Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 1 Share on Twitter 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Is Clinton Bought By Wall Street? There Is A Test For That

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Dave Johnson       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   4 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Valuable 2   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 2/10/16

Author 4387
Become a Fan
  (12 fans)
- Advertisement -

Reprinted from Campaign For America's Future

Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
(Image by Gage Skidmore)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

Secretary Hillary Clinton has accepted millions in "speaking fees" and campaign contributions from interest groups -- most notably Wall Street firms -- that she will be in a position to help or hurt as president. She promises that the money will not influence her if she takes office, but voters are understandably skeptical.

- Advertisement -

Voters have been betrayed again and again by people who have become known as "corporate Democrats." These politicians made promises to help regular working people, then turned on them after elections and enacted policies that boost the monied interests -- especially Wall Street and giant corporations -- at the expense of the rest of the country.

What can Clinton do to overcome the resulting voter skepticism? Are there concrete things she can do and commitments she can make now that can reassure voters that she will be able to represent the other 99 percent of us once in office? Are there ways she can show the public that she means what she says when she claims to be as "progressive" as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Bernie Sanders?

Broken Promises From Past Democratic Politicians

- Advertisement -

"Many people have come to believe politicians say what they need to say to win, and then turn on them. If Hillary Clinton wants to win the Democratic nomination and inspire people to vote for her in the general election, she must find ways to overcome this voter skepticism." That is how the post "Does Clinton Really Oppose TPP? There Is A Test For That" began.

Now here we are again. This time the issue is Wall Street influence, not the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

"Working people -- wages stagnant or falling and employers putting the squeeze on in hundreds of imaginative ways -- have figured out that they've been sold out by 'establishment' politicians who have helped 'rig the game' against them. And they are fed up.

"Millions of voters, betrayed and cynical, have simply given up on the system. They haven't gotten anything from the system in a long time. They don't vote and they don't believe the things politicians tell them.

"Candidate Clinton might not need those voters to win the nomination and maybe not even to win the election. But if she wants 'coattails' to bring in a Democratic House and Senate, be it in 2016 or 2018, she is going to have to earn their trust.

"Democratic voters are skeptical of promises. They want to see proof. They want to see action. They want to see changes. Or they will just stay home. And the terrible mess we are in will continue and worsen."

- Advertisement -

That was about TPP. These words apply equally to voter perceptions of Wall Street influence.

How Clinton Can Overcome Voter Skepticism

How can Clinton overcome this widespread voter skepticism? There are specific concrete things that Clinton can do now, and specific things she can pledge to do as president. (That's "pledge," by the way, not "promise.")

Right now, Clinton can demand that President Obama remove anyone in his administration who comes to government from Wall Street from any position where they can influence decisions, especially decisions about the government prosecuting people in the financial industry who are suspected of criminal activity.

Right now, Clinton can demand that President Obama issue an executive order requiring corporations that do business with the federal government to disclose their political spending. Right now, they should disclose contributions to candidate super PACs as well as "dark money" groups, "think tanks," even so-called "charities" that actually support candidates, ideologies and causes. All of it. Right now.

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

Valuable 2   Supported 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic. He was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Three Charts To Email To Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law

Upcoming Trans-Pacific Partnership Looks Like Corporate Takeover

Actually, "the Rich" Don't "Create Jobs," We Do

Now We Know Why Huge TPP Trade Deal Is Kept Secret From The Public

Does Clinton Really Oppose TPP? There Is A Test For That

Will TPP Kill The Post Office?