Ahead of the New Hampshire primary, Bernie Sanders has gone on the offensive against Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, Sanders says, is only a progressive “on some days.” Other days, she’s a moderate, he claims. “I do not know any progressive who has a super PAC and takes $15 million from Wall Street,” the feisty socialist said on Wednesday, at a CNN-sponsored town hall event.
The spat over who gets to carry the progressive banner spilled over into Thursday’s fifth Democratic debate in New Hampshire where Clinton, apparently riled by what she views as an implicit questioning of her ability to make decisions that aren’t influenced by special interests, dared Sanders to formally accuse her of being bought and paid for.
“Time and time again, by innuendo, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought,” she said. “Enough is enough. If you’ve got something to say, say it directly.”
Rather than take the bait, Sanders told Clinton he wanted to stick to “the issues.”
But for many voters, Clinton’s connections to Wall Street are an “issue” in and of themselves.
The success of Bernie Sanders (whose campaign boasts that the average donation is just $27, reflecting the grassroots nature of his support) and Donald Trump (who is self funding his campaign and repeatedly reminds voters that no one “owns” him) reflect the electorate’s growing frustration with what Americans see as a corrupt political system that’s ultimately controlled by lobbyists and entrenched special interests that spend millions to ensure that their agenda gets pushed on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Jeb Bush’s abysmal poll numbers also reflect this frustration (Bush’s super PAC has taken the most money from Wall Street of any candidate).
At issue is the $14.3 million Clinton has raised from Wall Street through her super PAC and the numerous paid speeches both her and her husband have made for Wall Street firms. Those speeches pay nearly a quarter of a million each and as you can see, there are quite a few of them.
“Since Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton entered national politics in the early 1990s, Wall Street has contributed more than $100 million to their political campaigns, charitable foundation and personal finances,” WSJ wrote late on Thursday. “Financial-services firms accounted for about 12% of the total amount raised by the Clintons during their more than two decades in politics.”
Sanders’ suggestion that Clinton’s ties to the financial industry mean she can’t be trusted to fight for Main Street is “an artful smear,” the former First Lady insisted during Thursday’s debate. “You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received,” she insisted.
But it’s not entirely clear that’s the case. Last April for instance, IBTimes suggested there may be a connection between a $200,000 payment made to Bill Clinton by Goldman Sachs in 2011, and the bank’s efforts to lobby the State Department ahead of legislation involving the Export-Import Bank which was set to provide a loan that would end up financing the purchase of millions of dollars in aircraft from a company partially owned by Goldman.
Sanders isn’t the only one questioning Clinton’s newfound zeal for the fight against big banks.
“She moved to the left because she needed some political cover in her fight against Sanders,” Greg Valliere, chief global strategist at asset manager Horizon Investments told WSJ. “Her plan may be aggressive, but her ties to Wall Street make it unlikely that this proposal of hers will be a top priority…it’s the cynical view.”
Indeed, even Bloomberg View – which last October ran an Op-ed by Clinton entitled “My Plan to Prevent the Next Crash” is now openly criticizing Clinton.
“Like most politicians, Clinton has never been shy about asking those who work in finance for campaign contributions, and she ably represented the industry during her eight years as a senator from New York,” Bloomberg’s editorial board wrote on Thursday. “If her views on the financial industry have changed since she accepted those millions of dollars in speaking fees, perhaps she ought to explain why. And the next time she’s invited to speak to Wall Street, perhaps she ought to decline the fee.”
During last night’s debate Clinton said she accepted the exorbitant speaking fees from the likes of Goldman Sachs because “that’s what they offered.”
And besides, “what difference does it make?”
via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1Pb1ZL5 Tyler Durden