How would Hillary be different if massive corporate money wasn't driver of presidential elections?
I don't know the answer; maybe her fundamental positions and priorities would be exactly the same as they are now?
It's a reality that big money helps politicians get elected. The "purist" campaigns of Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich couldn't compete financially BEFORE Citizens United, let alone now. I'm hoping against hope for Bernie, myself. But I understand the idea that electability matters too, not just positions, and that big money will come pouring in if it ever perceives that a populist purist is going to get viable.
Having large donations from certain industries doesn't mean you are necessarily corrupted by them, or that your positions will change dramatically because of them. Obviously it vastly improves your chances of getting elected. But here's the question: how much compromise does a politician do simply to balance between important goals (good governance), how much because it seems necessary strategically to get the votes he wants (pragmatist), and how much because the financial campaign backers demand it ("dance with the one that brung ya"
?
For example, Obama was brilliant in getting ACA designed such that it would solve tons of problems for ordinary people IN SPITE OF THE STRANGLEHOLDS of medical, pharma, and insurance companies and the votes in Congress that would have precluded single-payer in the U.S. at the time. These are questions of motives and effectiveness. He was truly motivated to solve a problem, and he was effective at overcoming obstacles.
The biggest challenges for the NEXT president in my view are
1) wealth inequality and
2) climate change.
The economy seems BROKEN for the masses. Large numbers making minimum wage and the middle class shrinking like mad. What policies can be devised to attack these two problems, and how will the design of those policies be shaped or influenced by the donors that backed the president?
We already know the Republicans want to destroy Social Security, move perpetually toward "austerity plans", and deny global warming. Democrats in general will try to protect Social Security and are better on environmental issues. Bernie's out there proposing a tax on sales of STOCK, for goodness sake, to pay for college for the masses. That's directly targeting wealth inequality and massive student loan debts... How would the banks feel about that? Is it a pragmatic decision, strategic decision, or a loyalty-to-one's-donors decision, for a candidate to NOT support that idea?
On what issues does a candidate re-think positions because of their corporate donors?
= new reply since forum marked as read
