Tuesday, April 12, 2016

BLACK AMERICA ASKS - WILL LA RAZA SUPREMACY HILLARIA CLINTON SERVE BLACK AMERICANS (Legals) AS MUCH AS BARACK OBAMA SERVICED THE DEM PARTY'S LA RAZA SUPREMACY BASE OF ILLEGALS?

THE LA RAZA "The Race" SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS SABOTAGED HOMELAND SECURITY TO ASSURE MEXICO'S EXPORTS OF THEIR POOR, CRIMINAL, ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS and UNREGISTERED DEMS!

THE LA RAZA "The Race" SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS SABOTAGED STATES' RIGHTS TO IMPOSE ID REQUIREMENTS TO KEEP MEXICANS OUT OF OUR VOTING BOOTHS.

THE LA RAZA "The Race" SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS REFUSED TO ENFORCE LAWS THAT PREVENT ILLEGALS FROM BEING EMPLOYED.

THE LA RAZA "The Race" SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS SABOTAGED E-VERIFY TO EASE AS MANY ILLEGALS AS HAVE STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS INTO OUR JOBS. 

WATCH LA RAZA HILLARIA HISPANDER AS BAD AS OBAMA WHO OPERATED AND FUNDED THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER LA RAZA V.P. CECILIA MUNOZ!

 

Black leaders expect Clinton to deliver




Getty Images 
Black voters bolstering Hillary Clinton’s bid for the Democratic nomination expect her to deliver results if she wins the White House.

Prison reform, education and increasing black employment are among the issues that black leaders have raised with Clinton as they have pledged their support.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said members of the Congressional Black Caucus have spoken to Clinton about anti-poverty legislation sponsored by Rep. James Clyburn, who delivered a crucial endorsement for the former secretary of State in the days before her big win in South Carolina’s primary. “She has said that she will support that strongly, and we think she’ll have a strong chance of getting that through,” Cleaver said in an interview with The Hill, adding that Clinton “embraced it quickly, which is extremely important to us.”

If Clinton wins the presidency, she’ll owe a part of the victory to black voters, who have largely been the difference in her primary fight against Bernie Sanders.

Clinton built her delegate lead by sweeping the South, largely because of the black vote. NBC exit polls show that Clinton trounced Sanders 81 to 18 percent among African-Americans in Florida, where she won a huge victory. In Cleaver’s home state of Missouri, she also fared much better than the Vermont senator among black voters, winning 67 percent.

Given that context and Clinton’s stated desire to take action on income inequality and jobs, it’s easy to imagine the Clyburn legislation — which has drawn support from Republicans — being moved in the first 100 days of a Clinton administration.

Clyburn’s bill would direct at least 10 percent of federal spending on discretionary programs to communities where at least 20 percent of the population has lived below the poverty line for at least the last 30 years. While many of those districts have poor white populations as well, the bill could help black Americans struggling in the economic recovery.

Black leaders who have backed Clinton will be looking for more, however.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said he hopes the former first lady addresses “inadequate jobs, inadequate housing and inadequate education” in black communities. He’d also like to see diverse appointments not just at the Cabinet level but at the sub-Cabinet level and in the judicial system.
“I believe she gets it,” Hastings added of Clinton’s understanding of concerns within the black community. “I think she’ll listen to me and [Congressman] Charlie Rangel, [Congressman] Bobby Scott, those of us who had been around, and I think she would spend some time in the communities.”
Cleaver, a longtime Clinton supporter who endorsed her in the 2008 presidential primary, said he sat down in a Des Moines hotel room with the Democratic front-runner to talk about issues that black voters want the next president to focus upon.

“I can’t say I laid out an agenda, but by the time the general election begins, that’s when we start speaking very specifically about what we’d like to see her champion,” Cleaver said. “No one is going to be hesitant to be candid. She’s trying to win the primary election and this may not be a good time for one particular group to demand things.”

Clinton is hoping that black voters keep her on top in New York’s primary on April 19.
On Sunday, she made stops at three African-American churches in New York City to highlight her work and her husband’s work when he was president.

The effort hit a major speed bump last week when Bill Clinton got into a public argument with protesters in the Empire State over the 1994 crime bill he signed into law. As protesters chanted “black youth are not superpredators,” he defended the legislation, arguing the protesters were “defending the people who killed the lives you say matter.”

Bill Clinton a day later said he regretted the comments, but Sanders has sought to make them an issue.

Independent observers say the remarks hurt Hillary Clinton, but that reservoirs of goodwill for the Clinton years will help the former first couple weather them.

“That comment will make it harder to woo younger African-Americans to her side,” said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. “But I think older African-Americans remember how bad things were at the time.”

A Quinnipiac University poll late last month showed that African-Americans in New York support Clinton 66 percent to 31 percent for Sanders.

Clinton in some ways is following in the steps of Barack Obama in forming a coalition of support in the Democratic primary. In 2008, the then-Illinois senator, not Clinton, benefited from black support because many in the community wanted to help elect the first black president.

Obama was under pressure after his election to do something for the black community, and there are critics who argue he did not do enough.

“Historians are going to have a field day trying to juxtapose how in the era of the first black president, the bottom fell out for black America,” talk show host and frequent Obama critic Tavis Smiley said late last year on Fox News. “Black people were still in many ways politically marginalized, socially manipulated and economically exploited.”

Obama frequently talked in his first term about how he wanted to be the president for all Americans — not just black Americans.

In some ways, that situation arguably put him in a more difficult position upon entering the White House than Clinton would find herself in. Clinton would at least not face critics guessing that a position to help black America was being taken because of her race.

Cleaver and Hastings say that despite some misgivings over the crime bill and welfare reform, black voters have good memories of the Clinton years that are now helping the former first lady.
“A large part of it has to do with Bill Clinton,” Hastings said. “They were a team. And people know they will be a team.

“What people saw in Bill Clinton was a person who was sensitive to their needs,” Hastings said. “Black folks would be really happy if she accomplished 75 percent of what her husband did.”
Clemmie L. Harris, a visiting assistant professor at the Center for African American Studies at Wesleyan University, said some in the black political class feel as though they had greater access to the White House under Clinton then they did under Obama.

With a new Clinton presidency, they hope it will “return to that level of opportunity.”


nce again, Chelsea Clinton is being used by her mother’s campaign to propose outlandishly expensive proposals in health care and attack other Democrats, while providing deniability for Hillary. Yesterday, Obamacare was characterized by Chelsea...

THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY HAS HANDED OUT ONLY ABOUT 9 MILLION TO CHARITIES OF 
 
THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS THEY'VE COLLECTED IN BRIBES FROM DICTATORS, MUSLIM DICTATORS, CRIMINAL CRONY BILLIONAIRES AND BANKSTERS.

BUT THEY'VE BOUGHT CHELSEA A $11 MILLION DOLLAR APARTMENT IN NYC.

DO THE MATH. IT'S CALLED OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS!

MORE HERE:

Once again, Chelsea Clinton is being used by her mother


HILLARY CLINTON SAYS MILLIONS MORE VOTING ILLEGAL SHOULD BE HANDED OBAMACARE!

CLINTON'S PLATFORM IS SIMPLE: BUILD THE MEX WELFARE STATE ON AMERICA'S BACK TO BUY THEIR ILLEGAL VOTES.

THEY ALREADY GET MILLIONS OF OUR JOBS AND BILLIONS IN WELFARE!


THE AMERICAN THINKER

 MORE HERE

More free stuff for people who violate our immigration laws! Hillary Clinton and her daughter have teed up a ball for the Republican nominee, whether Trump or Cruz, to hit 400 yards down the fairway.  Just over a week ago, Hillary reversed her f...

NO ONE SERVES HIS PAYMASTERS ON WALL STREET MORE THAN BARACK OBAMA! 

HE SMELLS THOSE SPEECH FEE BRIBES ALREADY!

AND HILLARY IS OBAMA'S CLONE!

Drug prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for show. Of all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, taking in $410,460 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

US drug prices doubled since 2011

By Brad Dixon
18 March 2016
According to a new report by the pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts, the average price of brand-name drugs increased by 16.2 percent last year. Between 2011 and 2015, branded prescription drug prices have nearly doubled, rising 98.2 percent. Since 2008, the prices have increased by a whopping 164 percent.

Drug spending rose by 5.2 percent in 2015. This was about half the increase seen in 2014, the year of the largest hike since 2003.

The report is based upon prescription use data for members with drug coverage provided by Express Scripts plan sponsors. In assessing changes in plan costs, the report distinguishes between the relative  contributions from changes in patient utilization (e.g. more patients being prescribed the drug) and changes in the unit price of the drug (e.g., price hikes).

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, most drug spending was on traditional drugs (small-molecule, solid drugs) to treat conditions such as heartburn, depression and diabetes. The recent trend has been a shift to specialty drugs. Still, within traditional therapy categories there were significant increases in spending on medications to treat diabetes, heartburn and ulcers, and skin conditions.

Diabetes medications remain the most expensive of the traditional drug categories. Drug spending in this category increased by 14 percent, with the hike being equally influenced by increased utilization of the drugs and rise in unit cost. Three diabetes treatments—Lantus, Januvia and Humalog—were among the top five drugs in terms of spending across all traditional therapy classes.

Although not discussed in the report, an investigation by Bloomberg News last year found evidence of “shadow pricing” by drug manufacturers, where companies raise their prices immediately after their competitors do so. The investigation found that the prices of diabetes drugs Lantus and Lemivir had increased in tandem 13 times since 2009, and evidence of similar shadow pricing for the drugs Humalog and Novolog.

Heartburn and ulcer drugs saw a 35.6 percent increase in spending, almost solely due to the rise in unit cost. Although 92.3 percent of the medications filled in this category were generic, the price unit trend was heavily influenced by the increase in prices of branded drugs such as Nexium, Dexilant and Prevacid.

Treatments for skin conditions also saw a significant increase of 27.8 percent in spending, again due almost completely to rises in the unit costs of the medications. The report notes that these increases occurred for both generic and branded therapies, largely due to industry consolidation through mergers and acquisitions leading to less competition in the market. While 86.3 percent of the drugs filled were generic, many of the generic versions saw sharp increases in unit cost, including the two most widely used corticosteroids, clobetasol (96.2 percent) and triamcinolone (28 percent).

While the overall spending increase for traditional therapy classes was nominal (0.6 percent), the primary factor for the increase in spending came from specialty medications. Specialty medications require special education and close patient monitoring, such as drugs to treat cancer, multiple sclerosis or cystic fibrosis. Spending on specialty drugs rose by 17.8 percent in 2015. The report found that 37.7 percent of drug spending was for specialty drugs in 2015, and the figure is expected to rise to 50 percent by 2018.

Spending in this category was topped by inflammatory conditions—such as rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and psoriasis—which rose by 25 percent, driven by a 10.3 percent increase in utilization and 14.7 percent rise in unit cost. The average cost per prescription in 2015 was $3,035.95. The medications Humira Pen and Enbrel, which captured more than 66 percent of the market share for this class, saw unit cost increases of more than 17 percent.

Spending on oncology therapies increased by 23.7 percent, due to both increased use (9.3 percent) and increased unit cost (14.4 percent). New cancer therapies average $8,000 per prescription and the average cancer regimen is around $150,000 per patient. Between 2005 and 2015, the anti-cancer drug Gleevec, manufactured exclusively by Novartis, has seen its price more than triple, with an annual cost of $92,000. In 2015, the year prior to the drug’s patent expiration, Novartis increased the unit cost of the drug by 19.3 percent. This is a common practice for companies facing patent expiration.
Drug spending on cystic fibrosis treatments rose by a significant 53.4 percent, largely based on increases in unit cost (40.9 percent vs. 13.3 percent from patient utilization). This rise was largely due to use of the new oral combination therapy, Orkambi, which became available in mid-2015. The drug costs more than $20,000 per month.

The report forecasts that between 2016 and 2018 spending will increase annually by 7-8 percent for traditional drugs and around 17 percent for specialty drugs.

The prices of generic drugs have on average decreased, although there are notable exceptions. Pharmaceutical companies like Horizon Pharma, Turing Pharmaceuticals, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals have purchased generic drugs and then significantly hiked their prices.

The report notes the emergence of “captive pharmacies” in 2015 as another factor responsible for higher drug spending. Captive pharmacies are owned or operated by pharmaceutical manufacturers and tend to promote their manufacturer’s drugs, rather than generic or other low-cost alternatives. The report gives as examples the arrangements between Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Philidor Rx Services, and between Horizon Pharma and Linden Care Pharmacy.

The Express Scripts data matches the findings released earlier this year by the Truveris OneRx National Drug Index, which found that branded drugs rose by 14.8 percent in 2015.

Despite the widespread media publicity of the notorious drug price hikes by companies like Turing and Valeant, pharmaceutical companies have continued to inflate prices in 2016, with Pfizer leading the way with an average price hike of 10.6 percent for 60 of its branded drugs.

Workers are rightly outraged at the skyrocketing price of drugs. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted last year found that 74 percent of respondents felt that the drug companies put profits before people.

The political establishment, however, has sought both to exploit this anger for electoral support and to direct it into safe channels that do not disrupt the status quo.

A congressional hearing held in January placed a spotlight on the price-gouging practices of HYPERLINK Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Turing Pharmaceuticals, whose dubious activities were highlighted in a pair of congressional memos. The purpose of the hearing, however, was not probe the underlying causes of the sharp rise in drug prices. Instead, legislators sought to safeguard the profits of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole through a verbal lambasting of the industry’s most notorious culprits.

Drug prices have also been a theme in the presidential campaign. The Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, for example, released a campaign advertisement earlier this month attacking the “predatory pricing” of Valeant Pharmaceuticals. Like the congressional hearing, this is all for show. Of all the presidential candidates, Clinton is the top recipient of donations from the pharmaceutical and health products industry, taking in $410,460 according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders, who has stated that he will support Clinton if he loses the Democratic nomination, received $82,094 in donations from the industry. Sanders has proposed a series of minor reforms to address drug prices, such as the re-importation of drugs from Canada, allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers, and decreasing the patent life of branded drugs.
None of the candidates, including the “democratic socialist” Sanders, challenge the private ownership of the pharmaceutical industry in which everything from research and development and clinical testing to drug pricing and promotion are subordinated to the profit interests of corporations.









Largest Civil Disobedience Action of the Century isn’t Anti-Trump, It’s Pro-Democracy

1

In an article published here Wednesday, Aaron Klein wrongly characterized Democracy Spring as an “Anti-Trump” campaign organized by “radicals…involved in shutting down Donald Trump’s Chicago rally.”

We want to set the record straight, make it clear where we stand on Trump, and reach out to the all the conservatives who agree with us that big money is corrupting our political system.
First, setting aside any opinions on it, the assertion that the Chicago disruption was the work of Democracy Spring is simply untrue. Over 100 organizations have endorsed Democracy Spring. Their independent actions (and funders – George Soros hasn’t given us a dime) are distinct from our collective effort.
Second, while the leaders, organizations, and the vast majority of participants in Democracy Spring have profound and severe disagreements with Donald Trump, our nonviolent, non-partisan campaign is not a response to him.
Nor is it a response to any single candidate, party, or election. Democracy Spring is a response to the corruption of our entire political system, a system dominated by big money and inaccessible to many Americans who face growing barriers to the ballot box.
No matter who you support for president this year, surely we can all agree that our elected officials should work for all of us – not just wealthy special interests and big campaign contributors. In fact, we know many voters support Trump because he calls out this corrupt system and claims to stand outside of it as a self-financing candidate.
To this, we say: we hear you. The 
system is corrupt. The economy is rigged. Big 
campaign contributors do pull the strings in 
Washington. Working people are right to be 
angry about trade policy and the betrayal of 
the middle class, working families, and the 
poor by an elite establishment that profits 
from the status quo.
But we also challenge Trump supporters to consider a few things. Our corrupt campaign finance system goes far beyond presidential races and will not change by simply electing a president who supposedly can’t be bought. Without serious policy solutions, whoever we elect Commander-in-Chief will still have to deal with 435 members of Congress who are more eager to appease their donors than their own constituents.
Trump has yet to propose any solutions that would ensure every member of Congress and candidate for local and state office in America are elected in a way that makes them, as James Madison wrote, “solely dependent upon the People as whole – not the rich more than the poor.” If our system only allows us to choose between candidates who are bought by billionaires and billionaires themselves, then it is not a democracy. It is plutocracy.
That is why more than 2,600 American patriots have pledged to risk arrest in Democracy Spring, a massive nonviolent sit-in at the U.S. Capitol this April. The campaign will force Congress to choose between putting hundreds of peaceful defenders of the republic in handcuffs, or simply doing their job and passing reforms to fix our broken system.
It’s true Democracy Spring is led by many organizations associated with the left. But there’s no reason it must remain that way. We are a nonpartisan campaign open to all. And conservatives and liberals agree when it comes to the urgent need for solutions to rebalance the system.
Last year, John Pudner, the political strategist who helped lead 
Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA)
100%
’s 2014 upset over former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, launched Take Back our Republic to advance conservative solutions to the problem of money in politics. For example, Take Back supports tax credits for small donations to political candidates to encourage more people to become involved in the political process. The group also supports more disclosure of large donors to ensure voters’ right to know who is trying to influence their vote and their lawmakers.
In a recent column, Richard Painter, President George W. Bush’s chief White House ethics lawyer, explained why the current system fails to address the needs and concerns of conservatives. He wrote, “campaign contributions drive spending on earmarks and other wasteful programs — bridges to nowhere, contracts for equipment the military does not need, solar energy companies that go bankrupt on the government’s dime and for-profit educational institutions that don’t educate.” Moreover, he writes, “campaign contributions breed more regulation” as companies use campaign cash to win special legal advantages over their competitors.
Progressives would disagree on public funding to spur clean energy innovation and the characterization of more regulations as necessarily bad, but we stand fully with Painter on his core point: “[Today’s] system is a betrayal of the vision of participatory democracy embraced by the founders of our country.”
Indeed, there is an opportunity today for progressives and conservatives to stand together to defend our republic and win reform that will let us settle our other differences on an even, open playing field where the best ideas and the broadest support are what count – not the backing of a moneyed elite.
Yet – and allegiance to the values that truly make America a great country demand that we make this crystal clear – Donald Trump’s candidacy is making this kind of unity across differences incredibly difficult. We are a nonpartisan campaign but not an amoral one. We are compelled to speak (and I am confident that I can speak for us all) when I say that Trump’s statements, proposed policies, and threats of violence concerning undocumented immigrants, Muslims, the KKK, protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, and others have crossed a very serious line into the territory of fascism and hate speech.
America is better than this. Conservatives are better than this.
Democracy Spring is a nonviolent campaign and, in the tradition of the civil rights movement, will strive to reach out to our most bitter opponents. We will seek unity with all who agree that every American deserves an equal voice and a government of, by, and for the people. Rather than letting our differences divide us, conservatives and progressives of conscience should come together on this common ground and renew our republic.
Politicians from both parties broke the system. It’s going to take voters from both parties — and independents committed to neither — to force our representatives to fix it.
It’s time to demand that Congress listen to the people and pass common-sense solutions to return our government to us all.
Kai Newkirk is lead organizer of Democracy Spring.



DHS says administration has 'no 

intention' of deporting most illegals

They're not even trying to hide their lack of 

enforcement of immigration law.

The president of the National Border Control Council testified before Congress that a top Homeland Security official told agents that the Obama administration has "no intention of deporting" most illegal aliens.
This "catch and release" policy amounts to a de facto amnesty for the tens of thousands of illegals who jump the border every year.

DHS claims that the policy is in place because immigration courts are clogged up.  So instead of expanding the number of judges and courts, they simply give up and allow the illegals to disappear into the underground.

Washington Times:
Mr. Judd provided his testimony in written answers released Monday by the House Judiciary Committee, saying that even in some criminal cases, agents are ordered to let illegal immigrants go without ever issuing them a Notice to Appear, or NTA, which is what puts them into deportation proceedings.

Mr. Judd said they took their case directly to Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, who told them not to bother.

“Deputy Secretary Mayorkas told us that the Border Patrol needs to focus its resources towards the worst of the worst. He said that by prioritizing those we choose to deport, we will help alleviate the burden on an already overburdened court system,” Mr. Judd recalled.

“He further stated, ‘Why would we NTA those we have no intention of deporting?’ He also stated, ‘We should not place someone in deportation proceedings, when the courts already have a 3-6 year backlog,’” Mr. Juddrecounted. “Since the day of this meeting, we have seen no improvements in our  enforcement efforts and the morale of the Border Patrol agents is one of, if not the lowest in the entire federal government.”

Immigration agents have complained for several years that Mr. Obama has tied their hands, forcing them to release illegal immigrants who should have been easy deportation cases.

Customs and Border Protection, the agency that oversees the Border Patrol, declined to comment on Mr. Judd’s testimony.

But CBP Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske, testifying to Congress earlier this month, brushed aside Mr. Judd’s comments, saying he didn’t believe agents were releasing people without putting them through the full process.

Mr. Kerlikowske said Mr. Judd was “probably not the most knowledgeable organization about what’s actually going on” in the field with Border Patrol agents, and he said agents that object to Mr. Obama’s policies should quit.

The backog of immigration court cases is 

meaningless.  Seventy-five percent of illegals fail 

to show up for their hearings anyway.  And DHS 

has under this policy.

President Obama's policies have made it only 

more difficult to fix this broken system.  Adding 

to the problem by increasing the number of 

illegals is irresponsible governance – which just 

about sums up the president's terms in office.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/dhs_says_the_administration_has_no_intention_of_deporting_most_illegals.html#ixzz43eVQskH2
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Clinton has also held several fundraisers in Mexico. One of the co-hosts of a February fundraising dinner was Wal-Mart lobbyist Ivan Zapien, who relocated to Mexico with the company in 2015. Clinton served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986-1992. 

 

Clinton rakes in cash overseas







Greg Nash 
Hillary Clinton's campaign has held more fundraisers on foreign soil than any other candidate running for president in 2016.

The Clinton campaign has held at least 13 fundraisers overseas so far, involving celebrities such as jazz singer Tony Bennett and fashion editor Anna Wintour, according to tracking of political fundraising invitations by the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.

Clinton’s offshore fundraisers, which tap wealthy U.S. citizens and permanent resident living abroad, have spanned from London, where the campaign has held at least eight fundraisers, to Munich, Mexico City, and Durban, South Africa. None of the Clinton campaign's foreign events, so far as the invitations suggest, have featured the candidate herself, though surrogates including her daughter Chelsea, have hosted the high-priced gatherings.
No other candidate running for president this cycle has done anything remotely approaching the amount of overseas fundraising as Clinton's campaign has done to date.
The former secretary of State has dwarfed her rivals in expatriate cash, raised at least $495,000 so far from Americans living abroad, according to The Hill's analysis of federal election records.
Clinton's rival in the Democratic primary race, Bernie Sanders, has raised less than a quarter of that, and the three Republicans still in the race have raised relatively miniscule amounts from Americans abroad.
Ted Cruz has raised just $23,000 overseas; Donald Trump — who has a “donate” button on his website but doesn’t hold fundraisers — took in $1100; and John Kasich has raised only $50 from overseas donors, according to figures disclosed in the most recent reporting period.
Even Jeb Bush, who has a wide political network overseas through his family’s connections, only raised slightly more than $200,000 from Americans living abroad.
No foreign fundraising invitations could be found by the Sunlight Foundation for any other candidate besides Clinton. One of the rare examples of a foreign fundraiser for a 2016 presidential candidate found on the public record is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who went to Israel last year in part to raise money for his campaign.
While overseas fundraisers are hardly a new practice for well-known establishment candidates; the Clinton campaign is on pace to exceed even what the sitting President Barack Obama managed in 2012, assuming she becomes the Democratic nominee.  
Throughout the two years of the 2012 presidential cycle, President Obama's campaign held at least 13 fundraising events on foreign soil in countries as far-reaching as China and Egypt, according to the Sunlight Foundation. Republican nominee Mitt Romney's campaign held at least four fundraisers in London and Jerusalem.
Long-time Democratic fundraiser Kenneth Christensen, whose D.C.-based consulting firm Christensen & Associates helps candidates set up their finance operations, says he's not surprised that the Clinton campaign has established a more powerful offshore finance machine than any other candidate.
"Obviously with the Clintons they have a lot of experience in doing that. They give lots of speeches overseas, and they run into a lot of people," Christensen told The Hill in a telephone interview Friday. "A lot of that fundraising overseas are relationships they already have."
Christensen, who is focusing on Democratic congressional races this cycle, indicated it would be professionally negligent not to take full advantage of Clinton's relationships to finance what is becoming an expensive primary race against a well-funded Bernie Sanders campaign. The Clinton advantages include her global connections as a former secretary of State, her family's foundation, and  above all, the unparalleled donor network established by both Bill and Hillary Clinton over several decades.

Clinton's offshore fundraisers so far this cycle have included a post-concert reception at London's Royal Albert Hall with Tony Bennett, a "discussion" between Chelsea Clinton and Anna Wintour, and a Munich Fashion Week event with former ambassador Melanne V

Clinton has also held several fundraisers in Mexico. One of the co-hosts of a February fundraising dinner was Wal-Mart lobbyist Ivan Zapien, who relocated to Mexico with the company in 2015. Clinton served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986-1992. 
The Federal Election Commission, which regulates campaign fundraising, stipulates that "foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S." But the FEC allows that both U.S. citizens and "green card" holders living abroad (individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) "are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute."
"I would expect a professional campaign to take advantage of all their fundraising opportunities," Christensen said. "She's capitalizing on it now to make sure she's running an aggressive and professional fundraising operation."