Not the folks progressives usually side with
This appears to be the ultimate example of “where you stand depends on where you sit.”
Before this year’s Democratic primary race. I don’t think too many DailyKos readers would have disagreed with Zephyr Teachout’s scathing Politico article on McCutcheon v. FEC, the follow-up case to the better-known Citizens United v FEC, in which the court threw out aggregate limits on campaign spending: What John Roberts Doesn’t Get About Corruption
In the article, Teachout takes Roberts to task for writing:
Any regulation must instead target what we have called ‘quid pro quo’ corruption or its appearance. That Latin phrase captures the notion of a direct exchange of an official act for money.
Nor would Kossaks have doubted the Brennan Center’s analysis of Justice Kennedy’s assertion in Citizens United that “independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.”:
Developments since Citizens United have created countless opportunities for corrupt dealing, and they have created widespread perceptions of corruption, severely undermining public confidence in our government.
Yet now forced to defend their choice of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, Kossaks are constantly repeating Hillary’s claim that her votes and policy plans are not affected by all the mountains of cash she and Bill have raised for her campaign and for their personal wealth (as well as for the Clinton Foundation) from the banks, insurance companies, drug companies, energy companies, etc. etc. etc. In other words, if one cannot prove a direct link from donation to vote/policy no corruption exists.
I really cannot imagine too many here would have taken such a cramped view of political corruption before choosing Hillary as their candidate. I suspect just about everyone here would have been aghast at the specter of a candidate for president holding a huge-dollar fundraiser arranged by an investment company currently under investigation for deceptive practices, knowing that if elected, she will decide whether to regulate and/or prosecute them. Yet that’s exactly what happened with Franklin Square Partners, as Bob Johnson documented.
So why is Franklin Square throwing a big-ticket fundraiser for Hillary Clinton?
Well, not surprisingly, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), “an independent, not-for-profit organization authorized by Congress to protect America’s investors by making sure the securities industry operates fairly and honestly,” announced on January 5, 2016 that funds of the type Franklin Square Capital Partners sells will be subject to “rigorous reviews”:
These sponsors are also offering unlisted business development companies (“BDCs”) (ed. what Franlin Capital Partners sells) to their product lines. Noting that each of these new products will be available to retail investors, who may be vulnerable to the complexity, high fees, and illiquidity of these investments, the agency will subject these products to “rigorous reviews.”
Is regulation on the horizon? The folks at Franklin Square Capital sure hope not. Protect the Golden Goose!
I think we can all rest assured that the big-ticket soirée thrown for Hillary Clinton by the bigwigs at Franklin Square Capital Partners just days before the Iowa caucus is being done just because they love, love, love Hillary. And not because federal regulators are scrutinizing their business and may decide that some regulatory controls are necessary in order to protect their small-ticket investors.
More generally, there is the issue of access. Those that can raise millions of dollars for a candidate (and/or shower her personally with such wealth) are going to get that candidate’s / elected official’s attention in a way that ordinary voters will not. The fat cats’ concerns will be heard first. The rest of us last if at all. We see this in government policy every day. For example, no matter how popular it is, the minimum wage does not get raised. And it’s not just under Republicans. Bill Clinton had Congressional majorities his first 2 years and did not pass such a wage increase (a small raise was implemented later in his administration as an election wedge issue against the Republicans). No political capital for that, but plenty for NAFTA, which is what the fat cats wanted.
And even if you do buy the argument — and therefore side with Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and the late Scalia — that all this cash does not amount to corruption, there are at least two well-documented cases where one can draw a direct line between Hillary’s actions and her receipt of large dollar amounts for either herself or her campaign.
The Atlantic magazine documented one in its article with the self-explanatory title Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons
The article is subtitled:
The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created
I strongly recommend reading it.
The other example is Elizabeth Warren’s much-cited discussion of Hilary’s vote for consumer-crushing bankruptcy “reform” in 2001, after vigorously opposing it in 1998 when Bill Clinton was president. The difference? In 2001, Hillary was a Senator receiving large campaign contributions from the big banks (the same ones that also lavished huge speaking fees on her):
Please don’t claim that Hillary had to vote for what she previously called “that awful bill” because she had an amendment passed into it. I’m reading Bernie’s autobiography right now and he gives the example of passing a hugely important amendment into a Defense bill, ending the Pentagon’s practice to paying firms to lay off workers (no, really!), but still voting against the final bill because it spent way too much on the military (billions more than even President Clinton’s original, bloated request).
Also, please don’t try the “Bernie does it too” angle. Besides that the numbers are vastly different, Bernie gets support from progressive organizations who don’t get the kind of access the billionaires and Forbes 400 industries get and really need a champion in the face of the others’ overwhelming lobbying. As Bernie writes in his excellent political autobiography about his 1996 race for his 4th term in Congress:
While I will not accept PAC money from corporate America, I gladly accept PAC contributions from organizations fighting to improve life for ordinary people. Over the years, my campaigns have received strong financial support from PACs associated with organized labor, the environment, women, senior citizens, human rights, and the needs of children….
My opponents call me a “hypocrite” for accepting PAC money. How can I accept PAC money, they say, and then claim that I am fighting against “special interests”?…
Let me be very clear about this. I do not believe that working people are a special interest. I do not believe that fighting for the right of women to control their own bodies is a special interest. I do not believe that protecting the environment is a special interest….
Bottom line. If people, including the media, do not understand the difference between one candidate who receives the bulk of his support from organizations and individuals who represent working people and the middle class, and another candidate who receives the bulk of her support from the wealthy and large corporations, then they do not know much about what goes on in Congress. I am going to do my best to prevent the wealthy and corporate interests from buying this election.
I understand that Hillary is better than the Republicans, but that’s an awfully low bar to set. Bernie Sanders walks the walk when it comes to resisting the influence of big money. As others have written, the way to defeat Citizens United is to Unite Citizens. Taking the view that “if you can’t beat them, join them” means that, at the end of the day, you are joining them. We can and must do so much better!
