Hillary Clinton continues to fundraise with fracking investors, despite her assertion Sunday that she would largely curtail fracking inside the U.S.
Fracking is a controversial mining technique used to extract natural gas from shale rock. It releases vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere and groundwater, frequently poisoning the water supply of nearby communities.
On Wednesday, the Clinton campaign was to hold a $575-a-head fundraising lunch at a Ritz-Carlton Hotel on the Northern California coast hosted by Alisa Wood, a partner at the international private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR).
In 2009, KKR began heavily investing in fracking, purchasing large shares of three North American oil and gas companies, and selling two of them for billions in profits. The third was hit hard by plummeting gas prices, and declared bankruptcy last year. But KKR was not deterred, and still owns a large portfolio of small fossil fuel companies, at least two of which — Cinco Industries and Comstock Resources — use fracking.
During the Democratic debate Sunday night, a student at the University of Michigan asked both candidates whether they supported fracking.
Clinton said she did, but with three big caveats:
“You know, I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — number three — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using. So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.”
When asked the same question, Sanders said, “My answer — my answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.”
In July, Bernie Sanders and former presidential candidate Martin O’Malley pledged not to accept donations from fossil fuel companies. Clinton did not sign the pledge.
Many of Clinton’s largest fundraisers are lobbyists for oil and gas corporations. Some of her largest contribution bundlers are lobbyists representing Chevron, Cheniere Energy, and TransCanada — all companies that use fracking.
Prior to announcing her candidacy, Clinton also received $990,000 for speeches she made to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce — a heavy investor in TransCanada and the Keystone XL pipeline.
After a rally in Iowa last December, Clinton claimed to be unaware she ever received donations from fossil fuel companies. “Well, I don’t know that I ever have. I’m not exactly one of their favorites,” she said. “Have I? OK, well, I’ll check on that. They certainly haven’t made that much of an impression on me if I don’t even know it.”
An investigation by Mother Jones found that Hillary Clinton personally lobbied for U.S. fracking rights overseas as secretary of state. Speaking at a 2010 conference of foreign ministers, Clinton said, “I know that in some places [it] is controversial, but [shale] gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available for power today.”
Correction: March 10, 2016
An earlier version of this story reported that Clinton herself would attend the fundraising lunch; in fact, the guest of honor was Ruth Porat, the CFO of Alphabet.
Top photo: Hillary Clinton speaks during Sunday night’s debate.
Thank you.
Looks like Hilary will jump on any bandwagon and group to get votes. Also, she looks and acts very desperate, not surprising based on both her and ‘Slick-Willy’ Clinton crime history even though not yet fully brought forth and apparently blocked by the powers that be (i.e. NWP++) based on my personal experience of sharing a YouTube documentary video about Clinton and his acts, when governor and President, that was surprisingly removed. Something is not right with the Clintons and possibly others are owned and being paid off in some way to continue some self-serving agenda. Just my observation.
Hillary obviously doesn’t take Climate Change seriously – or the future of our planet and everything we care about.
Of course she wants to regulate fracking. How else will she be able to shake them down?
Next up: Hillary believes she has never committed any crime. Hillary believes she should not have to be forthcoming about donations to the Clinton foundation. Hillary believes she should not be forthright about paid ‘speeches.’
Thanks for reporting this, but color me unsuprised.
The industry doesn’t seem too worried that her opposition to the practice is genuine:
“‘Hillary’s comments were actually very carefully worded in such a way that zero fracking operations would be affected. Every place except Denton that has passed a bill to ban fracking has no fracking, like New York State,’ he said.”
http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2016/03/from-last-nights-debate-a-president-hillary-clinton-would-kill-most-fracking-in-texas-and-the-us.html/
“Hillary Clinton Wants to Regulate Fracking …” …
… CORRECTION …
“Hillary Clinton SAYS She Wants to Regulate Fracking …” …
Hellary’s lal (lies, all lies)
Would that regulation include making fracking companies comply with the Clean Water Act? – as Dick Cheney insured that they were exempted so many years ago.
I still believe that Bernie Sanders is the right candidate to defeat Clinton but…..I say this with all due respect -to defeat her machine he needs to grow a pair and attack her directly on this issue.
“Sec Clinton, while average Americans were having a quick lunch at their desk, you just held a $575 per person fundraiser at a Ritz-Carlton hotel with billionaires from KKR who own substantial fracking interests. Do you think this shows the voters of this country you’re on their side?”
He needs to do this every single time she has one of these fundraisers. Hell, issue a press release. Start his stump speeches with it. Write op-eds. Hammer her mercilessly on them. It’s not smearing her, these are facts. Facts that our soundbite-worn public won’t even think about until you tell them 1,000 times.
It is the heart of his campaign. Yes he’s a gentleman and I admire that greatly but the Clinton campaign is exploiting this gentlemanliness, and rubbing it in his face. I say take the gloves off.
I think more articulately; whens the ugly truth rears it’s head : the Lesser of two evils : I think of the Billy Joel song a lot when I watch this Woman who will quite likely be our next US President..You know what they say about a Woman Scorned right ?
“she’ll helplessly cut you and laugh while you’re Bleedin…”
Listen to this : this is a woman can straight out lie on National television in a straight out debate that seemed civil.
She accepts money from donors that are at least as bad as any Repulican; from Wall Street and from HYDROFRACKING Companies…, thi is a woman who was cheated on and had herself embrarrased Nationally on television by a Man who ended more Regulation and started more Welfare for the Rich by deregulating and aiding in the deregulation of Banks and Wall street……And they want to give her the Nuclear codes ?
You can see She lies with a twitch; YOU CAN SEE it in her face !!!!!!
She quite interestingly jumps on all that is leftist and true; and she calls out the Koch Brothers and makes herself seem a martyr for having a vagina. This is a woman whom was scorned : a woman married to the Worst liar and Teflon thief that we have ever had in the white house; this is a bigger lie than OJ. Of course Bernie Sanders will have to concede to this bitch and lose any momentum this country has to change. Sigh….
We are Doomed with the lesser of two I fear; incessant Evils again; Hillary or Trump…..
We are going to HAVE to vote for this Woman. Sad indictment of the two Party System. I hope I am wrong…
Yes!
It’s time to stop accepting of twl evils. She is counting on us to give in to that. I have fallen for that in the past, but no more. I think her pretend liberalism causes more damage in the end. It makes us give up all hope. Screw her, I’m not going to be used anymore.
Regulating fracking is good.
Getting rid of fracking even better. Vote Bernie.
Jack Ekstrom, Jackie Stewart @EnergyInDepth, Mark Mathis @Frac_turedMovie @JackiDailyShow
https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/foreign-activism-targets-us-energy-production-fractured-the-movie-debuts
God I hate her
The low information voters who make up most of Hillary’s sycophants claim that she is the most experienced candidate running, and therefore that is why she deserves to be elected. But what is her experience, and is it desirable in the next POTUS?
A little study indicates that as SecState she was traveling around the world on the taxpayer’s dollar shilling for big corporations. Fracking, Monsanto, Boeing and Lockheed, yes, real experience if POTUS is to be Sales person-In-Chief. The woman is dirty to the bone, just a money grubbing, power lusting elite who should be disposed of as soon as Dems come to their senses. A practiced and expert liar (for those who know the facts) and amoral, if not immoral.
Voting for Clinton because she is experienced is like a sick person choosing Dr Conrad Murray over a newly graduated specialist because he is more experienced.
In Hillary’s role at State, her pro-fracking team worked overtime to try to convince leaders of other nations to institute fracking against the will of their people.
And she personally hired those guys for that purpose.
This completely contradicts her claims.
Her lies are beyond pandering.
She is truly a sociopath.
TI should delve into the State Department story more fully.
Alex,
Hillary Clinton didn’t appear at the event today that you highlighted. It doesn’t even say that she did on the invitation. A correction should be printed.
Thank you, Jerome. You are absolutely right, we misread the invitation. This has been corrected, and a correction appended.
Dan Froomkin
Washington Editor
These stories are just now coming out? Clinton doesn’t think there’s anything to worry about her fundraising with frackers! What do you think she thinks about Wall street? Release the transcripts!
Mr. Emmons, three candidates signed that pledge, not just two. Even the Huffington Post article you linked to even states this. The Intercept can and should do better than aping the propagandist media in omitting third party candidates like Jill Stein.
Good suggestion, especially as I will vote for Dr. Stein if Sanders is not the Dem candidate. I would love a woman as POTUS, but a good one. Not a Thatcher, who I always remember by the graffiti on walls in England when she did,: “The Iron Lady, may she rust in Hell.”
I, too, support Dr Stein. I believe that the party apparatchiks will contrive to nominate Clinton and Rubio, because either way Wall Street and the MIC win. If that happens, where will Sanders’s and Trump’s supporters go? Both groups are angry with the corrupt duopoly candidates and could cross over, and both Trump and Clinton have extremely high negative ratings among Independents. It seems counterintuitive to posit that some Trump voters might vote Green, but they despise both Rubio and Clinton and, being working class, they would find a lot to like if they saw what Green has to offer. Of course the duopoly will try to scare people with the dangers of terrorism, but a good campaign could undermine that. Dr Stein could also consider Gabbard as a running mate; her military background and political experience would be a plus with many voters.
If you support Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee for president, but do not plan to support Hillary Clinton in the fall, then let the DNC know by signing and sharing the petition below. The DNC, headed by Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager Debbie Wassermann Shultz, has gone out of its way to tip the scales towards Hillary Clinton, they have limited debates, allowed the Clinton campaign to co occupy DNC offices throughout the country, The DNC has changed long standing campaign finance guidelines and funneled money from super packs directly into Clinton’s campaign, The DNC has at one point shut down Sander’s campaign access to its own crucial voter date. Democrats could be making a colossal mistake betting on Hillary’s superior electability this year. Many Bernie supports see Hillary a dishonest beneficiary and protector of a corrupted government and will not support her candidacy in the Fall. Bernie Sanders is winning amongst 18-29yo by huge margins, the same goes with independents as well, two demographics one needs to turn out to win a national campaign. Bernie is winning or coming within 5 points in states that are going to be essential to Democrats in the general election whereas Hillary’s dominance comes from states that traditionally vote Republican. Despite not having the help of billionaires, the DNC, over 500 super delegates and a southern “firewall” decades in the making, Bernie continues to be competitive, easily breaking records for individual donations, a sign that voters are much more enthusiastic about a Sander’s candidacy.
https://www.change.org/p/i-support-bernie-sanders-but-i-will-not-support-hillary-clinton-in-a-general-election
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/phonebank
Alex Emmons, thank you! for a clean, balanced piece of reporting that lays out the facts for readers without innuendo or hidden agendas. Too much of the media has given way to biased reporting aimed at kissing the hand that feeds them, much of it crafted LOOK like news reporting and analysis, when in fact all it’s just a campaign piece. Yours is a piece I can pass on to friends and colleagues without having to “qualify” and/or “explain” content …
Clinton says, “You know, I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, number one.”
The people of Bulgaria and Romania were protesting against it but she still pushed it to their governments. (Coincidentally, Clinton and Obama both received large campaign contributions from Chevron, who would benefit from fracking in those nations. Coincidentally.)
“The Romanians were just sitting on the leases, and Chevron was upset. So I intervened,” says Mark Gitenstein, the former US ambassador to Romania.”This is traditionally what ambassadors do on behalf of American companies.” http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron?page=2
Why are we spending tax dollars to fund US ambassadors around the world to promote US corporate interests? Sounds like the Chamber of Commerce should be paying for ambassadorial expenses.
Sad. And she’s not being vetted aggressively by Sanders. She is going to be susceptible in November. I know that I’m not going to do the ‘I’ll vote for lesser evil’ thing if it comes to that in November.
It is most disconcerting to see The Intercept adopt the bad practice of pretending to know what its subjects “want.”
This is common among establishment media outlets like the NYT and WaPo who often use phrases like “The White House believes” or “Officials hope”, since these outlets are little more than public relations extensions of the entities they are covering.
But why is The Intercept doing it? Does Alex Emmons speak for Hillary Clinton? Does he represent her campaign?
There is not one single shred of evidence that Hillary “want” to regulate fracking. Yet your headline is worded in a way that takes for granted she is telling the truth and this is not just more campaign posturing.
It is absurd that someone should have to explain that to you. You were supposed to be better. Did Greenwald see this article? Did he approve this headline?
Shouldn’t the Clinton campaign have to pay you for this crap? You certainly deserve it.
Good Lord this is misleading.
Accepting donations from a fundraiser.
Fundraiser is CO-hosted by a partner in a lobbying company.
A company who have (among other things) some investments in two companies that use fracking.
This somehow becomes “fracking money” – with absolutely no information on who is going to the fundraiser.
Christ.
I think it is telling that — even though I voted for her in the 2008 primary (bought into her “experienced” pitch) — absolutely none of this surprises me. Not in the least bit.
I think there is only one thing that is true of the entire spectrum of ideologies this presidential cycle: Americans are SICK AND TIRED of the act that politicians put on about fighting for a base, when they are actually putting most of their effort into advancing donor agendas. Witness the barely disguised agenda of the GOP voting 50 times to repeal Obamacare in order to replace it with “a better system,” but not even having that alternative figured out yet.
People are fed up with the games. To nominate grand chessmaster Clinton to go against the anti-establishment buzzsaw of Donald Trump would be the definition of electoral suicide. Take what what Trump did to the last president’s brother and you can multiply it by ten for what he’d have in store for the previous incumbent’s wife.
Clinton is so hopelessly compromised she’s morphed into a bag woman for all of the bloodsucking extractionists ruining this country.
The problem is that she doesn’t not abide by her own word… More than just flip-flop downright sell-out. After becoming $enator, she voted to give George Bush authority to preemptively start war (IRAQ) That was against her constituents who contacted her 70 – 30 and say not to. She claimed to have seen “secret” documents – BUT this is not a secret government -WE THE PEOPLE
NO Prid Pro Quo but was confirmed by both parties while Attorney General Lorretta Lynch confirmation was delayed for a record length of time ……and more…….
DO NOT TRUST HER – YOU WILL BE THE LOSER…….as she banks it
Hillary claims to have the most comprehensive policies on just about everything.
What this means is a huge rulebook written by her big donors to ensure business as usual for them while locking out the little guys.
Bernie is straightforward and honest and right.
Yep, they’re all fracking politicians, every last frackin one of em. Let’s see, Bill Maher was upset to learn from Mark Ruffalo that Jerry Brown, while saying one thing and supporting one thing, was actually supporting another: oil/gas….
Surprise. Politicians lie.
“…let’s not talk falsely now. The hour’s gettin late. Yeah!” — Jimi Hendrix via Bob Dylan (or switch that)
Jimi Hendrix’s “Star Spangled Banner”
is possibly more appropriate today than it was back at Woodstock.
They ALL accept fracking money.
Once again: a Clinton gets tagged for doing something every one else does.
Her opponent doesn’t take fracking money.
I’m really astounded that the rather juvenile boilerplate response of the Clinton campaign to any question of her integrity amounts to “but everybody else is doing it”.
A leader sets an impossible standard and urges others to follow it. They don’t try to race to the ethical bottom.
If everyone caves into your defeatism, then democracy will truly be dead.
And you know this how ? Prove it, or think about what you post more please.
They DON’T all do it, and framing an argument – everyone else does so it’s ok if she does too – only encourages corruption in politics. Voters have demonstrated that they do not want big money influencing politics. Sanders is not the only candidate refusing big-money, there are Senate candidates that are running clean campaigns – e.g. only taking funding from voters themselves: Tim Canova in FL, Lucy Flores in NV, and I’m sure others too; then there’s Kim Foxx running for Attorney General in IL … MayDay.org has a long list of other candidates, all who have pledged to get big money out of politics – at ALL levels.
Jill Stein, the GREEN PARTY candidate, accepts fracking money? Are you going to say that the earth is flat and the center of the universe next? But I suppose wild demonstrably false claims and fearmongering is all you Hillary supporters have to lean on.
Hillary didn’t get to 200 million net worth by any honest means. She would sell Chelsea’s organs if she thought she could make a buck off it.
Senator Sanders takes no money – EVER – from the oil and gas industry.
A little more background on Hillary Clinton’s general support for the domestic and international fossil fuel industry:
1) The Keystone Pipeline – when Clinton was Secretary of State, she delayed any decision on blocking the Keystone pipeline, intended to import highly polluting Canadian tar sand oil to U.S. refineries. Tar sand development was heavily financed by Clinton backers like Warren Buffet, who poured billions into ConocoPhillips plans in the tar sands prior to 2008, only to take a huge loss when the economic collapse happened in 2008. Canadian tar sand costs around $60-$80 per barrel and is utterly uneconomical at current oil prices (~$30), it consumes vast amounts of natural gas in the production process, it pollutes water and air and is strongly opposed by Canada’s indigenous people’s movement, who don’t want their water and food polluted. Clinton’s current belated opposition to Keystone is hardly believable – other pipelines are being proposed to connect North Dakota to Canadian tar sands, for example.
2) Central Asian oil – Clinton, as secretary of state, continued with Cheney’s neocon plans to move Central Asian oil through Afghanistan to Pakistan ports, where U.S. companies could move it into the global market. She called this “the New Silk Road Strategy” – and she also gave zero support to renewable energy development in Afghanistan, which would help the people there. Her subordinate in charge of Central Asian affairs, Robert O. Blake Jr., claimed that Kazakhstan, “will account for one of the largest increases in non-OPEC supply to the global market in the next 10-15 years as its oil production doubles to reach 3 million barrels a day by 2020.”
The conclusion, in terms of domestic energy, is that Clinton would work to promote domestic fossil fuel consumption over renewable energy, and that on the international front, she would continue to pursue the same neocon agenda on production and control of fossil fuels in Central Asia that Condoleeza Rice did – in fact, her foreign policies are very difficult to distinguish from those of Condi Rice, in general – regime change plans for non-cooperative countries such as Syria, expanded militarism in the Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa.
This is clearly seen in Syria, where Clinton pushed for the arming of so-called ‘moderate rebels’, in Libya where Clinton supported a military solution to the Arab Spring uprising that had pushed Gaddafi out of power, backing one group of opposition leaders with disastrous long-term consequences – doubtless thinking that a new “American partner” would ensure continued access to Libyan oil in the post-Gaddafi period.
There are many more examples – take the Clinton emails between her and Tony Blair’s wife on meeting the a royal prince of Qatar, a major fossil fuel producer: “I would be happy to meet w him. How should I follow up to arrange a mutually agreeable time. All the best to you.” That’s the same Tony Blair who supported the Iraq war plan, which Clinton also backed, hand in hand with the GW Bush regime.
Given her ‘experience’ and her actual record, her claims on what she’d do in office are simply not believable – every indication is that she’d roll over immediately into a neocon foreign policy and a Wall Street-dominated domestic policy.
It amazes me that people continue to believe that Clinton is “being pushed to the left” by Sanders. Even Chomsky said that. But if you believe that fantasy, observe our US President currently in office who is the proof that a Dem candidate will promise one thing, let progressives play a big role in getting him elected, and then kick them to the curb and appease/surrender to the Right Wing. Clinton would do the same thing, because she is such a skilled liar, that some people believe her (Obama also). I agree with earlier comment that she is a sociopath. Lust for power, hubris and entitlement drive her, not in the least concern about the people or country. She is stealing Sanders talking points now, and will completely renege on them if elected. For that reason alone Dems should not vote for her as the lessor of two evils. Better to have Trump, who will destroy the Republican Party, and then be blocked and neutered by both parties in Congress, and up and now the political spectrum if elected.
…Clinton said, “I know that in some places [it] is controversial, but [shale] gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available for power today.”
Really? I’m sure the folks with flames coming out of their water faucets will be pleased to hear that, and the Saudis will simply have to lower the price of their crappy crude, after President Clinton takes the reins of Empire.
NY state has banned fracking, so the Clinton’s water is safe.
I can tell you are getting better, Alex so keep trying… reads a bit like you never left your office chair to write it tho.
A suggestion: your little nugget of news is the HRC says she wants to regulate the industry but still takes the money, right? Elaborate on that. Give us more than that one example.
Literally two weeks ago, the politically active in Florida helped kill a fracking bill that was openly shoved through Congress by the fracking lobby. The same people who tried sneaking the law in are likely the same people throwing money at HRC. There are likely other states where this is relevant. Point is, give us some more examples of the concept you are trying to write about! Make it personal for your readers!
Hillary Clinton is typical of democrats.
She is a corporate capitalist who shares the economic beliefs of
republicans but needs to pretend that she doesn’t.
A few years ago, the “government” of Illinois was
overwhelmingly democrat. They had the governorship
and dominated both chambers in Springfield.
With the help of lousy liberal “environmentalists” (not),
they designed and passed a bill to bring fracking to Illinois.
The main purpose of the bill was/is to reassure the
fracking industry that they AND THEIR SECRETS would
be protected from the possibility of lawsuits in the future.
They also started cutting away at the rights and pensions
of state employees, including educators.
March 15th is the date of the Illinois primary and,
rest assured, way, way too many dim-witted and predatory
democrats
will vote for Hillary, just like the hypocrites they are.
I don’t think that I’m the only resident of Illinois that will say NO to Hillary. After last night, she had better tighten her seat belt, as her sense of entitlement will be sorely tested.
It is good that you are opposed to Hillary, BUT
the democrat establishment in Illinois is little different
than the democrat establishment anywhere else in its
devious shared agenda with the republicans.
Bernie Sanders is only a small step in the correct direction
and what will you do if and (much more likely) when Sanders
is stopped by his chosen party?
She just can’t seem to help herself. She lies over and over again. The highly touted website Politifact gives her a high rating for not telling lies but methinks they don’t bother with counting those numerous occasions when she contradicts herself…