What the fuck does this have to do with anything, or how screwed up can a supposed expose be? More fucking shit thrown at the canvas to see if it can cause some petty outrage.

Obama raised $780 million in 2008 and $1.1 billion in 2012, while Romney raised and spent $1 billion.

Where's the headline "1 Obama: 4 years, $1.9 billion"? (excluding his other races)

Seriously, that's 2/3 of the Clintons total fundraising over a long career now with 2 politicians, including a successful 2x president - and $2 billion for the Clinton charity!!!

Try this - "A handful of elite givers have contributed more than $25 million to the foundation " - bwahahaha - so 1.25% of the foundation's $2 billion came from "elites"

Now try this - "The couple’s biggest individual political benefactors are Univision chairman Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl, who have made 39 contributions totaling $2.4 million to support the Clintons’ races since 1992. The Sabans have also donated at least $10 million to the foundation. " - Jesus, that's a shitty weekend for the Koch Brothers or Sheldon Adelson - seriously, $12m in 24 years? is this supposed to be a scandal?

 "The Clintons’ ties to the financial sector strained their bonds with the left, particularly organized labor" - oh bullshit - Rahm Emmanuel strained relations with labor with his "they just flushed their money down the toilet" antics - the Clintons were always supportive. "giving at least $21 million to support their races" - damn straight. 

"By comparison, three generations of the Bush family, America’s other contemporaneous political dynasty, have raised about $2.4 billion for their state and federal campaigns and half a dozen charitable foundations, according to a Post tally of their fundraising from 1988 through 2015 — even though the family has collectively held the presidency longer than the Clintons. " - well waah fucking waah - Clinton was never associated with anything as corrupt as the Carlyle group either, *AND THE 2/3 CHARITY MONEY WAS SPENT ON CHARITY, NOT ON POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, YOU ASSHOLE GOOFS. That's right, mix 2 pots of money and then pretend they're equal. What a bunch of dickwads  Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy are - including the editor that let this piece of shit go to print.

You use a laser like focus on campaign contributions to make wild extrapolations about Hillary's behavior if she becomes president. You could just as easily point to Bill Clinton's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act as evidence that she's going to massively raise taxes on the wealthy while increasing support for the poor. And he did it in spite of the Wall Street and wealthy contributions to his campaign.

• Previously the top individual tax rate of 31% applied to all income over $51,900. The Act created a new bracket of 36% for income above $115,000, and 39.6% for income above $250,000.[2]
• Previously, corporate income above $335,000 was taxed at 34%. The Act created new brackets of 35% for income from $10 million to $15 million, 38% for income from $15 million to $18.33 million, and 35% for income above $18.33 million.[3]
• The 2.9% Medicare tax previously was capped to only apply to the first $135,000 of income. This cap was removed.
• Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
• The portion of Social Security benefits subject to income taxes was raised from 50% to 85%.[4]
• The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
• The AMT tax rate was increased from 24% to tiered rates of 26% and 28%.[5]
• Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments.

edit to add: For some reason you see the Clinton's as uniquely tainted by campaign contributions. In 2008 Obama received the bulk of the health care and pharmaceutical money. A third more than Hillary and 2.5 times what McCain got. At the time did you support Hillary or even McCain as a better choice for health care reform citing Obama's acceptance of significantly more money from the health care industry as tainting him? Or did you support Obama in spite of the money he got from those big donors?

Here's how they "did it". Quite interesting, and they deserve kudos for research (as do those who actually did it). I can only repeat and amplify Paracles - why does what Bill Clinton raised in the 70's have anything to do with Hillary's current campaign? Or the donations to the Foundation, which have been as all things Clinton vetted beyond belief?

It's really nothing more than an opportunity for a numbers cruncher to do their thing, so I await an equally weedy dive into the Bush family tree.