Clinton’s Defense of Big Money Won’t Cut It

[Ferd Berfel]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/25/clintons-defense-big-money-wont-cut-it

The “money chase” slowly, imperceptibly influences the worldview of politicians. It influences who they think is important, what views they think are reputable.

Hillary Clinton’s heated defense of the money she has raised from Wall Street and other interests won’t cut it. Her protests contradict the basic case that virtually all Democrats and reformers have made for getting big money out of politics. It is vital that voters not be misled by them.

Normally, liberal politicians defend setting up super PACs, and collecting large sums from big donors, because while they pledge to curb the influence of the rich and corporations in our politics if elected, they can’t “unilaterally disarm.” Clinton repeats this argument, but it has less force against Bernie Sanders who not only has made the corrosive effect of big money contributions central to his campaign, but has demonstrated that it is possible to be competitive without setting up super PACs and without asking billionaires and millionaires for money. By funding his campaign with small donations raised online, Sanders has not only walked his talk, he’s stripped away the easy defense of “they all do it.”

In response, Clinton has put forth additional, but troublesome, arguments. She dismisses Sanders’ indictment of her funding ties as an unjustified attack on her character. She demands evidence of a specific vote or act that was done in return for a contribution. And she invokes the Obama defense: President Obama collected big bucks from Wall Street and yet went on to pass the most extensive banking reforms since the Great Depression.

Not Character, Common Sense

Few Democrats doubt that big money corrupts our politics.........

[onecaliberal]

1. "Few Democrats doubt that big money corrupts our politics"

Stupid is as stupid believes. You'd seriously have to be dumber than a bag of hammers to believe otherwise.

On Edit: As another poster already pointed out, why are there laws against giving gifts to congress if it isn't thought to be corrupting? It's common fucking sense.

[Ferd Berfel]

2. Clinton has said that it dosen't corrupt her

[onecaliberal]

3. She's a pathalogical liar.

[Ferd Berfel]

5. well, yeah, there's THAT....

[randome]

4. And yet Sanders couldn't come up with a single point to criticize her about.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Ferd Berfel]

6. Where've you been?

He does it on a regular basis. In Fact, in his typical weak-kneed kum bi ya fashion, Hartmann has been recommending Bernie 'cut it out'

[Human101948]

7. He was being nice...simple example is the Bankruptcy bill

which she did a 180 on when it was critical to her contributors. I am sure that she would have come up with some bullshit rationalization but that was an obvious example.

The story here--

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/the-vote-for-bankruptcy-reform-that-haunts-hillary-clinton.html

As Senator Kerry said, she was against before she was for it.