Gary Hart: Billion-dollar Clinton campaign should 'frighten' Americans

[mystery-ak]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/gary-hart-hillary-clinton-2016-billion-dollar-campaign-116673.html?hp=l1_3


Gary Hart: Billion-dollar Clinton campaign should 'frighten' Americans

The two-time Democratic presidential candidate is alarmed by current ‘dynastic’ politics.

By Jonathan Topaz

4/5/15 2:08 PM EDT

Updated 4/6/15 7:49 AM EDT

Gary Hart has serious reservations about a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

The prospect of a billion-dollar Clinton campaign “ought to frighten every American,” he said in an interview with POLITICO, and Democrats would be better served by a competitive primary that forced her to speak in more depth about the issues.

Hart, a two-time Democratic presidential candidate, offered his opinions in a phone interview Wednesday where he also expressed admiration of Elizabeth Warren and gave advice to prospective challenger Martin O’Malley, a former Hart campaign staffer.

“I like Hillary Clinton. I really appreciate what she and her husband have done … but we need new leaders,” said Hart, a former Colorado senator who rose from the bottom of the polls and nearly took down Walter Mondale in the 1984 primaries.

The post-Citizens United campaign finance environment has sullied the presidential process, he said, benefiting establishment politicians who cater to financial backers. He pointed to his own experience, noting that he and his wife mortgaged their home for between $50,000 and $75,000 — an amount that made a significant difference in his first campaign in 1984.

“I’m now told the Clinton campaign intends to raise $1 billion. Now, that ought to frighten every American,” he said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/gary-hart-hillary-clinton-2016-billion-dollar-campaign-116673.html#ixzz3WXZ3X9YG

[aligncare]

I hate to say it but Hart is right. Not only about Hillary and dynastic candidacies, but also about the distortion of the electoral process induced by huge money sums that only the very wealthy and very large corporations can bring to a candidates' war chest.

I think we all agree that, except in rare instances--Reagan for example, the mainstream media's power and influence can determine election outcomes.

Citizens United gives the very few the ability to buy that influence and sway an election.

[Dexter]

I hate to say it but Hart is right. Not only about Hillary and dynastic candidacies, but also about the distortion of the electoral process induced by huge money sums that only the very wealthy and very large corporations can bring to a candidates' war chest.

I think we all agree that, except in rare instances--Reagan for example, the mainstream media's power and influence can determine election outcomes.

Citizens United gives the very few the ability to buy that influence and sway an election.

 

An election should not be decided by who has the most money; we need to limit all sources of campaign funding. That would also make third parties much more competitive.

[andy58-in-nh]

I hate to say it but Hart is right. Not only about Hillary and dynastic candidacies, but also about the distortion of the electoral process induced by huge money sums that only the very wealthy and very large corporations can bring to a candidates' war chest.

I think we all agree that, except in rare instances--Reagan for example, the mainstream media's power and influence can determine election outcomes.

Citizens United gives the very few the ability to buy that influence and sway an election.

Money is not the problem. Power is the problem, specifically its propensity to attract caoital that would otherwise flow toward productive enterprises. 
 
Power corrupts money.  Remove its noxious influence and the money goes elsewhere. How? Follow the Constitution.

[Dexter]

Money is not the problem. Power is the problem, specifically its propensity to attract caoital that would otherwise flow toward productive enterprises. 
 
Power corrupts money.  Remove its noxious influence and the money goes elsewhere. How? Follow the Constitution.

In almost every situation money is required for power to exist, not vise versa. Your power is virtually unlimited if you have enough money; money is power.

[andy58-in-nh]

Money is a form of power.

Money is not a form of power. It is a tool.

[Dexter]

Money is not a form of power. It is a tool.

It is a tool that directly influences the amount of power you wield. The money is what creates the power; greed is what corrupts the money.

[andy58-in-nh]

It is a tool that directly influences the amount of power you wield. The money is what creates the power; greed is what corrupts the money.

Money is innocent. Your money cannot buy what others have no power to sell you. If I offer a Congressman $30,000 to do me a favor, his willingness to take my money does not imply his ability to do what I desire of him. It makes us both complicit in corruption, but that's about it. If he does in fact possess such power, is it the money's fault... or mine?
 
In a nation where the rule of law matters and in which limits to government power are strictly enforced, no amount of money can buy a person anything they do not have a right to obtain by virtue of a free exchange of value for mutual benefit. Money is not the root of all evil, but the irrational love of it may lead to evil acts.

[Dexter]

Money is innocent. Your money cannot buy what others have no power to sell you. If I offer a Congressman $30,000 to do me a favor, his willingness to take my money does not imply his ability to do what I desire of him. It makes us both complicit in corruption, but that's about it. If he does in fact possess such power, is it the money's fault... or mine?
 
In a nation where the rule of law matters and in which limits to government power are strictly enforced, no amount of money can buy a person anything they do not have a right to obtain by virtue of a free exchange of value for mutual benefit. Money is not the root of all evil, but the irrational love of it may lead to evil acts.

How much power do you think the federal government would have without any of the tax money it takes from us? Without the money there is no power. Money and power are inextricably linked. Money = power.

[andy58-in-nh]

How much power do you think the federal government would have without any of the tax money it takes from us? Without the money there is no power. Money and power are inextricably linked. Money = power.

The government does not get its power from our money. It gets its power from our consent.

[aligncare]

How much power do you think the federal government would have without any of the tax money it takes from us? Without the money there is no power. Money and power are inextricably linked. Money = power.

One word: Soros.

How much damage has he done with his billions? If the only influence one has on the political process is their one vote, then we would all be equal. But that's not the case. Some are more equal than others. And if you have big, big bucks, you fall into that category of being more equal. Obama does not golf with average Americans.

How is it that a politician earning a senator's salary can retire a millionaire? Good investment strategies? I don't think so. But, it happens all the time. Feinstein and Reid are good examples, but not the only examples.

Money corrupts politics, always has. But it's worse now than it's ever been. Remember, Hillary said she will run the first $1 billion presidential campaign.

How have we come to this point where someone as wrong for the job as Hillary can potentially buy the presidency for a billion dollars?

[Dexter]

The government does not get its power from our money. It gets its power from our consent.

Our consent gives it the money that gives it power. The power comes from the money.

[truth_seeker]

Citizens United gives the very few the ability to buy that influence and sway an election.

No more than the power of huge government employee unions. From school boards to the Presidency, these unions are among the biggest campaign contributors.

And make no mistake, they look out for the huge "government-industrial complex" to steal a term from Pres. Eisenhower.

Use education as an example. Why rely on every little hick town school board when education can be federalized and put under the budgetary control of just a few hundred; e.g. Senate, House, President?

From department to department, government represents the interests of tens of thousands of entrenched inefficient, well paid bureaucrats. That includes civilians and uniformed military, too.

The objective is for government employment to be as numerous, as well paid, benefitted and pensioned as possible, with no strings like good performance attached.

Until campaign donations are restricted across the board, I will support citizens united, thank you.

[Dexter]

Until campaign donations are restricted across the board, I will support citizens united, thank you.

They should be restricted across the board. Lots of people on the left claim to want money out of politics. If they really mean that then maybe an agreement could be reached.

[Fishrrman]

Dexter wrote:
[[ It is a tool that directly influences the amount of power you wield. The money is what creates the power; greed is what corrupts the money. ]]

Paging Francisco d'Anconia, please pick up the nearest courtesy phone.

Dexter is on the line and he needs a little talk about how "Money is the root..."

[Oceander]

They should be restricted across the board. Lots of people on the left claim to want money out of politics. If they really mean that then maybe an agreement could be reached.

No, they should not.  That is how you control political speech - you make it too expensive for dissidents to voice their views.

[Dexter]

No, they should not.  That is how you control political speech - you make it too expensive for dissidents to voice their views.

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're saying here. You're saying they shouldn't limit campaign contributions? Limiting campaign contributions is exactly how you make it not too expensive for dissidents to voice their views. Nobody outside the main parties can compete with a billion dollar campaign.

[Oceander]

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're saying here. You're saying they shouldn't limit campaign contributions? Limiting campaign contributions is exactly how you make it not too expensive for dissidents to voice their views.

Bullshit.  Controlling campaign contributions is how you control who gets to run and who does not.  You are an effing idiot if you honestly believe that.

[Dexter]

Bullshit.  Controlling campaign contributions is how you control who gets to run and who does not.  You are an effing idiot if you honestly believe that.

Controlling campaign contributions is how you avoid having certain political parties with billion dollar campaigns that nobody can compete with. When you limit contributions you are lowering the barrier to entry which means more people are heard.

[truth_seeker]

They should be restricted across the board. Lots of people on the left claim to want money out of politics. If they really mean that then maybe an agreement could be reached.

The left only wants it restricted for the right, but not for their side. In many if not most races, the largest single source of campaign funds is government employee unions.

The left will NOT give that up.

[Dexter]

The left only wants it restricted for the right, but not for their side. In many if not most races, the largest single source of campaign funds is government employee unions.

The left will NOT give that up.

If Republicans reached across the aisle and offered to end Citizens United and other forms of campaign funding in exchange for the Democrats doing the same I am supremely confident a lot of them would agree to that. Money in politics is a huge concern for people on the left too. Elections should not be decided by money.

[truth_seeker]

If Republicans reached across the aisle and offered to end Citizens United and other forms of campaign funding in exchange for the Democrats doing the same I am supremely confident a lot of them would agree to that. Money in politics is a huge concern for people on the left too. Elections should not be decided by money.

You read what young idealists on the left say, but in practice there is no way those unions will relinquish the money and power they wield.

Where do you think Obama got his money? You do know he outspent McCain and Romney, right?

[Oceander]

Controlling campaign contributions is how you avoid having certain political parties with billion dollar campaigns that nobody can compete with. When you limit contributions you are lowering the barrier to entry which means more people are heard.

/snicker

[Dexter]

You read what young idealists on the left say, but in practice there is no way those unions will relinquish the money and power they wield.

Where do you think Obama got his money? You do know he outspent McCain and Romney, right?

I am aware that the unions and many of the politicians on the left would not support this idea. However a lot of the left's voter base would support the idea. Politicians on the right and the people that line their pockets would not support the idea either, but I think maybe a lot of the right wing voter base would. Many voters on the left and right seem to understand the problems associated with having too much money in politics. If this is true I don't understand why there can't be solidarity on this issue. If droves of people from all corners of the political spectrum demanded this change I think they would be heard.

[Oceander]

If Republicans reached across the aisle and offered to end Citizens United and other forms of campaign funding in exchange for the Democrats doing the same I am supremely confident a lot of them would agree to that. Money in politics is a huge concern for people on the left too. Elections should not be decided by money.

Elections aren't decided by money, they're decided by voters and their votes.  And in case you haven't noticed, even shoe-string candidates can get picked up by the major money-sources if - if - they have something interesting to say.  On the other hand, no amount of money is going to get a trite, single-issue candidate.  Did you not learn even the most basic of lessons from all the millionaires who ran - and lost - for the GOP nomination in 2012?