers money.
Moreover Obama received 2.25 times more money from his top 5 than McCain did, yet Obama only got 1% more votes than George W. Bush did.
If you couple that with the fact that exit polls show that people who voted for Obama were overwhelmingly ignorant of everything to do with the election process and their candidate I’d say that there’s been some snake oil sold.
And Hillary is now going to run State!?
Totally corrupt. They are all totally corrupt. I can almost see giving to both parties, but to Bill personally–this is a bribe.
@PKAmmoTroop
You took the words right out of my mouth.
And let’s not forget the deep Citibank-Robert Rubin ties to ENRON … remember them?
Oops .. link for the Rubin-Enron connection:
http://www.slate.com/id/2060712/
Thank you, PKAT, for using hard numbers to dispel the Obama fantasy of some liberals!
On November 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pm, lgm said:
Check back in 2010, I think we’ll have the answer for you then, but be forewarned: I don’t you liberals will like it. We’re (Republicans) counting on you guys to over-reach and so far, you’re off to a great start!
Nutz! I don’t [believe] you liberals will like it.
#29 my feeling is that colleges have no business funding political campaigns, and i hope their alumns take note of just what big spenders they are with opm. likewise there was a big difference in amounts from r to d.
PKAmmoTroop said (#24):
In 2000 and 2004, conservatives chose the President, they chose Bush. That may not make Bush a conservative, but it shows that conservatives can have bad judgment.
Silkyinfamous (#29): Those companies did not contribute those amounts. It was people working there. Harvard University itself did not contribute to Obama, it was people working at Harvard.
lgm, your premise is that people at harvard each gave 250 bucks to a club and then it was donated to obama by harvard acting as the holder of the funds. what a crock. what moron wouldn’t want to take that contribution as a deduction if it was truly an individual thing. and according to campaign finance rules, the people and the amounts would have to be recorded and checked to see they didn’t violate rules. it was harvard university which made the contribution. just as it was citibank, goldman sachs, et al who made the contribution.
cheapseat (#40)
Political contributions are not deductible. When you contribute, law requires that you give your name and employer, and that candidates make their donor lists public. It’s easy (with a computer) to go through Obama’s million donors and add up the amounts given by people who work at Harvard. The University itself, as a charitable institution, is forbidden from making political contributions.
Ummm negative Ghost Rider. The American People chose George Bush because the Democrats decided to run absolute idiots against him.
Had you “people” had the guts to run Zell Miller you’d have had the white house 8 years ago.
And keep in mind, Obama only received 1% more of the vote than George Bush.
I bet you can’t sleep knowing that.