With the increasing discomfort of voters over the huge speaking fees that Hillary Clinton received from Wall Street and other business groups, it was astonishing to see Clinton leave the tough Iowa campaign to go to Philadelphia to meet with financial industry wealthy to collect more donations. The campaign decided to do the fundraiser just a week before the Iowa caucuses despite Clinton’s personal and campaign money from lobbyists and industry executives growing as a key issue for undecided voters. The decision is baffling for a campaign that is famous for controlling the message and image of Clinton. It did not go unnoticed by Bernie Sanders who hit Clinton last night with this zinger: “My opponent is not in Iowa tonight. She is raising money from a Philadelphia investment firm. Frankly, I’d rather be here with you.” Ouch.
Sanders also used the evening to highlight his endorsement from actress Susan Sarandon who also slammed Clinton over her Wall Street ties and vote in favor of the Iraq War.
It would seem that whatever cash is raised, the campaign just gave Sanders a huge news cycle hit that would be worth much more in terms of damage to Clinton and coverage. Moreover, Clinton’s direct involvement prevents any type of pivot or spin. She has to again embrace such donors at a time when people question her honesty and credibility on financial industry reforms and other issues. Curious political choice.
It is equally curious to see the Clinton camp reportedly spreading the rumor that some people in the caucuses may be young people who perjure themselves to support Sanders. Sanders reacted angrily and said that young people were coming to help get out the vote, not to vote — a standard practice in Iowa. However, with Clinton’s worsening numbers with younger voters, this is not a very helpful attack if she wants these people to support her in the general.
The decision to continue to attend such fundraisers may reflect reports of diminishing financial support for Clinton. One of the most fascinating aspects of this election has been Sanders’ ability to raise a large war chest off small donations while refusing support from super Pacs. It is a claim that the Clinton camp has not been able to attack and clearly resonates with voters particularly as critics have increasingly objected to Clinton’s association with people they call “attack dogs” like David Brock while she objects to Sanders raising her contributions from Wall Street, drug companies, and other industries.
It is a good thing to see scrutiny of such fundraising sources in my view. Ironically, it may show that, even after Citizens United, it is possible for the public to monitor and respond to the influence of such groups. However, Clinton has argued that there is nothing wrong with accepting such money either personally in speaking fees or as donations. After all, these are successful people who want to support candidates that they believe in. It is possible for a financial industry executive to favor someone because she or he believes that the candidate will bring greater stability or prosperity for the country. It is also certainly true that such contributions are often made to influence candidates. Yet, these are successful people who want to back a candidate that they favor.
I honestly can see both sides on this issue. Is it far to object to such fundraisers by candidates like Clinton? What do you think?
This is absolutely spot on!
“When deciding who to blame for the current state of affairs in our country, we always run through a familiar list of shadowy villains: the “system,” the “establishment,” politicians, lobbyists, the schools, the media, etc. These are fine suspects in their own right, but I find it ridiculous that, somehow, we skip right over the first and most dastardly culprit: ourselves.”
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/america-is-falling-apart-and-its-your-fault/
I suspect that most people just don’t feel strongly about this issue and it won’t stop her getting the democratic nomination.
The science geek
http://www.thesciencegeek.org
Justice Holmes,
You’ll have to point out where I said the GOP followed the rule of law. I’ll wait.
Hillary’s services are for hire. You know what that makes her.
Not that most of the rest are any different.
Trump and Sanders’ successes speak for themselves
Louis F. explains how Hillary operates and why Trump is a maverick
“With Clinton as President, regardless of her baggage, the country would move forward.”
This is how voters turn a blind eye to corruption and vote these people into office, only to complain about corrupt politics later. This is why politicians feel it is safe to lie, cheat, and break the law, because we voters allow them to do it.
So, Olly, the GOP FOLLOWED THE “rule of law”? On which planet was that?
I’m no fan of Hillary–not by a long shot. The woman ought to be in prison, wearing stripes and making big rocks into little rocks for a multiple criminal acts, many spanning decades; however, having said that, I am capable of putting all of that aside and just focusing in on the subject matter contained in the article. The question is, obviously, did ole Hillybilly do anything wrong here, in this particular instance, by going to attend this political fundraiser and skipping out on some face time in Iowa? As much as I despise her, my honest answer, in this instance, would have to be no. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that her coffers are running dry, and, they may very well be. After all, these campaigns require vast sums of money and those pantsuits don’t just buy themselves. Quite frankly, instead of making the Bern seem more down to earth and reasonable, his attack on ole Hillybilly, for this particular move, actually does the opposite, as it makes him appear even more out of touch with reality and even more disconnected with the realities of life, if that’s humanly possible. Although I thoroughly detest the woman, I can still separate my personal animus and appreciate that she may have needed that money to continue on with her campaign. No money, no more campaign. Bern the Bolshevik’s failure to appreciate that simple and obvious fact serves to paint him as the loon that he is, complaining about the need to fund a campaign but screaming, like a hyena, that the American people are tired of hearing about the witch’s emails. No Bern, we’re not. The American people do care about crimes involving our national security. You may not, but we do. He’s so demented, he is incapable of discerning what is unimportant and frivolous–the need to garner contributions to continue a campaign–from that which may be criminal and in violation of the law–the whole email debacle. He did himself no favors harping on this non-issue and previously acting to summarily dismiss a true issue which was paramount. Old Bolsheviks die hard.
“…starts at the bottom. With Clinton as President,”
I don’t believe elevating your choice from the sewer to POTUS is actually fixing anything, isaac. Nope, you progressives have had long enough to “fix” things and you have nearly fixed us to death. I suggest we try the rule of law. I realize that won’t suit your worldview but then again I don’t care. 🙂
I had heard that Hillary was having money problems so I am not surprised she is out raising money. Glad Bernie got a hit in.
Unfortunately the choice for President will be between a Republican and a Democrat. One’s individual, holier than thou, analysis of the people must step aside and give way to what the result might be. For the Republicans it is either Trump or Cruz, right now but any of them would be just as bad and add onto that a Republican house. The damage would set this country back several generations. For the Democrats it is Clinton or Sanders. Even if Sanders got in and beat the opposition and became President, he would be up against an extremely hostile Republican house. The Republicans, first with none, then with one, and then with both parts of the rest of the government, ranted and raved and dragged this country backwards with Obama, who is not that radical. What would happen to old man Sanders after a first term? He would be so beat that the next President would be a Republican.
This country needs a revolution but that starts at the bottom. With Clinton as President, regardless of her baggage, the country would move forward. Any other option would see the country moving backward. Fixing Obamacare has its best chance with Clinton. All the rest amounts to maneuvering through the circus that is the American government. The next President needs two terms and needs to be progressive, a Democrat. Like it or lump it it’s Clinton.
When Clinton gets in, she will have momentum. Then is the time for Americans to demand she and all other politicians be cut off from the Oligarchical tit. If she did well enough her first term, she could pull a Sanders for her second. The first priority in fixing this disgusting and treasonous sewer that is the American political system is to abolish private money.
@Steve Fleischer
1, January 28, 2016 at 10:58 am
“Hillary has proven to be bullet proof so far – her supporters are impervious to ‘facts’. ”
I don’t know why you put the word facts inside quotation marks. Excluding her bankster backers on Wall Street, who know for a fact what they’re going to get in return for their money, many of her supporters are impervious to facts, as her supporters in this video amply demonstrate:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/campaign-2016/the-root-of-all-evil-1.html
What do I think? Let’s look at the matter succinctly.
I have no evidence that Martin O’Malley or Bernie Sanders are corrupt. I have enough evidence to convince me Hillary Clinton is.
When a candidate becomes corrupted, they possess no redeeming qualities worthy of reconsideration.
That is why I will never support Hillary Clinton for any office–public, private or charitable.
A Socialist, A Liar, and a Megalomaniac walked into Iowa. . .
Take the money out of politics and we won’t have to worry about pay to play anymore.
Plus, we won’t see campaigns spend as much as a Third World Country’s entire GDP.
If society would end their obsession with inanimate objects and focus their attention instead on the character of the people they would see the solution is to reject the people and not the object. A war chest derived from small or large donations would be insignificant if the candidates were held to a standard of governance based on, I don’t know, the constitution perhaps.
Our founding generation understood clearly that human nature will never change. They understood a Utopian society would never exist and that government was a necessity. They understood the people selected to a position of public service were one of them and that meant they had no special powers that changed their nature. Our constitution was not intended to be an option to follow but rather the people’s only device by which they could measure their public servant’s fidelity to the rule of law. The demand by many for a return to limited government is not a replacement of one form of tyranny for another. It’s a desire to re subordinate the passions of human nature to the rule of law. We’ve tried it the other way for generations and it’s failing miserably. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to consider trying to return to the original purpose for government? What do we have to lose at this point?
People tend to mostly respect Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. If they supported a particular candidate the public might take note. Sheldon Adelson’s, the Koch Bros, and Goldman Sachs political choices, on the other hand, may be rejected because of that support.
When Hillary was First Lady there was a bankruptcy bill making its way through Congress. Elizabeth Warren and Hillary had a one-on-one meeting where Warren explained the bill and its ramifications to Clinton, who “got it”. Hillary used her influence on Bill and the bankruptcy bill died. Later, when Hillary was a Senator, the bill again made its way through Congress. Hillary voted for it. Her response to Warren was that, after all, the bankers were her constituents. Where did that leave all the rest of the citizens of NYS who were under the impression that they were also her constituents? It seems that Hillary’s constituents are those who have paid for the privilege.
“If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find”. Could that be Hillary? Punking for cash?
It is fair to object when you see their follow through. Look at what Obama was given and then what he gave in return by way of bailouts mortgaged on the backs of America’s youth.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/may/24/american-future-fund/american-future-fund-wall-street-obama/
Hillary has proven to be bullet proof so far – her supporters are impervious to “facts”.
Hillary has been anointed by the establishment – just look at the gathering of “pants suits” around her – almost the entire Democratic female senatorial contingent.
Will the people overrule the Democratic establishment? I doubt it.