2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe idea that corps pay politicians $600,000+ when they're not trying to buy influence...
is flat-out ridiculous!
Voters are way past falling for Clinton's fake outrage and deflection.
It's a brand new game - we, the people, are finally calling a few shots!
(More than a few, if we're smart.)
forest444
(5,902 posts)"Honey, I know it was $1,000; but I swear all we did is talk!"
polichick
(37,152 posts)DJ13
(23,671 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)(unless it was something really stupid).
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,693 posts)that doesn't have to be counted as a campaign contribution. Don't tell me any corporation could justify to its bean counters payments of that magnitude for a one-hour speech if they didn't figure there would be some benefits to them down the road, wink wink, nudge nudge. At my old job sometimes they hired motivational speakers to give a talk about how to be more productive or what-the-hell-ever. Even though the details of these speeches were pretty much forgotten by the time we got to the hors d'oeuvres table, they were at least marginally related to the actual operation of the business, and I'm damn sure nobody got paid six figures for making them. Nope. When you pay that kind of money to hear a politician speak, you're not paying for the speech. You're paying for future access and influence.
polichick
(37,152 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)Hillary believes she is working for the people.
Problem is, in America, corporations are people.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)Ben is a person.
Jerry is a person.
polichick
(37,152 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)so sad
polichick
(37,152 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)they'd say the same if a Republican were the recipient of such largesse.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Their entire fortune came through corporate "relationships."
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)It shows the power of access, and how those who pay get special treatment.
If HRC honestly believes accepting that money doesn't have payback, then she is more naive than I thought, and raises questions about her judgment.
polichick
(37,152 posts)We, the people, have been far too complacent for far too long!
kath
(10,565 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)...
polichick
(37,152 posts)Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts). . . or that it doesn't at least gives the appearance of her taking money from criminal bankers in a shady deal, then you probably agree with the Supreme Shysters in the Citizens United decision, in which they said exactly the same thing.
polichick
(37,152 posts)never influenced her - unless she just happens to agree with what those corps want.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Corporations don't want anything. Only an organic being, like you, I or Swashbuckler the Cat who is balancing himself on the back of my chair as I type this, could want something. Now the shady criminals who run Wall Banks, they are organic being. Corporations are not organic beings, let alone persons with human rights.
polichick
(37,152 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)would continue donating to someone who's not "representing their interests" is even more ludicrous. The cash would have dried up long before now if there weren't some sort of quid pro quo going on.
polichick
(37,152 posts)making speeches to Wall Street firms about all the regulations they can look forward to.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that the only justification for limiting campaign expenditures was "corruption or the appearance of corruption." And since independent expenditures, including those from corporations and unions, don't have any kind of corrupting influence, there's no justification for limiting them.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/does-money-corrupt-political-process
Hillary - corporate free speech advocate