I’ve posted in comments to other diaries why I am happy to support Sec. Clinton despite my long term desire to remove the influence of money from the system. I wholeheartedly support a constitutional amendment to move to a public finance system for elections. I remember that even before Citizens United, there was way too much money buying influence. So while I think getting CU overturned is a great idea, it is not going to solve the problem. And I remember way too many elections lost because the Republicans had more money than us. I’m not going to hold it against any Democratic candidate to take help from PACs or big donors unless they act in a way that indicates they have been bought. In my opinion, Clinton has shown no signs of such corruption. And Sunday, the first great example of what the willingness to make the most of the current financing rules can do, as published in Politico:
Democrats aligned with Hillary Clinton are laying the groundwork for a general election campaign focused primarily on the same battleground states that twice elected President Barack Obama, buying up ad time on local TV in an attempt to quietly shape the playing field before the Republicans choose a candidate.
Clinton's willingness to play the game the way it is currently setup is going to give the party a huge boost this cycle. While Sanders refuses to participate to the fullest under the current rules, Democratic Super PACs are making sure we take advantage of the disorder on the Republican side:
Democrats — led by Priorities USA Action, the biggest pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC — have already started spending heavily on ad reservations in strategically placed markets in the seven core states, investing early to maximize air time while rates are still low.
How bad is this for the Republicans:
And since Republicans are unlikely to have a nominee before late July, added individuals close to GOP campaigns, conservative outside groups will have to spend considerably more to match Democratic spending as ad rates rise throughout the summer. In some scenarios, they fear, Democrats will be on the air defining the GOP nominee in key states, at a cheaper rate, before the Republican can even start seriously reserving ad time.
How about all that money Clinton is raising for the individual State Parties and the DNC:
While Clinton's campaign doesn’t have many paid staffers left over in swing states that have already held their primaries, local allies are preparing to work hand-in-hand with state party infrastructures in coordinated campaigns. Clinton’s top political staffers have also, in some cases, been monitoring local Democratic field and financial programs for months.
The candidate herself has also made a point to personally visit some target states — and influential Democrats there — after their primary contests finished. For example, she held a series of closed-door fundraisers in Florida, Ohio, Colorado (hosted by Gov. John Hickenlooper), and Virginia (hosted by Gov. Terry McAuliffe) earlier this month.
This is why that add’l fundraising is so crucial. We count on the coordinated campaigns in individual states to help us win the prize in November. I appreciate Sen. Sanders helping those three candidates earlier this month, but that doesn’t even come close to what Clinton has done for her fellow Democrats. And if Sanders pulls off the miracle upset, he’ll benefit from her hard work just as much as she would.
I find Clinton and Sanders similar on most issues and only varying in strategy on others. What pushes Hillary over the top, and has earned her my vote when the CT primary occurs, is her willingness to go all-in to help the party win in November, her practical approach to getting things done, and Bernie’s refusal to back away from giving the gun industry an unnecessary and undeserved special status in our courts. I’ll happily vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination, but my first choice for President is Hillary Clinton.