Hillary Clinton’s Top Corporate Donors Are Among The Most Hated Companies in America

[cheapdate]

217. I don't disagree entirely with your arguments.

I guess after sitting and twisting my brain into knots trying to unravel the mystery of American politics and find the keys to success that will transform society and redirect it on a path that empowers everyone to lead full, rich, and meaningful lives, restores and protects the living environment for ourselves and future generations, and increases justice here and abroad, I come back to the conclusion that winning the election is a vital priority.

I gave some of my arguments for the necessity of winning in post #212, in reply to JDPriestly. I think that, at this moment in time, a victory for an imperfect Democrat is more important that a principled loss for a visionary candidate.

Thanks to the Robert's court Citizens United decision (5-4), laws that limit many kinds of political spending, or that require disclosure, have been declared unconstitutional. The price to run a credible and competitive national political campaign today is probably around $800,000,000, and there's nothing anyone can do about it for the time being. In today's environment, direct campaign contributions are only one piece of the total spending. Money isn't everything, but I think there's a limit to how much of a financial disadvantage a candidate can overcome and still remain viable. A good candidate with a good message will find his message subverted and overwhelmed by a candidate with a dramatic financial advantage. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's the sad truth.

But again, I agree with much of what you've said.