Hillary Clinton claims to be a progressive Democrat, yet her donor list reads like a who’s who of conservative elite. Why do these people donate to Clinton’s campaign? Easy: they believe that a Clinton presidency will benefit their interests. These people's values are absolutely not in the nation's best interest. Take a look at this mix of corporations and individuals:

1. Alice Walton, Wal-Mart Heiress – $1/3 Million

Last week records became public of a $353,400 donation from #12 on the Forbes 400 list, as seen below:

Walton's wealth comes from stakes in her family's company Wal-Mart, infamous for “being one of the wealthiest corporations in the history of the world…(while costing) taxpayers roughly $6.2 billion per year due to paying workers so little that workers have to depend on public assistance to meet basic needs,” according to U.S. Uncut. Hillary Clinton was a member of the Wal-Mart board and remained silent as the company waged a war on workers’ rights and unionization. This doesn’t even begin to cover Wal-Mart’s habit of trying to prevent gay families from adopting children.

Alice Walton, 2011 DUI

Alice Walton was arrested for her second DUI in 2011, her first being a wreck in 1989 that resulted in one death according to the Arkansas Times. She faced no charges after either arrest.

2. George Soros, Soros Fund Management – $2 Million

Yes, you read that correctly. Soros gave $2 million, paid through a super pac. Soros Fund Management restructured in 2011, ditching $1 billion in the process, to avoid the newly enacted Dodd-Frank financial regulations. Rather than have to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Soros snuck through a family-company loophole. Basically, Soros knew exactly how illegal its activities were and dodged the Feds. Charming.

3. All the Failed Big Banks You Can Handle, ≈$4 million

Hillary's top 20 donors include: Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, and many more like them.

Recognize these names? You should. Together, they took roughly $618.2 billion in federal bailout after their own risky (read: stupid and morally repugnant) practices landed the U.S. in the Great Recession. (Total calculated using these numbers).

Together they have donated $3,593,080 to Hillary Clinton's campaign (not including speaking fees).

These are the people who want economic deregulation so they can continue the massively profitable and extraordinarily dangerous practices that cost so many Americans their futures. It should be a bit disturbing to Democrats that Hillary's biggest fans are failed big banks.

4. Mark Heising, Director of Medley Partners – $3/4 Million

This managing director donated $750,000 to a Clinton super pac. This company is devoted to “private equity investments on behalf of Jim Simons' family and a number of affiliated entities." Yes, a whole company to make more money out of the money of this guy:

Jim Simons is No. 2 on Forbes Highest-Earning Hedge Fund Managers list. He retired from his $29 billion firm in 2010. His fortune, the fortune of Medley Partners, Mark Heising, and now the Clinton campaign, comes from "the secretive and consistently profitable black-box strategy known as Medallion," according to Forbes. If that doesn't reek of the immoral, corrupt financial world, I don't know what does.

5. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners – $1 million

Paloma Partners received $200 billion of taxpayer money in the AIG bailout. Sussman and his ex-wife have been implicated in creating tax loopholes in order to further use Sussman's "tax shelter on the island of St. John, (which) allows him to take a 90 percent tax break on his hedge fund billions." Ick.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The list could go on and on. Hillary is backed by a very extensive roster of shady characters. In addition, these donation estimates are likely lower than the reality due to the wildly deregulated campaign finance system. People can funnel money through pacs and it becomes very difficult to know who supports candidates and why.

If Hillary is the candidate you choose to support, you have to at least acknowledge that she is very popular with the 1 percent because her economic policy disproportionately benefits these CEOs. If you can live with that, so be it.