Is this a joke headline? I mean how about this for a headline?: Firms and individuals that donate tens of thousands to U.S political campaigns have U.S Government interests.
Hillary Clinton's role in the Saudi arms thing has also been thoroughly debunked.
I try to not be apologists for any politician, but only people who have a genuine Clinton Derangement Syndrome could regard donations to a charity by a foreign government or paid speeches to a former politician as any worse than the legal bribery that is the modern campaign finance system.
Donations by foreigners are terrible, but donations by U.S branches of foreign corporations is fine? Also, other than its illegal how is a donation by a foreign entity inherently any worse than any other large donation?
I agree that Bernie Sanders seems to have cleaner hands here, but he is one of a tiny handful, not just in those running for President, but in those running for or holding virtually any political office.
Well, a few things.
First of all, yes, that's the headline of the article: if you a problem with it, you should take it up with the NY Times.
Second, who says that donations by U.S branches of foreign corporations is fine? And you really have to wonder about someone rising to the defense of a prominent politician with the words "other than it's illegal...". Really? Are you reading your own objections?
And finally, if you're saying that campaign finance is in dire need of reform, you'll hear no argument to the contrary from me. But if what you're saying is that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be bothered with obeying the law and doing the right thing because, well, everybody else is doing it? Good luck selling that to the electorate...
