There’s a diary up by pianogramma speaking to something we’ve read about and spoken about when it comes to campaign finance but are now seeing an example of — dependence upon your donors.
The way Hillary has chosen to finance her campaign pretty much dictates she must continue to go to big donors to continue to finance it. At first they come to you, offering all sorts of money — then as time goes on you end up going to them for money.
As a professional spendthrift, I know what it’s like going to people for money. Luckily I haven’t had to borrow more than a hundred or so bucks, and I’ve always paid it back, but the feeling is not pleasant.
I am blessed with friends who will lend me money without any judgment or expectation other than they get it back when I have it. Still, it’s a wretched feeling asking for money; but it is also a real relief when you get it. That feeling from not having enough to indeed having enough is rather pleasant.
Anyway, enough about that.
The diary also speaks about Hillary’s recent big money fundraisers either not being put on the published schedule or postponed until after New Hampshire.
Dallasdoc hit the nail on the head (or as we bloggers would say, "nailed it”) in his diary enough:
Hillary Clinton and her backers explicitly believe that in this Citizens United world, the best way to fight corrupt money in politics on the Republican side is with more corrupt money on the Democratic side. How else can we win? Actually, fighting fire with fire only creates a lot more ashes. The best way to fight fire is with water. The best way to fight corrupt money in politics is not more corrupt money in politics. The best way is to make corrupt money poison to any politician accepting it. That means weaponizing corruption as a political issue, and taking advantage of the anger in the country at politics.
(emphasis in original)
It wasn’t long ago that these kinds of fundraiser and fundraising tactics were completely accepted in our political culture. There were two reasons for this — one, virtually all candidates took the big money; and two, because of the first reason, no one was in a position to speak out against this political practice, even though the people were being shut out of the political process because of it.
Well now we have a candidate that hasn’t taken the money. This is the beginning of “weaponizing corruption as a political issue” which I believe is in everyone’s interest, including the so-called Establishment.
We’ve seen that when confronted with the reality of taking big money, no one has a very cogent response. Over and over again when this issue is raised it becomes more and more apparent that the only ones who gain from this big money are the powerful entities who take advantage of our corrupt Establishment to further their own individual and greedy aims.
This isn’t solely about Hillary Clinton and I think you can see it in Bernie’s face when he has to speak of it in her presence in the debates. He’s not focusing his rage on her but on the system, you can see it in how he responds. He can’t back down from the truth — but the truth makes him point to the CEO’s of the big banks and corporations, not to Hillary. He knows that Hillary is doing what most everyone in the Dem Establishment is doing.
So yeah, I think political corruption by big money should be “politically weaponized as a campaign issue.” It’s time we really took a look at what is going on here and see for ourselves how this issue keeps average citizens from being represented in our government.