The idea that corps pay politicians $600,000+ when they're not trying to buy influence...

[polichick]

is flat-out ridiculous!

Voters are way past falling for Clinton's fake outrage and deflection.

It's a brand new game - we, the people, are finally calling a few shots!
(More than a few, if we're smart.)

[forest444]

1. It's like the guy who was caught cheating on his wife w/ a prostitute because of a cancelled check.

"Honey, I know it was $1,000; but I swear all we did is talk!"

[polichick]

2. Ha! Really.

[DJ13]

26. You mean Jerry Springer?

[Electric Monk]

3. They're not paying that much $$$ for the politician to speak. They're paying for them to listen. nt

[polichick]

7. And then to remember them when they vote for bills or award contracts or sell arms.

[PoliticAverse]

10. Which is why what the politician said during their speech isn't that big an issue...

(unless it was something really stupid).

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. It's a nifty little way of making a campaign contribution

that doesn't have to be counted as a campaign contribution. Don't tell me any corporation could justify to its bean counters payments of that magnitude for a one-hour speech if they didn't figure there would be some benefits to them down the road, wink wink, nudge nudge. At my old job sometimes they hired motivational speakers to give a talk about how to be more productive or what-the-hell-ever. Even though the details of these speeches were pretty much forgotten by the time we got to the hors d'oeuvres table, they were at least marginally related to the actual operation of the business, and I'm damn sure nobody got paid six figures for making them. Nope. When you pay that kind of money to hear a politician speak, you're not paying for the speech. You're paying for future access and influence.

[polichick]

12. Exactly!

[tecelote]

5. In America, politicians work for the people.

Hillary believes she is working for the people.

Problem is, in America, corporations are people.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

13. LOL

Ben is a person.
Jerry is a person.

[polichick]

17. Yes, and their corporation is not a person. (But you were joking, right?)

[SoLeftIAmRight]

19. yes - in America, corporations are people.

so sad

[polichick]

14. True - and gerrymandering even allows politicians to choose their voters!

[CharlotteVale]

6. Anybody who thinks it isn't buying influence....should ask themselves if

they'd say the same if a Republican were the recipient of such largesse.

[polichick]

8. Exactly. The Clintons perfectly symbolize this practice on our side...

Their entire fortune came through corporate "relationships."

[EndElectoral]

9. Didn't some of the banking industry actually write some of the legislation under Bush?

It shows the power of access, and how those who pay get special treatment.

If HRC honestly believes accepting that money doesn't have payback, then she is more naive than I thought, and raises questions about her judgment.

[polichick]

11. Industry people helped with the healthcare bill too, and then there's Cheney's energy cartel...

We, the people, have been far too complacent for far too long!

[kath]

16. And the Koch Brothers, via ALEC, write TONS of legislation that gets adopted all over the country.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

15. Even the Clinton supporters know this truth.

...

[polichick]

18. They can't really believe that she is not influenced.

[Jack Rabbit]

20. If you agree with Hillary that she isn't necessarily influenced by that kind of money

. . . or that it doesn't at least gives the appearance of her taking money from criminal bankers in a shady deal, then you probably agree with the Supreme Shysters in the Citizens United decision, in which they said exactly the same thing.

[polichick]

21. True - it's such an insult to voters when she claims that donations and fees have...

never influenced her - unless she just happens to agree with what those corps want.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. I'd like to make one small correction in your reply

she just happens to agree with what those corps want.

Corporations don't want anything. Only an organic being, like you, I or Swashbuckler the Cat who is balancing himself on the back of my chair as I type this, could want something. Now the shady criminals who run Wall Banks, they are organic being. Corporations are not organic beings, let alone persons with human rights.

[polichick]

23. Good catch!

[winter is coming]

24. The idea that corporations

would continue donating to someone who's not "representing their interests" is even more ludicrous. The cash would have dried up long before now if there weren't some sort of quid pro quo going on.

[polichick]

25. Great point! And somehow I don't think politicians get paid well for...

making speeches to Wall Street firms about all the regulations they can look forward to.

[Hoyt]

27. Yep, the American Camping Association, Canada 2020, UCLA, etc., bribed Clinton.

[Mnpaul]

28. So Hillary agrees with the Citizens United decision?

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that the only justification for limiting campaign expenditures was "corruption or the appearance of corruption." And since independent expenditures, including those from corporations and unions, don't have any kind of corrupting influence, there's no justification for limiting them.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/does-money-corrupt-political-process

Hillary - corporate free speech advocate