I already posted it. Look in the first page of this thread. I'm not going to go into the Greenpeace article and break it down. I'll add to what I brought forward yesterday with some stuff from here: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/clinton-and-fossil-fuel-money/
Clinton’s 2016 campaign has not accepted any direct contributions from any corporation, oil and gas companies included. That would violate election law. Nor has her 2016 campaign accepted any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas industry.
So far in the 2016 campaign, Clinton has received about $160,000 in contributions from people who work for oil and gas companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But those contributions would not run afoul of the group’s pledge.
A Republican super PAC, America Rising, scoffed at Clinton’s response, claiming that she has “literally taken millions of dollars from the oil and gas industry.” But the PAC is including money oil companies donated to the Clinton Foundation — which is a charitable foundation that is unaffiliated with the Clinton campaign and would have no bearing on the pledge.
Later in the article, I get this breakdown:
According to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, the Clinton 2016 campaign has received about $160,000 to date from oil and gas company employees. That’s the third highest among presidential candidates — Republicans Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush top the list with $499,000 and $273,000, respectively. (Democrats Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, both of whom agreed to the pledge, have received $13,000 and $6,200, respectively, from employees of the oil and gas industry.)
For some context, the Clinton campaign raised more than $77 million as of Sept. 30, and the fossil fuel industry did not rank among her top 20 donors by industry.
Again, you are quoting something from Greenpeace and I'm quoting from articles posted by factcheck.org and Center for Responsive Politics. I'm guessing Greenpeace is in rubber stamping their number by using the right wing Super PAC America Rising who laughingly lump in contributions to a foundation of Hillary's with her campaign contributions.
I'm not saying Clinton's hands are clean. I'm saying the claims of millions given to her campaign are mostly false. Let's let the Republicans smear this site with false claims. I'd prefer if we could at least post factual articles when comparing the two democratic party candidates. You seem attracted to the dark side. Is it fear that is driving you?
In any case, the tar from Wall Street sticking to Clinton ought to be enough to convince anybody that Bernie is the best candidate.
what do you mean by dark side? example?