candidates? It is your choice whether you want to donate or not, for others, they think it is important to elect Hillary and they want to donate.

If people are donating $2700 it is not a lot money, if they want to complain then yell about the Koch brothers.

abortion and I damn sure don't need anyone telling me how to spend my money. Donating this amount of money doesn't have anything to do with Citizens United.

anything and the many other cost of campaigns. It is not buying anything to donate this small amount it is saying I like this candidate and I like what she is saying and I think she is qualified. Your argument of buying candidates is off base but continue to think $2700 buys Hillary.

nt

That sounds so...so...so modern.

eom

And that if the Republicans win you won't have public financing anytime soon?

And to beat the Republicans, you'll need the same resources they do?

Bernie's the guy who can do it. Hillary's not about to derail that gravy train.

eom

and not charging anything. It's called retail politics.

You don't like the fact campaigns now cost billions. Neither do I. The difference, I don't pretend it's all the fault of one woman because that is patently false. It's a systemic problem, and the more you make it about Clinton, the more you perpetuate it. She was defeated in 2008. Did that solve the problem? Of course not, and if you defeat her this time the problem will continue to grow. If you actually cared about the influence of money, you would address that problem rather than pretending it's Clinton's fault. Instead, it looks to me like you don't care at all.

Are you berating the Hillary supporters who are posting inflammatory articles about Sanders?

My number one concern in life is not the fortunes of the political elite. I am talking about campaign finance. If you or the OP should ever decide you actually care about that rather than your chosen political messiah or bete noir, then you need to address the issue rather than pretending it is all about one individual. Now, your response tells me my point is entirely lost on you since clearly you care about nothing other than who wins the nomination and the presidency. That ranks rather low on my list of concerns, and I find the constant fixation and contortion of views to fit particularly politicians disconcerting. I also have a very low regard for the view that a politician is more important than the people he seeks to represent, an ethos I see as profoundly anti-egalitarian.

Now clearly you paid no attention to my point, and I hold out no aspirations that future replies will be any more responsive.

Dear alerter:

Lighten up, Francis!

After all that sanctimony it was just too funny. Go #7!!

#4 and #7 totally rock!

Horse pucky!

You have been blammoed by the wall o text and lived to see another day. Next time, you may not be so lucky!

I don't think I rock though. I would have if I'd been able to hit the ALT+MOCK button and copy and paste bits from the alert, though

If Bernie gets the nomination, the party will not pay for GOTV with fairy dust.

candidate, you are very quick to defend the corporatist.

This money is not going to the party. It is going to the candidate who is Clinton.

And here is why this is so egregious.

Those who can afford to meet the candidate like this are those whose voices will be truly heard. No poor person is going to ever be able to pay this kind of money to meet a candidate. And frankly, I don't know very many truly middle class people who can afford to spend this kind of money to meet a candidate either.

If you sincerely believe there is no quid pro quo, then you do not know history and you definitely do not know the political reality of the US for at least the last 30 to 40 years.

unilateral disarmament.

one semester of in state university tuition to say hi to Hil. And she doesn't give a shit anyway - she takes her instructions from her co-1%ers.

Will she allow access to the media for her $2,700 entry fee conversations?

The candidates probably spend a FORTUNE on hand sanitizer. But I'm sure the campaigns are smart enough to buy it by the 5-gallon bucket, so I'm sure they get a little price break on it.

I picture candidates standing at the head of the reception line, all with coin changers on their belts.
"Hello, Candidate X."
"Hello, Citizen. What would you like?"
"Just a handshake, please."
"Okay. With tax that'll be $225. Would you like fries with that?"

... until after the fact.

your constant deflections.

With your short-sightedness.

Of course candidates are going to raise money because the GOP is. Taking the high road now would lead to a serious cash advantage for Republicans.

But if that makes you feel good...

The gross amount of money that the GOP and now the Democratic party must raise in order to run a campaign insures that only those whose pocket books are the biggest are the voices most heard.

I suspect you and others who adhere to this model are going to be very surprised come next year.

Plus she has always wanted to be President.

$2,700 limit per person is not much in todays political world.

Mrs. Clinton doesn't have the hundreds of 'political charities' to get millions from like republicans do.

She also doesn't write some crap book (or palin movie) to get 'backdoor donations' like so many republicans do.

How sad for our country.

I swear, a hooded black robe and a red lightsaber, and she's a dead ringer for Palpatine.

or $2700, so I volunteer to do some sort of host duties. The "conversation" with the candidate consists of a handshake and some sort of platitude and then you move on. Much shorter than any elevator pitch you might make in an office building.

It's a fundraiser. It's goal is to raise maximum individual contributions to the campaign from as many people as possible. You don't get to lobby for your pet issue. That's not why people pay the $2700. People like to shake hands with other people who might become President. That's why these fundraisers work to attract people to them.

Oddly enough, the volunteers who work at these things often have even better chances to chat with the candidate. They often have opportunities to assist the candidate in some way, which usually leads to a brief conversation. I've spoken to many candidates in that capacity. Not usually presidential candidate, of course, but candidates for the Senate and House are generally quite approachable.

I have shaken hands with two Presidents, though, and may have a chance to shake Hillary's hand this year. I'd like that, because I like to shake hands with people who might be President, too. We'll see what opportunities arise this year and next. I hope to shake Bernie Sanders' hand, too, here in Minnesota. We'll see.

But this is not the level of campaign finance that is the problem with campaign funding. Not at all.

in politics?

When she's in office, she can address her commitment to overturning CU. If she loses the election, not so much.

Not voting for nouveau 1% ers any more than old money jerks. That leaves Bernie and Joe
Greed has damned near killed democracy.

That's how I choose to spend my money.
If folks want to drop $2,700, fine by me. It's their money.

Open influence peddling

I can't afford to vote for her.

Hillary's campaign gets the money, the donor gets a quick handshake and a little tingle, and everybody walks away happy.

If politicians were THAT cheap, we could just buy a few congresscritters of our own (they're probably cheaper by the dozen) and give them as birthday presents and party favors. (Which tends to be the way the Kook Brothers look at it.)

with events that cost different amounts to attend, including some that are free.

I had a friend who loved Obama and had enough money so she could pay $5,000 to stand in a line and go home with a photo with Obama. So what? She didn't get any special favors. Just the photo and a lunch with a few hundred other people.