So are there any liberals/lefties who aren't troubled by this latest potential scandal? The only deflection I've seen is that without causal evidence of quid-pro-quo corruption, there is no issue. I find this interesting because it contradicts the typical liberal/left talking points on campaign finance.
To quote from noted liberal icons:
"Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics."
Justice Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, at 448. (Joined by RBGinsburg OMG!)
"... It would have been quite remarkable if Congress had created a record detailing such behavior by its own Members. Proving that a specific vote was exchanged for a specific expenditure has always been next to impossible: Elected officials have diverse motivations, and no one will acknowledge that he sold a vote. Yet, even if ingratiation and access ... are not corruption themselves, they are necessary prerequisites to it; they can create both the opportunity for, and the appearance of, quid pro quo arrangements."
Justice Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, at 455. (Joined by RBGinsburg OMG!)
"What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary “chain of communication” between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. ... The “appearance of corruption” can make matters worse. It can lead the public to believe that its efforts to communicate with its representatives or to help sway public opinion have little purpose. And a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether."
Justice Breyer, McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 U.S. 1434, at 1468 (Joined by RB GINSBURG OMG!)
"Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that for the majority of this current Supreme Court,
corruption means quid pro quo corruption. In other words, if it’s not punishable by a bribery statute, it’s not corruption. This is a reasonable mistake to make at a dinner party.
But it’s a disastrous mistake to make for democracy, when the stakes are so high." Zephyr Teachout, noted lefty challenger to the Dread Pirate Cuomo,
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/what-john-roberts-doesnt-get-about-corruption-105683.html#ixzz3YO8uJisdSo is the appearance of corruption surrounding Hillary really a threat to our democracy, or are previous liberal concerns about influence peddling misguided? I mean, potentially trading uranium deposits for cash is pretty bad, even without a smoking gun. Dear Ruth Bader Ginsburg would certainly agree.
