| Jumpin said: But why? It's not logical to think that receiving extra campaign donations will change their views. I agree the system is broken and needs to be redone, but it's because it gives a lopsided advantage to your Trumps, Howard Schultzs, and Romneys because their large donors are much more numerous. I don't see how on earth more money to the donations of their campaigns will do anything to impact Warren or Sanders; other than give them more lawn signs and banner advertisements. The only reason they would get large donations is that the people giving those donations really want them to win. The irony is that the campaigns of Warren and Sanders are VOLUNTARILY even more compromised now because now they're not just playing the game handicapped, but with a greater handicap. They're cutting off worker unions and leftist organizations from making big money donations to their own campaigns, while not doing ANYTHING to prevent corporations from making big money donations to their candidates. |
What you're suggesting here is kind of like saying that bribery and lobbying have no affect on politicians or anyone else, in which case why do they exist?
Don't be naive. Who foots a candidate's bills definitely has an impact on what policy ideas they're willing to advance and immediate evidence of this fact can be found in the simple reality that all of the politicians who are attending high-dollar fundraisers, etc. are going qualitatively and noticeably softer on corporate America at the expense of poor and working people and consumers than are Warren and Sanders, as I pointed out before.
