Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pdkl95 3548 days ago
You're missing the forest for the trees.

Did Clinton take money (either for herself or for her campaign or for her foundation, it doesn't matter which) from businesses that are canonical symbols of Wall Street money and power? Then she's tainted in the eyes of everybody that is against corporate influence on politics. The contents of the speech isn't particularly important, because it is the influence of money that matters.

Stop looking for traditional political "scandals", and start noticing the anti-corporate-power, anti-globalism revolt that is causing a lot of people to vote "anybody but the usual bribed politicians".
2 comments
treebeard901 3548 days ago
It is clear she took money from many people because they hired her to give a speech. This isn't really in debate. The core question is whether the money will influence her policies. Giving a speech doesn't mean you're bribed or influenced by default. The content of the speech is very important, so it's good we are seeing what was said.
link
pdkl95 3548 days ago
> Giving a speech doesn't mean you're ... influenced by default.

No, but taking a large amount of money does. Even if you believe you aren't taking money for a "bribe" and maintain some level of independence in the actual content of your speech, there is a significant unconscious bias. If you want to get that kind of job again, you might not be as critical of the people paying you.

> The core question is whether the money will influence her policies.

Approach the question from the other side. No for-profit business is going to give large sums of money out without some expectation of a return on that investment. Someone is betting that they will be able to get more money having the ear of a politician than their other investment opportunities.

link
williamgb 3548 days ago
The anti-globalism revolt, for better or worse, has definitely been noticed by great many people here in the UK in the wake of the unfortunate referendum result in June!

Regarding corporate influence in politics, I'm a combination of too cynical, too ill-informed and too jaded to offer you any worthwhile thoughts on the matter, and therefore fear I will be wasting your time! It seems to me that entities who generate immense wealth have and will always wield influence in society and the mechanism by which it is brought into order (i.e. politics).

link