I don't want to go down this tired track again but here goes. So Bill and Hillary Clinton have received millions in speaking fees and donations from Wall Street/big banking. For instance,
here is a list of Hillary's top donors. It takes an extreme naivete to believe that investors and bankers donating large sums of money do so without any expectation of a return on that investment. On the other hand, does that mean she will always side with the big banks? No, I don't believe that. But it's worrying nonetheless when you consider how this may influence her policy as president.
It does not take extreme naivete when banks and investors have been doing this for decades, on both sides of the isle, and at least as it pertains to the POTUS have gotten very little for their money. Goldman Sachs being Obama's largest donor didn't stop him from pushing CFPB through and all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from Republicans, Wall St. Journal op eds, etc. didn't stop Obama from eventually getting his appointed chairman through, giving it the centralized power structure that makes the SEC and FDIC such pushovers.
So a POTUS allegedly bought and paid for by big bank campaign contributions dropped the biggest bomb on big banks of the last god knows how may years. What?
Again, where's the meat. Taking money given through a legal donation system isn't corruption. Show where political favoritism was given in return for these donations. It's a vacuous, irresponsible claim until you do.
We have got to get money out of politics. Do you really think that politics are better off in America with all of our elected officials being beholden to these moneyed interests? Why should one billionaire have more of a voice than a million of his fellow citizens?
We definitely need to realign campaign finance and roll back the ability for large corporations or wealthy private donors from having so much influence on the electoral system, totally agree. What I don't agree with is the targeting. Saying you're going duck hunting is one thing, aiming at a flock of geese when you're out "duck hunting" is something else entirely.
The least important office with regards to money in politics is the POTUS. Obama was a financial underdog to Hillary in their primary, he won. Obama was a financial underdog to McCain and Romney with their SuperPAC edge, he still won. Donald Trump has spent less money in total than Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc. each spent in Iowa alone. He's rolling over the field. Presidential politics get so much media attention that beyond establishing the infrastructure (a relatively modest eight figure sum most likely) the rest is just pushing out white noise.
And once in office the POTUS has a pretty clear responsibility to govern for ALL of the people and the vast majority of them have, to the best of their ability, attempted to do so. You can't buy the POTUS (at least, not since Warren Harding left office), no one becomes POTUS for financial gain. The ego and self-assuredness required to run for and win the presidency is only found in people who's primary goal is to make their mark on history. Legacy is the driving concern, not appeasing donors.
Banks and other corporations hit the POTUS election cycle particularly hard because it is an easy time to throw money at the parties gaining general party favor but in reality having exposed themselves to very little accusation of direct influence on any particular politician (a bad look for corporations as well as politicians, FYI). The influence of money on politics is on people like Debbie Wasserman Shultz where as DNC chair she has a strong agenda to maximize party fundraising and will then do things like taking a hard stance against CFPB. She can't really do anything about it, but it makes it easier for her to extort money from the banks when in return they get a recognizable (D) name to oppose CFPB in some capacity.
The fix for money in politics doesn't even start with money in politics. It starts with congressional term limits. When more congresspeople and senators stop worrying about their next election and instead their legacy during their time in office donors will inherently have less power, both with the individuals currently in office and with the near future replacement who is free of their influence.
That and state level campaign finance and redistricting reform is where the revolution really needs to occur, which is the entire goddamn problem with Sanders. He's done nothing substantive to fix anything other than prop up a straw man all the fringe left can wack at for no gain but with real potential to create a wedge in the democratic party that either costs voters or leads to future national elections being conducted with a clear disadvantage against an opponent entirely in favor of using every loophole and PAC possible to maximize the influence of monied parties on the system. If he truly gave a shit he'd end his campaign now that it is clear Clinton is winning and devote all of his current/future contributions and campaigning efforts to getting good candidates into state and local seats. That way in 8 years when someone to the left of Clinton (and probably Sanders) is the nominee they would actually have the national base of support to pass something worthwhile.
