Pirate's Cove

This is published in a paper that supported a guy who raised over three quarters of a billion dollars for each of his presidential campaigns, much of it from unknown small donors, to go with all the big monied donors, and will certainly support Hillary, who’s people have talked about raising $2 billion for 2016. The Washington Post never condemned Obama for refusing to forgo all that cash he raised and use the $75 million presidential pool money afforded to each of the primary winners on the ballot.

Big money in politics emerges as a rising issue in 2016 campaign

At almost the same time last week that a Florida mailman was landing a gyrocopter in front of the U.S. Capitol to protest the influence of the wealthy on politics, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was getting pressed about the same topic at a town hall meeting in Londonderry, N.H.

“I think what is corrupting in this potentially is we don’t know where the money is coming from,” Christie (R) told Valerie Roman of Windham, N.H.

Actually, what is corrupting is politicians taking money of all sorts in a quid pro quo manner, which, quite frankly, is nothing new, and making decisions based on small interest groups rather than what is best. Of course, this is what has always happened in politics.

Hillary Rodham Clinton announced last week that one of the top planks of her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination will be reforming a “dysfunctional” campaign finance system. And several of her GOP rivals — quizzed by voters in town hall meetings — have begun lodging their own criticisms of how big-money interests dominate politics.

The same woman is going to attempt to raise $2 billion dollars, and will surely forgo the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. According to liberal talking points, she apparently has to use the “broken system” to get elected in order to fix it. (psst: this is called hypocrisy)

Turning disgust with billionaire super-PAC benefactors into a platform that moves voters has been an elusive goal for activists seeking to curb the massive sums sloshing through campaigns. But five years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision — which held it was unconstitutional to ban independent political spending by corporations and unions, and helped set off a financial arms race — there are signs that politicians are beginning to confront a voter backlash.

Tell you what: let’s eliminate all the money from corporations and ALL unions. Liberals are good with banning all money and in-kind donations from public and private sector unions, right? At the same time, let’s eliminate all donations from all 1%ers, because 1%ers are evil, we’re told. Of course, this would eliminate a huge swath of funding for Democrats.

A January survey by the Pew Research Center found that 42 percent of adults rated dealing with money in politics a top priority for the president and Congress; but among a 23-item list of priorities, it ranked fourth from the bottom. Still, that’s up from the 28 percent in 2012 who said reforming the campaign finance system should be a top priority.

At the end of the day, money in politics is a concern, but nothing will happen beyond talking points, because then elected officials would have to give up all that money and paid influence. And all the groups and individuals want their own.

Oh, and there’s that pesky First Amendment thingy.

Crossed at Right Wing News.