If Hillary Clinton Isn't Influenced by Wall Street Cash, Then Why Overturn Citizens United?

US Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton (R) and Bernie Sanders participate in the MSNBC Democratic Candidates D
US Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton (R) and Bernie Sanders participate in the MSNBC Democratic Candidates Debate at the University of New Hampshire in Durham on February 4, 2016. Clinton and Sanders face off on February 4, in the first debate since their bruising Iowa clash that the former secretary of state won by a hair, as they gear for a battle royale in New Hampshire. / AFP / Jewel Samad (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia both donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Either Trump and the Saudis share the same value system, or there are other reasons why they chose the same charitable organization. Even if you're certain that Hillary Clinton would make a great president, think about that for a moment.

Basic logic isn't the hallmark of the Clinton campaign, nor is it an attribute needed to vote for the former Secretary of State. 72% of Independent voters and 59% of Americans find Hillary Clinton "not honest and trustworthy." However, some Democrats continue to ignore inconvenient facts pertaining to Clinton's decision-making and judgement.

The FBI is currently investigating Clinton's private server (the personal server circumventing government networks is the issue, not just the private email), she's experienced a foreign donor controversy and a weapons deal issue, and Clinton also accepted money from prison lobbyists.

Good luck winning South Carolina with two major prison lobbyists funding a Democratic campaign. I explain why these prison lobbyists will hurt the Clinton campaign on The Benjamin Dixon Show.

In terms of Hillary Clinton's character and value system, you make your own conclusions. NPR isn't a right wing think tank or publication, and a recent headline reads 22 Hillary Clinton Emails Dubbed Top Secret.

If you believe Clinton used a private server to circumvent U.S. government networks for "convenience," then you also believe she "wasn't committed to running" for the presidency when taking $675,000 (for three speeches) from Goldman Sachs.

Wait, Clinton wasn't sure about running for the presidency when speaking to Goldman Sachs?


President Obama once declared that Hilary Clinton was "wicked smart," but refrained to elaborate why he used the two adjectives in succession.

Therefore, Americans should give up on overturning Citizens United. On the issue of campaign finance reform, who needs it? After all, millions in Wall Street money has never, ever influenced Hillary Clinton.

Zaid Jilani writes in The Intercept that when it comes to Bill and Hillary, "Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches."

Bill is a great public speaker and Hillary is alright, but together I doubt they're worth $139 million, simply to perform speeches. Hillary Clinton was tutored on bankruptcy laws by Elizabeth Warren in the 90's, so it's doubtful Goldman Sachs executives needed stock tips or venture capital advice.

The reality is that Wall Street cash has absolutely influenced Hillary Clinton.

Robert Reich already explained (although not directly) why Clinton's Wall Street cash influenced the former Secretary of State's economic plan. In a Huffington Post article titled The Big Short and Bernie's Plan to Bust Up Wall Street, Reich compares the economic plans of both Democratic candidates:

Most importantly, the movie shows why Bernie Sanders's plan to break up the biggest banks and reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act (separating investment from commercial banking) is necessary -- and why Hillary Clinton's more modest plan is inadequate...

Most of Hillary's proposals could already have been put into effect by the Fed and the Securities and Exchange Commission, but they haven't been -- presumably because of the Street's muscle.

I love Robert Reich, and of course he never meant to insinuate that Clinton's ties to Wall Street influenced her to develop a "more modest" and "inadequate" plan that "could already have been put into effect by the Fed and the Securities and Exchange Commission."

However, the reality is that Hillary Clinton chose to present a modest plan because of Wall Street's financial influence. It's doubtful that both Clintons could amass $139 million, primarily from Wall Street, with the intentions of breaking up Too Big to Fail Banks and reinstating Glass-Steagall. Robert Reich goes on to write exactly why America needs Bernie Sanders:

More than a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt broke up the Standard Oil Trust because it posed a danger to the U.S. economy. Today, Wall Street's biggest banks pose an even greater danger. They're far larger than they were before the crash of 2008.

Unless they're broken up and Glass-Steagall resurrected, we face substantial risk of another near-meltdown -- once again threatening the incomes, jobs, savings, and homes of millions of Americans.

Reich explains that Bernie's economic plan is "necessary," while his rival's plan is sub-par.

It's not a coincidence that Bernie Sanders, a man who hasn't taken money from Wall Street, is fearless about breaking up banks and reinstating Glass-Stegall. When explaining that Wall Street's business model is fraud, Sanders speaks freely and without watching his words. Only a person who quotes FDR as welcoming the hatred of Wall Street can implement the "necessary" economic plan needed to prevent future collapses.

Clinton is indeed influenced by tremendous Wall Street cash, because she refuses to break up the banks and implement the steps Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, Nouriel Roubini, Bernie Sanders and many others advocate.

Yes, Clinton has a moderate and establishment view of Wall Street reform, but moderate and establishment politics exemplify Wall Street's immense influence. We mustn't anger the investment banks, after all, it's just not realistic or pragmatic. Better to allow them one more round of Casino Capitalism before we bail them out once more, while the average American bears the brunt of Too Big to Fail madness.

Clinton's willingness to appease Wall Street, under the guise of pragmatism, realism, and the all-knowing guidance of Barney Frank, underscores the debate over Citizens United. POLITICO once referred to Hillary Clinton as Wall St. Republicans' dark secret for a reason.

As stated in a POLITICO piece titled Why Wall Street Loves Hillary, "As we have all seen repeatedly, Wall Street often gets what Wall Street wants."

But remember, Clinton has never been influenced by Wall Street.

Therefore, the following information about Citizens United and its consequences should be irrelevant, especially when we take a politician (who's taken enormous amounts of Wall Street cash) at their word. No amount of money can influence Clinton, therefore what's the issue with Citizens United?

According to a US News & World Report piece titled How Citizens United Has Changed Politics in 5 Years, America's political system has changed dramatically:

The controversial Supreme Court ruling has remade how campaigns are run in the U.S.

As a result, a small group of wealthy donors has gained even more influence on elections, and are able to maintain that influence once candidates take office.

Of the $1 billion spent in federal elections by super PACs since 2010, nearly 60 percent of the money came from just 195 individuals and their spouses, according to the Brennan Center report. Thanks to Citizens United, supporters can make the maximum $5,200 donation directly to a candidate, then make unlimited contributions to single-candidate super PACs.

Campaign reform advocates say the amount of money spent is not inherently a problem; rather, it's the fact that a tiny number of extraordinarily wealthy individuals are bankrolling the majority of that spending.

Either the wealthiest Americans and most powerful corporations have an inordinate amount of influence, or they don't. Either we take politicians at their word, and believe them when they say millions in Wall Street cash hasn't influenced their decision-making, or we don't.

American voters can't complain about the next Wall Street collapse, if given the opportunity to vote for Bernie Sanders, and another candidate is chosen.

Don't complain about money in politics, and never complain about lying politicians if Bernie Sanders isn't our next president. You have your chance to elect an honest, fearless candidate for president, and if you choose the wrong person, simply don't complain when the next financial collapse costs you a business, or your house.

People who remember 2008 will vote for Bernie Sanders. People who have horrible short-term memories might vote for Clinton or Rubio.

If you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, you'll vote for a politician who took millions from Wall Street, but miraculously was able to deceive savvy investment bankers and keep the money.

I explain why I'm only voting for Bernie Sanders in this YouTube Segment, and why he's a better choice than Clinton in my appearance on Tim Black TV. I also explain why Bernie Sanders will become president on The Thom Hartmann Program and The David Pakman Show.