Quid Pro Quo



I'm no Clinton hater. If she wins the Democratic nomination in August I will vote for her in November without holding my nose and, indeed, with some pride.

Secretary Clinton, however, is seriously trying to play us when she self-righteously sharp-elbows Senator Sanders for speaking common sense and the facts in saying that Wall Street $$$donations$$$ influence politicians and render those politicians beholden, when she contends that there is no quid pro quo for the six-figure donations her campaign and her SuperPAC are receiving from Goldman Sachs et al (not to mention the six-figure speaking fees).

This is at the very heart of the campaign finance reform that is so necessary, that Secretary Clinton herself says she supports.

Just ask Senator Elizabeth Warren about that.

ThinGrayLine

UPDATE February 7 2016: On This Week With George Stephanopolous today, Secretary Clinton explained that she didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill in 2001 because it was unfair to women, not because of her Wall Street donor-constituents.

However:

Since 2001 Bill and Hillary Clinton have earned $125M in lecture fees, mostly from large corporations and banks.

Since 2000 Hillary Clinton's campaigns have received (as of September 30 2015) a total of $712.4M. Four of the top five sources of these donations are Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Morgan Stanley.

Since 2001 nearly $2B has been donated to the Clinton Foundation. According to a February 2015 analysis of Clinton Foundation funding by The Washington Post, the financial services industry has accounted for the largest single share of the foundation’s corporate donors (the same corporations donating to her campaigns and paying her speaking fees).

The Clinton campaign has publicly set a goal of raising $1 billion for her Super PAC for the 2016 election.

The optics here are terrible for Secretary Clinton.