tl;dr version
Sen. Barack Obamaâs decision to opt out of the public financing system
marked a milestone in modern presidential politics: the first time a
major nominee has declined public financing since the system was created
after Watergate.
McCainâs campaign said he would commit to public financing. âShould John
McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public
financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to
do the same,â Terry Nelson, McCainâs campaign manager, told the
New York Times.
Funnily enough, on Hillary Clintonâs own website:
âWe have to end the flood of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political system, and drowning out the voices of too many everyday Americans. Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee.â
Hillary, September 8, 2015
But until thenâŚ
âShouldâ is a tricksy word.
âŚvote for Bernie Sanders?
Well thatâs what I did, or caucused or whatever you call it. I am crossing my fingers that I will get to do the same in the general election as well.
This isnât even really in serious question - taking money from private groups influences your politics. To say otherwise is like denying climate change. That sheâs trying to pretend otherwise is evidence of her already being critically influenced. That influence is why Dodd-Frank wasnât better. Why we still have problems with the investor class.
That her website seems to disagree with her on this is evidence of some cognitive dissonance that hasnât quite struck home yet, and part of her overall credibility problem. Itâs also evidence that sheâs had to at least try and respond to Sandersâs message, which is him doing his job as far as Iâm concerned. Bernieâs campaign should hold her feet to the fire, here, as much as they are able: which is it? Do we need to get the corrupting effects of money out of politics, and so you shouldnât be taking this Super PAC money, or do you think that money HAS no corrupting effects in politics and are thus quite simply dangerously wrong on the facts? Because it canât be both, and sheâs trying to say it is one thing or the other depending, I guess, upon how desperately she needs the money? Itâs clear where Sanders stands on this.
One of Hillaryâs YUUUGE flaws is her credibility, her trustworthiness, the tendency for her mouth to flap out whatever her audience wants to hear. That lack of authenticity marks her as a political operative first and foremost. The decision of the states left to vote in the Democratic primary is: is that the candidate we want to send to face Trump?
The problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland, become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought.
Obamaâs basic personality doesnât seem like that of a âfighterâ in the first place. He seems instead laid back, and more interested in compromise and getting along, than in fighting.
His comment about how ordinary peopleâs problems become âabstractionsâ reminds me of his description to Mark Maron of what itâs like to be president (after agreeing, for shitâs sake, to Maronâs description of the job as being like âmiddle managementâ). Obama said itâs like being at the helm of a ship; you can only steer it so much in the short time that youâre the helm. Some âfighter.â
Hillary seems like more of a fighter, but not for the ordinary people Obama says he regrets having so little contact with. Sheâs fighting for the presidency, and she seems to be doing it for herself. For power, and even more money.
Sanders, well, heâs different, right? Heâs a fighter, and heâs not in it for personal gain. He cares about us, and itâs much harder to imagine him losing that concern, and his connnections with us, while working as president. As for being compromised by taking big money, heâs already shown that heâs centrally, directly against that â that rejection is most of what heâs all about.
money from 1â° compromised my politics
Yeah, itâll do that
- a feature, not a bug.
I think though there is maybe some room to distinguish between the perception-distorting effect of hanging out with the privileged instead of with the needy and actual quid-pro-quo corruption.
Were you even conscious in 2008?
Obama was raising vast sums of money in (on average) small donations from, eventually, more than 2 million people - at least 10-fold more than he could spend if he used the Public Financing option. Meanwhile, McCain had the advantage in mega-rich donors, the type who could spend independently through their own PACs (as had helped kill Kerry in 2004) or could launder their money through (maximum permissible) $35,000 (iirc) donations to the RNC. Sure, Obama didnât cripple himself by going the public financing route. Thatâs because he wanted to get elected, and itâs not a sign of corruption.
While those might be two distinct scenarios, theyâre not mutually exclusive and accepting money is likely to influence even if there is no verbally confirmed expectation of quid pro quo, especially if you want a second term.
Money in politics is corruption per se.
Kind of an academic distinction. The result is the same: wealthy donors get their agendas addressed, at the expense of those who are not wealthy donors.
On this particular topic, Clinton richly deserves a little satire & sarcasm.
[post amended for the sensitive]
I donât want to be that guy, but Iâm not a fan of the âwicked witchâ stuff.
Itâs sarcasm, Sir or MadamâŚ
Iâll be that guy. 
I get it, but I definitely prefer the Hillary = Han Solo (or even Hillary = Lando) comparison - the heartâs in the right place, but theyâre involved with shady characters and arenât exactly entirely trustworthy. They might feel like they have to be involved with these shady characters. Itâs up to the ragtag group of rebels (with Bernie as maybe the Obi-Wan) to show them that thereâs another way, that thereâsâŚa new hope.
I definitely prefer the Hillary = Han Solo (or even Hillary = Lando) comparison
Even Hillary-as-Greedo would be profoundly unflattering (and, unlike your examples, unmixedly so) but wouldnât tie into a huge morass of ugly gender stereotyping like the Wicked Witch meme does.
