As a non-American, my feeling is more “Eh, more of the same”. The corporate links most candidates have has been there for a generation at least and are a fact of the political landscape in the US. It would be nice to have more candidates that don’t owe the corporate infrastructure so much, but that’s not going to happen without campaign funding reform, and that’s not going to happen without… something else happening.
Bernie’s one-man funding reform is proof that there are other viable paths, and regardless of what happens with him, I’d look to local politicians who might be running in 2018 who sound a bit like Bernie to carry that torch on for the future.
Something else has started to happen. Push it forward!
Bernie is great because he’s showing there is a different way, and IMO it’s too little too late for 2016 but there clearly is a hunger for that different way. Hilary has been in this race for a long time, and for a long time she’s know that who ever is the nominee is, will be running against a party with $2-3B to spend, with most being spent on the presidential campaign, so how was she not going to try and get as much money as she could? If she took $1.46M from fossil fuel lobbyist (according to Papsan’s post) how much did the GOP take? That’s the comparison that matters, again IMO.
This article might give insight into the philanthrocapitalist stylings of the Clinton Foundation.
Damn! As a non-American, you have a better grasp of American politics than most Americans. Why is that not surprising?
Kevin Gozstola has succinctly summarized one of the primary problems with Clinton - something that Klein is also saying in her piece:
In my opinion, philanthropy is a tool, and is generally the justification of massive wealth . It is the showpiece. It deflects criticism. “How can Miss J be so bad? She gives so much money to this worthy cause. Such a nice person.” This sort of charity and “giving back” is the show the placates.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.