For years, Bernie Sanders has spoken out against big money in politics. HRC is the poster

[cali]

candidate for big money in politics.

Is he really supposed to pretend that it isn't a problem when she does it?

Wouldn't that be just a wee bit hypocritical?

For decades Bernie has said that this is problem in both parties. Should he now pretend it's only a republican problem?

Corporate bucks fund candidates on both sides of the aisle.

It's an issue to a lot of Americans.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. He is lying for his own political agenda

The Clinton Foundation is not about politics. It is a charity organization that is changing the world. The fact that he is lumping Clinton in with Adelson and Koch is ugly and dishonest.

[FarPoint]

4. I agree there.

He needs to keep the record straight... But, then it is a game of deception.

[rhett o rick]

60. He has not spoken any lies. Those that are pushing this meme are dishonest if they can't

produce a quote.

[cali]

8. Fail. The intersection of the Foundation and politics is clear.

Teachout, McManus, Cassidy, Pierce and others have all addressed that. Here's Teachout:

<snip>

Over the past several years, Bill Clinton has been given millions of dollars for foreign and domestic speeches, with the greatest number of sponsors coming from the financial industry. At the same time, he solicited and received millions of dollars from foreign and domestic interests, including. Many of the donors and sponsors had interests that were affected by State Department policies, and all of the donors, past and current, have interests that would be affected by a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Hillary Clinton has not addressed the issue publicly, but some of her defenders have argued that without a smoking gun, or evidence of quid pro quo, there’s nothing to be concerned about.

As the framers knew, we don’t need that in order to be concerned.

<snip>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/03/the-clintons-snuff-box-problem.html

She has skirted way too close to the edge and she LIED TO THE OBAMA ADMIN. FLAT OUT LIED:

When she was nominated as secretary of State in 2009, Clinton promised that she would bend over backward to avoid potentially compromising situations.

“Out of abundance of caution and a desire to avoid even the appearance … of a conflict,” Clinton said, the foundation would agree to strict rules: It would disclose all its donors and clear new contributions from foreign governments with the State Department.
lRelated

Only that didn't happen. The biggest branch of the Clintons' charitable network, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, never complied with the agreement at all, according to the Boston Globe. It neither disclosed its donors nor cleared new contributions. (A spokesman said they didn't think it was necessary. After media inquiries, the program published a list of donors last month.) The Clinton Foundation also failed to clear a donation of $500,000 from Algeria. (An oversight, the foundation said.) And the foundation's Canadian affiliate collected millions of dollars without disclosing donors' names. (Canadian law guarantees privacy to donors, but the foundation could have asked them to voluntarily disclose their identities; it didn't until last week.)

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html

[Jackpine Radical]

37. Damn, I hate it

when I misplace half a mil or so, or forget who gave it to me.

[zentrum]

38. Exactly.

[rhett o rick]

61. If you noticed this poster just stopped in to drop a turd and run.

I call it "drive by fruiting" from the movie Tootsie.

[LordGlenconner]

11. The OP will invoke Benghazi before the primaries are over

Mark it down.

[cali]

17. bullshit. I have long said that Bengali is garbage

And it's folks like Zephyr Teachout, Doyle McManus and John Cassidy who are writing about the Clinton Foundation and saying it's a problem.

[rhett o rick]

66. Interesting where some people go when one mentions the strong influence of money

in politics. "Look over there, Benghazi." as the corporate dump trucks back up and dump billions at Clinton headquarters.

How ironic that Citizens United will end up benefiting Clinton and that those Conservative Democrats that were once against it, now embrace it. Situational ethics.

[rhett o rick]

24. What lie did he tell? Can you come up with the actual quote? You didn't make that up did you?

The Clinton Fdn accepts big dollars from foreign "investors". That's fine except when HRC is running for president. How can it not be a conflict of interest to accept big dollars from those that might want a favor from a president?

Besides that's not her only tie with big money. She is expected to raise $2,000,000,000 that's 2 billion dollars mostly from billionaires and large corporations and foreign "investors".

[Enthusiast]

46. You know.....

[certainot]

35. he isn't, only the trolls and irrational hypocritical 'purists' are

he's saying the billionaires are in charge and it takes a lot of money to be a winning politician.

he's been saying that a long time.

[magical thyme]

39. bs. he re-directed a specific question about hillary into an general question about an issue

It's up to Hillary to answer for herself, which she has yet to do.

Bernie is not in a position to answer for the Clinton Foundation or the Clintons. It is up to the Clintons to categorically deny that they did not and do not give preferential treatment to their donors.

[Katashi_itto]

48. Cite where he lied.

[FarPoint]

2. She better take the cash.

She needs to fight the election on equal terms...the GOP sure has set this Citizens United crap into the game.

[ErikJ]

26. CU allows unlimited $ for negative ads against oppostion which the GOP excells at

because thats all they have. And the Kochs have unlimited $ and will to do it thru their Kochtopus of front groups.

[upaloopa]

3. He can't raise enough to run a major campaign

It takes millions to win. If you want to win in 2016 you better hope our candidate has the bucks to win.
You can be pure if you want, but it takes a pragmatist to win in 2016.

[Cleita]

6. I don't know any politician more pragmatic than Bernie Sanders.

It's just an undeniable fact.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. Damn straight.

Bernie didn't block the largely RW think tank ACA. He used his influence to make it far better than it could have been.

[rhett o rick]

29. I think pragmatism is used by people to hide behind, that are afraid to fight for their freedoms

and liberties. I'm glad our founders weren't "pragmatists". "But Thomas, we can't win a war with the strongest power the world has ever known. Please Thomas, be "pragmatic" and give up."

"He can't raise enough to run a major campaign" I see that you are mimicking the only thing people have to say against him (except ridicule his hair). Reminds me of the child's story (with a twist), "I think he can't, I think he can't." Being repeated over and over in the hope that will some how make it true. Well, it will be an uphill fight for the Populist Movement to win against Goldman-Sachs and the power of Wall Street. But I think we can, I think we can.

[L0oniX]

62. Don't hold your breath over that statement.

[hrmjustin]

5. Sorry but the GOP won't share in this idealistic view of things.

Hillary needs to take the money to win.

[Cleita]

7. Well. That sad statement of fact you just made, that in order to win, one

must sell out, goes to show much more we need someone like Bernie.

[hrmjustin]

9. And if Sanders wins the primary and doesn't take the big money how does he win?

[Cleita]

12. He needs to be better. With the Repub clown car emerging so far, that

won't be hard.

[hrmjustin]

14. No it won't be. They willhave tons of money and ads and Sanders won't have enough to get his message

Out.


Sorry but he won't win if he doesn't take the money.

[Cleita]

21. No Republican is going to win in 2016 unless they cheat like they did in

2000. That's what we have to be on high alert about. Their brand just stinks right now, even among their supporters. I live in a highly conservative area so I talk to these people every day and they aren't impressed with the Republican candidates and probably won't even show up to vote.

I know many Democrats want Hllary because she's a woman and the first woman President is appealing to many. But there are other women out there not just her.

[hrmjustin]

23. I am sorry but a Republican can win the WH this time.

And if we don't raise enouchmoney we will lose.

[Cleita]

28. Neither of us knows the future so such speculation is just that.

However, I'm not so cynical to believe that only money can get us a President.

[hrmjustin]

34. Not saying only money gets us the presidency but westill need it to win.

[BrotherIvan]

42. It is nearly statistically impossible for a Republican to win the WH

It is the reason that whomever wins the primary wins the general. Unless there is election theft or a manufactured October surprise. ANY Democrat walks in with 257 electoral votes.

[hrmjustin]

57. Sorry but that is just not true.

They can wiN and if we underestimate them we do it at our peril.

[BrotherIvan]

73. Is is a post about it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12801719

The electoral college has changed.

[redstateblues]

59. That kind of thinking

Can definitely lead to losing. As bad a candidate as Romney was, it was too close for comfort. Thinking a Democrat can't lose keeps people from voting.

[BrotherIvan]

74. The distribution of population for the electoral college makes it simple mathematics

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12801719

[MADem]

78. I believe that Bernie is playing the stalking horse.

I don't think--exhortations about not running if he could not win notwithstanding--that he believes he will win.

I would not be at all surprised if they've met (BS and HRC) and done some planning.

He's not in it for principle alone; he'll likely expect some sort of reward.

[hrmjustin]

79. We shall see.

[Renew Deal]

50. Yes, we'll lose, but at least we'll feel good about it.

[Cleita]

75. And when we win, we will feel much better. eom

[sabrina 1]

16. No, she doesn't have to take the money. But she will, and if this continues, believing there is no

point in NOT continuing the selling of our elections, it will get worse, as it has, and worse.

Which is why it is so imperative for the sake of this country's future, that Bernie succeeds in defeating those billions of dollars.

And since a majority of Americans do not agree with you, THEY will be the ones to help him do it.

This campaign is going to be all about that poisonous money that buys our politicians, that shuts the people out of their own government.

First time it is going to be a top issue and that is the main reason why I am supporting the only candidate so far who is willing to fight this takeover of our country by huge Corporations.

And I know I am not alone.

I think the political class are in for a big surprise because when it comes down to it, Americans don't like to see their country being gobbled up by a small bunch of greedy, power hungry individuals. Once they know about it, and they will.

[hrmjustin]

19. You do realize the gop will have a billion dollars to run with.

How dors the democratic nominee win without taking big money?

[rhett o rick]

32. People power. It's time to take our government back and Sen Sanders is the person to

do just that. The people may surprise you. At last they have a candidate they can associate with. They recognize that Wall Street needs to be regulated.

[magical thyme]

40. So are you saying that Hillary does give preferential treatment to Clinton Foundation donors? nt

[hrmjustin]

41. No. What I am saying is that she takes in a lot of money from donors so that she can compete.

[Bonobo]

45. I should tell my kids that they should cheat on tests to keep up with the kids that cheat on tests..

so he can go to a good college, become a principal and outlaw cheating on tests.

Brilliant!

[hrmjustin]

58. Ridiculous post.

[tularetom]

56. Wow, you just validated the statement you accused Sen Sanders of making

It's wrong to accuse her of taking money from wealthy donors, because she needs to take money from wealthy donors in order to win.

Is THAT really what you're saying??? Because to me that says that you know the Clinton Foundation is a giant ATM just like the Koch Bros. but that's OK because it's for Clinton and not some republican.

And if you think she won't be tainted by the infusion of all these big bucks, you are the idealistic one around here.

[L0oniX]

64. ^^^this^^^

[Marr]

69. +1, that's a good point.

Seems like the 'pragmatic adults' here are the ones who realize that a politician who takes a billion dollars from big money interests is going to be beholden to them.

[L0oniX]

63. Yes we got the message. Ass kissing of the 1% must be done to win an election.

[hrmjustin]

65. That is not my message.

My message is to take their money to win And then promote an admendment to end citizens united.

[L0oniX]

67. Didn't say it was. It's a general message that has been been out there and here on DU.

[hrmjustin]

70. Well we shall see if Sanders can break the cycle.

[Koinos]

10. Good Millionaires and Bad Millionaires

Perhaps Bernie is imprudent for refusing to speak with millionaires or refusing to accept any help from millionaires. There are good millionaires and there are bad millionaires. There are wealthy persons who are in complete agreement with Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Martin O'Malley about Citizens United and the influence of big money in politics. There are millionaires and even billionaires who have signed on to the fact that they should be taxed more, that capital gains should be taxed more, that they are willing to do their part to reduce economic inequality. There are millionaire actors, directors, and producers in Hollywood who are "on our side." There are corporations which support collective bargaining, worker share in ownership, fair wages, and universal health care. Not all the top 1% are evil incarnate. Years ago, we recognized the wealth of the Kennedy family; but we extolled them for their devotion to liberal democratic principles and the common good. I do believe that the largest banks (too big to fail), the richest multinational corporations (TPP negotiators), and many of the world's billionaires are greedy beyond comprehension and intent upon doing us harm in order to profit. But why should any political candidate paint all the wealthy with the same broad brush? Some "special interests" (unions, for example) and many corporations (even banks) do have concern for poor and middle class Americans. Isn't it conceivable that some wealthy persons are progressives?

[Thinkingabout]

15. Good point, a prime example is the Clinton Global Intuitive. Warren Buffett is giving his

wealth to good projects, Bill and Linda Gates are doing good things with their money, to have a broad statement about those of wealth is as wrong as talking about welfare recipients are all lazy.

[MisterP]

13. the split is between Dems who think that money lets you win more often and then you get to do what

you like, and Dems who think that money corrupts politics and badly degrades the party

only one faction has been supported by the past 20 years of experience

[Thinkingabout]

18. We know it takes money for the candidate to advertise, travel and support a staff.

It takes the votes on election day or other means of voting to win elections. Perhaps the split is in believing money is evil and those who realize it is necessary.

[Koinos]

22. Or perhaps that money is a necessary evil.

But no election should ever cost billions of dollars. Apart from the corruption, think of the waste.

[Thinkingabout]

25. Do you think a candidate on the national level is going anywhere without traveling and

advertising? Would you want to work without getting paid?

[Koinos]

20. How to reduce the need for big money in politics

I think a good way to reduce the need for big money in politics would be to ban all political advertising on television. Television ads eat up hundreds of millions of campaign dollars.

Actually, I would be in favor of abolishing TV altogether; but that is an argument for another day.

At the least, Citizens United must be reversed, and sensible spending limits must be reimposed.

[Thinkingabout]

27. Do you think banning advertising on tv is the prime suspect? Getting Citizens

United reversed would be a good thing. I think the GOP thought they would be able to flood the campaign funds and the DNC candidates would not be able to get funds, the GOP have more of the wealthier members who would fund their candidates and the DNC would not have money. They were wrong.

[JoePhilly]

30. I'd think Jeb would be the Poster child for big money in politics.

Oh wait ... this is DU ... where attacking Republicans is verboten.

[djean111]

55. It is not verboten. It is pointless during a primary season, and in a general election,

it is preaching to a choir in some ways. We all hate the GOP. I sincerely doubt that anyone at DU will support or vote for a GOP politician, whether we attack the GOP or not.

Jeb may not be the poster boy, by the way. Whoever the Kochs finally anoint will be the poster child. Jeb may not be as biddable as, say, Walker. The BFEE does not cater to the Kochs, too entrenched and powerful behind the scenes, IMO. I don't think the BFEE throws big money around, either, at least not their money. They deal in power and political maneuvering. They are okay no matter who is president.

That being said, I believe the GOP will nominate a white male who will either have no problem running against a woman that the entire GOP hates, or running against a Democratic Socialist by appealing to that most dependable set of emotions - greed and fear.

[Hoyt]

31. In the unlikely event Sanders wins primary, he'll need far more than Clinton to withstand what the

GOP says about him. The swift-boating won't be pretty.

[lewebley3]

33. Bernie, never had consequences for his votes!

[morningfog]

54. He most certainly has: reelection and promotion.

[lewebley3]

81. His state is only 600,000 people almost all liberal:

[morningfog]

82. And the consequence of his votes has been reelection and promotion for 30 years.

And now a presidential run.

[lewebley3]

83. He was reelected by liberals in very liberal state with few people!!

He is not as qualified or experience as Hillary, she is the best choice to lead the party!


He is a nice man!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. But..but..Hillary is now talking about election reform. To take effect after she rakes in the cash.

"The other side does it" is a piss poor excuse for following suit.

[BrotherIvan]

43. This is why we can't have nice things

The left has been neutered with Stockholm Syndrome. So now it's the ends justify the means and political corruption and neoliberalism literally killing people is A-OK. For fuck's sake.

[Bonobo]

44. An understatement, Cali. It is a HUGE fucking issue.

Maybe the hugest fucking issue.

It is the rot at the heart of the US democracy.

[Renew Deal]

47. I don't believe Hillary supports Citzens united or anything like that

But she knows how to raise money. I am all for public financing and limits on campaign funds. It's a crucial issue. But if the rules are the way they are, she should take advantage of them. Obama was right about lobbyist money. None of the candidates should take it.

[boston bean]

49. Did you vote for Obama?

[ucrdem]

51. How many Clinton Cash threads are you going to start today?

Would 25 be a good ballpark figure?

[cantbeserious]

52. HRC Represents American Oligarchs Plain And Simple

eom

[Metric System]

68. The way our system currently works is that money wins the White House. Do you want Dems to retain

the White House or not? I think some of you are OK with losing the White House and the dire consequences that will have for the Supreme Court, as long as your candidate of choice is "politically pure."

[deaniac21]

71. HRC.....poser candidate

[stevenleser]

72. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6617467

[DURHAM D]

80. That thread is hilarious. nt

[Maedhros]

76. You people are looking at this ALL WRONG.

Corporate money flooding the political system is only a problem if we pay attention to it. Just like blanket surveillance, aggressive wars of choice, executions without due process and assaults on the free press, the problem with campaign finance can be solved by simply ignoring when Democrats engage in it.

Just close your eyes, plug your ears, and say nothing - and POOF! The problem is gone!

[MADem]

77. Sanders took money from Clinton (his good friend of 25 years) for his Senate campaign.

So long as there's money in politics, this is going to be an issue. If people running for office don't have access to BIG--and by BIG, I mean BIG--money, they aren't going to win.

Be nice to have publicly financed elections, but I won't hold my breath.