By accepting HRC's appearance of conflict issues [View all]

[cali]

And insisting there's nothing at all problematic with accepting large sums from corporations both personally and for the Clinton Foundation for speeches given to corporations who are lobbying government, Democrats are forfeiting the right to effectively criticize republicans who do the same thing .

No one in politics has taken this to the extremes that both Clinton's have. Not the bushes or anyone else, because it's taken place while HRC is still in Politics.

If you believe that big corporate money is a problem in our elections and in our political system, this is not a good thing.

Democrats are bestowing their seal of approval on practices that could very, very easily lead to massive corruption. Ask yourself this; would you be comfortable with a republican SoS, planning a run for the presidency, benefiting from corporations in the same way as Clinton has? You may trust Clinton not to be influenced by the access of special interests such as big banks, but do you trust republicans?

Both Bill and Hillary have histories of walking right up to the ethical line. Many of these instances, like the Foundation accepting donations from the governments of foreign countries, while HRC was SoS, set a bad precedent. By saying there's no problem with doing that, Democrats are saying that the appearance of conflict is not a problem.