Sunday, September 23, 2018 -
Print Edition

To Clinton, influence peddling is now OK

Less than three weeks into her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has already accomplished a stunning feat. She appears to have unified large swaths of the Democratic Party and its activist base to support the core tenets of the Citizens United decision — the one that effectively allowed unlimited money into politics.

That 2010 Supreme Court ruling declared that, unless there is an explicit quid pro quo, the fact that major campaign donors “may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.” The theory is that as long as a donor and a politician do not agree to an overt bribe, everything is A-OK.

When the ruling was handed down, Democrats were outraged, and Clinton herself has recently suggested she wants it overturned.

Yet with revelations that firms with business before Clinton’s State Dept. donated to her foundation and paid her husband, Clinton’s campaign and Democratic activists are suddenly championing Citizens United.

In campaign statements and talking points — and in activists’ tweets and Facebook comments — the party seems to be collectively saying that without evidence of any explicit quid pro quo, all the Clinton cash is acceptable.

Moreover, the inference seems to be that the revelations aren’t even newsworthy because, in the words of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, “there’s nothing new” here.

The rest of this article is available in the May 8 IJN print and digital edition only. Contact Carol to order your copy at carol@ijn.com or subscribe to our online e-Edition.




Leave a Reply