Skip to main content

Is Jill Stein a corporate shill?


Does Jill Stein really represent big corporations rather than the general population? Is she a corporate plant as implied by Daily Kos and others?

Well no, that would be quite a stretch:

At least, she did not get money from super PACS, which is probably what most people think of when they hear that. Stein had a few corporate supporters, yes, though amounts Stein received from them were relatively small. We will get to that in a minute.  Nevertheless, people keep referring to the article, presumably as proof that Jill is a liar and thief.

But look a little closer. 

But look a little closer. 

One of the most outlandish accusations  against Jill to date, is that she has somehow become a corporate shill.  Not so. You can check the record for yourself at open secrets:

Roughly twenty corporations/companies supported her with amounts ranging from $3,700 to 44,000.  

The total amount that Jill Stein raised for the election was $3.7 million plus change, a tiny fraction of what other main contenders spent or raised. Her total PAC contributions were zero! Read my lips: She took zero dollars from  super PACS!  And let's face it: The reality of American politics is that, if you are going to run, you have to get money from someone. 

As for Jill,  $2,100,504 (basically $2 million) of what she raised was from small contributions.  Large individual contributions amounted to only $1,119,095 total or about a million dollars in round numbers. Yes, I am rounding off. Again, a little over $-one million from large donors. And as was widely publicized, her campaign refused individual contributions larger than $500, beginning at some point in her campaign. A great source for the details is Be sure to compare the candidates while you are there.

Probably because they could find nothing to criticize in her fundraising campaigns, critics have turned to eyeing the contents of Stein and her husband's personal savings portfolios.  They are criticizing her retirement funds if you will, as if she had no right to manage her personal finances, nor advice by financial advisers, or a husband with a say in the family fortunes. The assumption is that having a portfolio proved she was not sincere in her desire to clean up corporate corruption, banking blackmail,  or environmental destruction.

In the infamous, Aug 06, 2016  article mentioned above, Daily Kos proffered, “the top five (Stein) donations  are from corporate interests,” as if that were proof of fraud.  They cited data on the web page of Vote Smart, that showed her ten top donators giving more or less $120,000. 

Now contrast that $120,000 with the $79-million that a single super PAC raised for Obama’s race in 2012 ( 

Incidentally, zero super PAC contributions are attributed to Jill Stein, while Hillary Clinton’s top ten donors gave more or less $90 million. 

And yet Stein’s opponents are dinging her for mere $-thousands from a handful of corporations, while ALL of Clinton’s top ten gave $-millions, amounts ranging  from the Carpenters and Joiners Union’s  $5,005,954 (that's $-millions, folks!) and up to Paloma Partners $21,613,800 (That's $21-million, people!) We have not even gotten into so-called "Dark Money" yet.  Nevertheless, the Daily Kos had the nerve to print the words “Jill Stein is a fraud.” Really? Interesting that no one has sued her as such. Perhaps the real frauds are those attacking her out of spite. 

Hopefully you agree that this was a classical case of picking a gnat out of one’s neighbor’s eye when there is a huge splinter in his own eyeball. Daily Kos should have gotten something worthwhile to write about. But actually, the Kos Might have inadvertently raised a good point, or raised it an quickly moved on: The financing of our national elections is a national disgrace. 

But since some readers will undoubtedly be concerned that Jill Stein is really the pet of corporate donors, perhaps they should open the following link about Clinton’s richest donors. 

 Cheers. FEL 

#politics #JillStein #fraud #corporatepower


Popular posts from this blog

8 Facts About the Circle of Fifths that you May Not Already Know

I love all child refugees but … where will the money come from? Part III

Quote from a Facebook friend: “Much as my heart breaks for the children who want to come here because circumstances are better … circumstances will not be better here if we allow more people to live here than we can afford to support.” So says one of my Facebook friends.

Green Party is not red, is not blue, is not the oligarchy.

Green  (Is not  Red   is not   Blue ) Kennewick, Washington  Political Opinion By Frank Ellsworth Lockwood Some people have been pushing the notion that if you are a member of the Green Party you should vote for a Democratic, but there is another side to this argument. If you are a Green, then you are no more a Democrat than a Republican is. Green is for things that the Red and Blue oppose: While Green Party is for peaceful coexistence, Republicans and Democrats have supported wars-for-profit for all of my life. (I am 75; they will not be changing any time soon.) Green is for live and let live, while Red and Blue are about greed and conniving, and this is no exaggeration when both of the above have always supported the overthrow of democratically elected socialist governments, replacing them with puppet governments, dictators and tyrants who practiced suppression-for-profit. Green is for racial and economic equality as well as for recognition of tribal rights. Our 2016 Pre