Trump Courted Mega-Donors He Now Scorns (Video & Link)

Trump Courted Mega-Donors He Now Scorns (Video & Link)

It is said that presidential candidate Donald Trump is popular because he is anti-establishment. But is he really? The established way of winning in politics is with Big Money, and it is no secret that Big Donations have been useful to Trump in the past. He has publicly boasted how his previous donations to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats were made in order to “get people to do what he wanted.”

So, why has Donald Trump changed his stance on money-in-politics? Is it out of principle, or out of frustration?

The answer lies in Trump’s failed attempts to inspire Big Donors to financially support his own political ambitions. In classic sour-grapes attitude, he now claims that presidential candidates who attract Big Money are merely puppets.

This ‘amazing’ revelation appears to be born out of frustration. Upholding anti-corruption practices out of principle has nothing to do with it.

Donald Trump has taken a big stand against money in politics. He has consistently claimed that he will not be taking money from big donors. However, a story from Politico reveals that he actually courted big donors prior to railing against them.

— The Humanist Report

Trump Courted Mega-Donors He Now Scorns (Link)

The candidate quietly wooed Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer and the Koch brothers.

Donald Trump has spent much of his presidential campaign bashing his GOP rivals as beholden to major donors, and, in recent weeks, he’s expanded his attacks to include three major donors in particular ― Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer and the Koch brothers.

But POLITICO has learned that Trump or his surrogates have sought to build relationships ― if not support ― from all three, calling into question the billionaire real estate showman’s repeated assertions that, because of his wealth, he has no use for major donors.

Trump’s courtship of Adelson, a Las Vegas casino mogul and ardent Zionist, involved “a very clear ask for money,” said a source close to Adelson, who noted the request came even as Trump was publicly declaring that he didn’t need donors’ money… Trump personally called Adelson and had his staff attempt to set up a meeting in Vegas.

A similar pattern unfolded with Singer, a politically influential New York hedge fund billionaire who also is an ardent Israel hawk. Back in March, when Trump was still publicly toying with running for president, Kushner reached out to one of Singer’s representatives to try to broker a meeting between the representative and Trump, according to a source familiar with the interaction. Kushner indicated that Trump was laying the groundwork for a campaign and suggested Singer’s representative might want to hear about the plans, according to the source.

The entreaties, which did not result in a meeting, came after Kushner attended a March event at Singer’s office at which the billionaire and other donors had the chance to meet with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who was then exploring a presidential campaign of his own.

But a few days after Singer declared his support for Rubio on Friday, Trump went on the attack.

The Trump campaign sought access to the political and public policy network helmed by the Koch brothers. Trump’s aides detailed his policy positions for the Kochs and their donors in a survey put together by Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, the group that coordinates the Koch network and hosts its twice-a-year donor gatherings.

But when Trump was not among the five candidates invited to the Koch donor gathering in August at which the survey was distributed to donors, he unleashed some serious snark at his rivals who were included ― Rubio, Walker, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina.

“I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch Brothers. Puppets?” he tweeted.

— Kenneth P. Vogel and Ben Schreckinger, Politico

Written by
JoAnn Chateau
  • “But a few days after Singer declared his support for Rubio…”

    In recent months Rubio co-sponsored legislation that would completely eliminate capital gains taxes, the 15% that lounge-by-the-pool billionaires “pay” (think Cayman Islands tax haven), and effectively reducing the United States’ .01% wealthiest to pay zero taxes. Trump, Clinton and all the rest are frauds, Sanders is the only candidate (thus far) who’s honest, and the sooner people become fully aware of that fact the sooner sobriety returns to America.

  • Not to pile on Hillary, but I wanted to also address the second aspect of corruption: institutional corruption. There has no one who has pulled the Democratic Party farther to the right int he 20th century, than Bill Clinton. Not even Woodrow Wilso turned the party rightward as much. Bill and his DLC colleagues were happy to chase the Wall Street campaign money at the expense of the unions and even the economy, because it was Bill who okayed the biggest bonanza Wall Street had been seeking since the New Deal, repeal of Glass-Steagall. If any one thing made the crisis of 2008 nearly catastrophic, it was that one act. And yet Hillary still won’t pledge to seek its re-instatement.

    You can hope all you want that Hillary is going to be “pulled to the left”, but that will only last until Inauguration Day. Then all the cronies from decades of insider DLC politics going back to the days as big time lawyer and First Lady of a right-to-work state will set up camp in the West Wing.

    I’m not saying Donald Trump is not corrupt, but I don’t think corruption, personal or institutional, is what is going to differentiate Hillary from some of the GOP candidates.

    • We are lost unless The People insist on restoring our Democracy. That is why a strong Progressive Movement is so important.

      Yes, should Hillary gain the Presidency, she would most likely forget every progressive intention expressed during her campaign – if left to her own devices. But I do believe the world has already tilted.

      Bernie Sanders is hot. Young people love him. Even if he doesn’t win the Primary, he has enlivened the progressive ‘political revolution’ more than anyone. If he loses the Presidency, he will still be in Congress, fighting the good fight along with other elected leaders like Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson, Keith Ellison, and more.

      I could as easily say a strong anti-corruption movement is vital at this point in American history. Even better, because that is a non-partisan issue. Whatever, the people must take charge.

  • Jo Ann,

    Thanks for the reply.

    I am not sure I understand what this sentence means:

    “I am not of the school that can imagine ANY of the 2016 Republican candidates having a shot at the Presidency.”

    If you are saying that you can’t see any of the GOP candidates being president because they are disqualified by experience and political persuasion, then I agree.

    If you are saying you cannot see any way that any of them could actually be elected president, then … well, let me tell you a story.

    I have worked for various Democratic Presidential candidates in issues and organization work, mostly at the national level, since the McGovern campaign. I have also benn an officer of my local ADA chapter and have done pro bono legal work for a number of leftish organizations. (I say this not to brag but so you understand that I am not a Democratic party flak.) There was only one time that I thought the GOP nominated a person so out of step, intellectually dim and inexperienced that he could not possibly be elected. In fact, all my leftish friends were delighted. That nominee was … Ronald Reagan.

    As for making corruption the loadstone issue, you might want to backtrack. If you consider the Clintons’ futures contracts “winnings” and their earnings in connection with the foundation and throw in their relationship with the McDougals, you may end up finding that the eventual GOP nominee is less personally corrupt than the Democratic nominee and her husband. It will take a lot of fine parsing to demonstrate that Hillary is pure as the driven snow, and even so it will just prove (if it does) that she is free of actual conflicts of interest, not that she has in any way avoided the appearance of impropriety,



    • DK, thanks for your knowledgeable input. I am one of those horrible citizens who did not follow politics, until about 3 years ago.

      I was unaware that Reagan was considered such an unlikely candidate during his campaign. I see why you are frightened at the possibility of an unqualified GOP President in 2016… because you lived through it before.

      Many people think they must support Hillary instead of Bernie so this kind of GOP take-over does not happen in 2016 – that it would be easier for her, rather than Bernie, to beat a Republican candidate.

      Personally, I think Bernie can beat any Republican. However, I realize the following…

      This is the old ‘lesser of two evils’ dilemma, influencing many people who may actually want Bernie Sanders (for instance) for President to instead support Hillary Clinton because of her name recognition.

      I don’t know how to break out of this dysfunctional dynamic unless we take the risk and vote for who we actually want. I will vote for Bernie in the Democratic Primary. Then I will vote Democratic in the Presidential election.

  • Agree JoAnn on your comment. Insanity should be nipped in the bud at the earliest opportunity, to prevent the worst and disastrous case of such politics becoming the norm.

  • If I were in charge of anti-GOP messaging, I personally would advise keeping our powder dry against Trump for the time being. He has done yeoman’s work in pummeling Jeb, Walker (who once scared me) and Rand. I would like Trump to stay in long enough to inflict major injury to Marco, while at the same time keeping the lunatic-vote split among him, Carson and Cruz. And especially if Carson collapses, I would hate the nearly 50% of the GOP vote that he and Trump have coalescing around Cruz. Say what you like about Trump, I would rather him than Cruz be the opponent.

    • I absolutely see your point. Thank you for making your comment, because many people are concerned about the same thing.

      However, I am not of the school that can imagine ANY of the 2016 Republican candidates having a shot at the Presidency.

      For me, the essential issue is political corruption. That is why I highlighted Trump’s own engagement in political corruption with past Big Money donations to the politicians of his choice. That’s also why I admire Bernie Sanders.

      Some compare these two, as they are both ‘anti-establishment.’ But I see no similarity in their character, principles, and/or values.

      I will not make an example of Hillary, however, even though she is establishment and has close ties to Big Money. The growing Progressive Movement will be able to continue pulling her to the Left, should she win the Presidency.

      Like Bernie says, the Political Revolution is more important than who is President. IMO, the far-right Republicans are simply irrelevant.

JoAnn Chateau

Who’s Writing?

JoAnn Chateau

JoAnn likes progressive politics and loves the canines. She writes fiction about Chester, the Alpha Bichon -- with a dash of humor and a dab of Poli-Sci. Her views and insights are tinted by a former profession in Counseling, Christian theological studies, and training in Library and Information Science. Retired now, JoAnn enjoys the creative life.


Chester is a scruffy little Bichon dog, with a congenial Napoleon Complex, and stars in "The Chester Chronicles." He sometimes reports independent Canine News -- NO corporate treats accepted, NO corporate bias. Woof!

Graffiti Girl

Graffiti Girl (GG) is curator at She's progressive to the core, and easily blown away by serendipity and/or good food. (OK, GG is really JoAnn.) GG's posts signal that news or content from another website is a "must-see" and "must-remember."