First, let me make clear: The question being asked in this post isn't what Clinton would do in a perfect world where there were no lobbyists pushing to maintain Citizens United and other campaign rules which benefit big money. I don't care if Clinton has daydream fantasies about overturning Citizens United. The question is: What will Clinton do in the real world?
To me, the answer is fairly simple. Look at the 2016 Democratic primary contest. Clinton is using campaign financing methods which give big money a disproportionate role in politics. There's bundling* and other ways of receiving large sums of money from individuals at official Clinton campaign events, as well as there being big money super PAcs backing Clinton.
This isn't anything which is new or unique about Clinton. Plenty of other Democrats do it. In that sense, I don't want to single out Clinton. The focuses of this post are two points. First, that Clinton is using these campaign funding sources in a Democratic primary. At least some readers here expect Republican candidates to run their campaigns in unethical ways. Some will argue that it's necessary to fight fire with fire when running against Republicans for the general election. However, readers may want to ask whether they feel the same rules should apply when one Democrat is competing against other Democrats in a primary. Clearly, Clinton is willing to play by the same rules in the primaries as in the general election.
The more important - and the more telling - point is that Clinton's 2016 primary opponent is Sanders. Sanders is making a strong effort to avoid campaign financing which is inappropriate or gives a disproportionate role for big money. In this one particular primary contest, there is no doubt - Clinton is NOT fighting fire with fire. There's no such justification. As some of you know from the play Hamilton (or history), back in the days when disputes were sometimes settled with gun duels, sometimes one person would decide not to kill the other person and would fire his gun into the air to show this. When your dueling opponent did this, the honorable thing to do would be to refrain from shooting your gun at that person.
Sanders has figuratively fired his Citizens United gun into the air. Clinton has repeatedly fired her Citizens United gun at Sanders.
So, Clinton uses these campaign funding methods in a Democratic primary against an opponent who is NOT using those methods. How can I believe that same individual will fight as hard as is needed to get campaign finance reform passed and fight to overturn Citizens United? It’s implausible that she can justify that to herself, but she won't be able to find excuses not to follow through on campaign finance rules. Do you trust people who say, "Do as I say, not as I do"?
We know how Clinton runs her own campaign financing. That's what she does in practice in the real world. It seems to me to be a much safer bet that's what she'll continue to do in the real world.
It’s not important whether she’s trying to fool us, or she’s just fooling herself.
In the most simplistic terms, this is just one issue in the campaign. However, in a more substantial and meaningful sense, this is every issue you care about. Getting the policies you want on every other issue depends on having elected officials who don't feel an obligation to or financial dependence on big money interests which oppose those policies. And elected officials who aren't afraid that supporting the "wrong" policy will result in a major effort by big money to defeat them in their next re-election campaign. I'm not saying big money wins every election it tries to influence - but at best it's harder for us to move forward with the power of big money pushing against us. Big money doesn't have to win every election contest in order to prevent legislative majorities in favor of policies favorable to the 99%. Campaign finance is THE issue that ties it all together. When a particular candidate campaigns in such a way that it would be foolish to expect them to champion this central issue, and when there's another candidate who looks so much more likely to act on this issue, the choice is pretty clear to me.
* For those not familiar with "bundling." It works like this: one affluent supporter comes to a fundraising event with their own legal-maximum campaign contribution plus those from a number of other individuals. For the purposes of the FEC, these are contributions from a number of people within the legal limit. From the point of view of the candidate's campaign committee, the individual who brought in the bundle is responsible for bringing in a chunk of money for them. The individual could have brought in checks for friends and simply dropped them off without designating them as "my bundle." So, the real motive for bundling is to amke the candidate feel you've made a special effort to help and you'd like the politician to remember that in the future. If Clinton didn't like such practices, her campaign could simply refuse to accept them as "bundles" rather than as several checks from separate individuals.
[Sorry, I’ll be travelling and won’t be able to do dialog.]