"The Clintons have thrived within a corrupt system and have become obscenely wealthy because of it"

[imagine2015]

Salon
Hillary Clinton’s big donor problem isn’t going away: Her history of taking Wall Street cash exemplifies all that’s wrong in U.S. politics
The Clintons have thrived for so long within a corrupt system and have become obscenely wealthy because of it
by Conor Lynch
May 30, 2016

Money in politics has been an important and at times contentious topic during the 2016 presidential race, particularly on the Democratic side of things, where Bernie Sanders has campaigned almost entirely on small donations — breaking grassroots fundraising records previously held by Barack Obama — and railed against Clinton for her financial ties to Wall Street and other industries.

Clinton has responded to these criticisms by arguing that Sanders has no proof of quid pro quo, a similar line of reasoning that right-wing Supreme Court Justices use when throwing out campaign finance laws. At one debate, she insisted that Sanders was peddling an “artful smear” by questioning whether big money donations or high-paid speeches influenced her, which — not surprisingly — she has denied completely.

Of course, there is very good reason to believe that the billionaires and corporations that donate to Clinton or pay her generously for 30-minute speeches are expecting something in return (as with every other politician they donate to). Wall Street bankers don’t contribute to both Republicans and Democrats because they like Republicans and Democrats equally, but to hedge their bets (needless to say, some politicians are much more willing to bend than others).

This is all an indictment of the system, not any particular politician; but the fact that the Clintons have thrived for so long within this system and have become obscenely wealthy because of it should trouble any progressives who want to see meaningful reform. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich put it, Clinton is the “most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have,” but “Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have.”

What has been especially disturbing about the 2016 Democratic primary debate over money in politics has been the extent to which partisan Democrats have been willing to use right-wing talking points to defend their preferred candidate, dismissing big money contributions as inconsequential without concrete evidence of quid pro quo.

Barney Frank, a prominent Clinton surrogate and board member of Wall Street bank Signature Bank, has gone so far to accuse Sanders of McCarthyism (which is funny, considering the Clinton camp began red-baiting Sanders and his supporters pretty early on) for implying that Clinton and other politicians are influenced by contributions.

In a 2012 interview with NPR, Frank had a slightly different tune: “People say, ‘Oh, it doesn’t have any effect on me.’ Well if that were the case, we’d be the only human beings in the history of the world who on a regular basis took significant amounts of money from perfect strangers and made sure that it had no effect on our behavior.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/29/hillary_clintons_big_donor_problem_isnt_going_away_her_history_of_taking_wall_street_cash_exemplifies_all_thats_wrong_in_u_s_politics/

[pbmus]

1. Obscene today is much larger numbers ...

[annavictorious]

2. It's Sanders who's in trouble with the FEC over campaign finance violations.

And it's Sanders who hosted the big dollar/corporate donor fundraising retreats in exchange for campaign cash.
And it's Sanders who won't let anybody get a peek at his taxes.
And it's Sanders whose wife who profited from that cozy the waste dumping deal.

[Armstead]

7. Gosh that sure is a weird sense of disproportion

[imagine2015]

9. Sure he is. That's why we've have 24/7 coverage of these huuugeee scandals in the corporate media.

I'm sorry. I got that confused with the huge Bernie Sandals.


?rlvnet=1

[SidDithers]

3. Get 'em in while you can...nt

Sid

[imagine2015]

11. So humorous posts will not be allowed by you if Hillary captures the nomination for Wall Street?

I'm referring to the Bernie Sanders sandals of course.

[JEB]

15. News and information blackout coming soon.

[NorthCarolina]

4. Precisely why they have no intention of changing things now.

They like things just the way they are.

[Hydra]

5. Of course, this is a Poppy Bush/DLC utopia in action

It's only a nightmare for everyone else...but hey, if we were special enough, we'd be in their inner circle and living it up. It's only because we're unworthy that we don't benefit the same way from the system. Team Hill will be happy to verify that.

[senz]

6. It's true. Clinton is part and parcel of a rigged, corrupt system.

She's what we used to call a Republican.

[liberal_at_heart]

8. There will never be a good time to change it for those that have the concern that it will

help the enemy win. There will always be the next election or the next re-election. We just have to change it. If we're always concerned with the next election we will never get around to fixing it. And that is exactly what those who benefit from it know it and use it to their advantage.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, imagine2015.

[Waiting For Everyman]

12. K&R

[AzDar]

13. None of them want the Corporate Gravy Train derailed... Bernie is threatening to tear up the tracks.

SO FUCKING CORRUPT.

[JEB]

14. Win or lose, this is going to bite us all in the ass.

[vintx]

16. K&R!

[Orsino]

17. Pretty much.

I'm not looking for them to try to change a system that has worked so well for their class.

[Ferd Berfel]

18. K&R - which is why she will never change a damn thing - Status Quo.