There is one subject which is inadequately covered in progressive media reporting about Hillary Clinton. It is connected to almost every important issue and piece of legislation acted upon. The light shines bright upon it, when aimed at non-progressive issues and Republicans, but this light is masked when aimed at the mirror.
Clinton states, “I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York”, during the Democratic primary debate on October 13th, 2015. It is not clear if this is a gaffe or a request for campaign contributions. According to opensecrets.org, Clinton's top contributors to date are multinational banks. If the Dow Jones sustaining record high levels is any indication of success, than Clinton represented Wall Street quite well.
The question that should be asked by progressive news sources is, “How much is a citizen's voice compared to a dollar?”.
As murky as campaign contributions can be, it appears easier to account for representation with dollars than the voices of the electing body. If a resident of NY called Clinton's office, when she was Senator of NY, and said, “I want more financial regulation on Wall Street”. Would this one voice count as $1 against the banker's contributions? How much is one constituent's opinion compared to one dollar of campaign contribution?
There are two plausible reasons why this subject does not receive the attention it deserves in progressive media, aside from the issue of corporations sponsoring most news broadcasts. The focus will be on multinational banks (and Wall Street) for convenience and argument's sake.
Democrats do not want to create instability within the party by discussing the consequences of banks' campaign contributions when compared to the voice of the people. Many pundits have stated that if Bernie Sanders is not elected, then Hillary Clinton is a positive second nomination for the Democrats. Sanders does not accept corporate campaign funding, only contributions from unions and individuals.
EndCitizensUnited.org's tagline, on their website, is DEMOCRATS FIGHTING FOR REFORM. The potential for instability in the Democratic party is clear; it is money. What is not clear is Clinton's response, "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if it takes a constitutional amendment”. Clinton is concerned with only unaccountable money. Is the money she received from multinational banks accountable? In what ways?
The second reasoning for progressive news to not properly cover campaign contributions to Hilary Clinton, is that, this is how the world works. Humanity is not beyond corruption (legal or not), so for the Democrats to succeed, they need the candidate who is best at balancing banks' campaign contributions with the voice of the people. The pundits often refer to this as, the lesser of two evils.
This implies that Sanders is not corrupt enough to be an effective President. That fear is the better motive to base one's vote upon than love. Perhaps, Clinton supporters see themselves more in the Clinton who compromises with banks, than the Sanders who wants to break up big banks.
Both of these scenarios, which are not new, eschew the question again. Assuming a candidate receives campaign contributions and is balancing these monies against the will of the people, “How much is one person's opinion worth compared to a dollar of campaign contribution?”
If a multinational bank contributed one million dollars for less regulation, would it take one million people to speak out against less regulation to change the representative's mind?
What about the people who are too busy to research and analyze the issues, thus unable to contact the representative? Do the bank's interest then become the default?