This is my first diary on Daily Kos. (I joined today.) So you don't know me, yet. I'm a supporter of Bernie Sanders, and not just because when I turned up at his speech in the town I live in (Charlottesville, VA) this last Monday evening riding my ELF (which may generate a diary of its own), I was greeted with "Oh! You're saving the world. We'll find a place for you." and then guided to a prime parking spot and walked into the back of the venue and up to the main room, already totally full of people, and right to a seat on the front row. I'll admit such treatment did not in any way lessen my enthusiam for Bernie, but I wouldn't have been there if I hadn't already been a supporter.
Today, I got into a discussion about the relative attractiveness of Bernie and Hillary as a candidate. I said my opinion of Hillary would improve if she came out clearly against Citizens United.
Apparently she did, day before yesterday, in a way. She says she wants to get rid of it AFTER her campaign is over. To me, that invites accusations of hipocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do. I understand what she's up against in terms of money going to Republicans, though, so I'm going to make a few suggestions that I hope won't seem entirely impractical regarding some standards she might think of setting for whose money she will accept.
One question she might ask is does the money come from a lot of people who formed a group or from a few people. I'm against accepting money that comes from a single rich family because I think no one family should have such power and influence. No, not even the Waltons. I KNOW they come from Arkansas. I know other stuff about them, too. Make that ESPECIALLY the Waltons.
On the other hand, I would consider money from unions fine. Unions are bunches of people. Yes, I know, so are corporations. But when corporations give money and expect to be listened to by politicians, that doesn't mean listen to the guy who comes in at 5 and cleans the place. It means listen to the few people in the oh-so-comfortable offices on the top floor of the headquarters.
No foreign money. Period. I know we sometimes stick our noses into their affairs, but we shouldn't do that. Neither should they.
Transparency is important. Give us a list of all your single donors over a certain level, maybe $1000. I know how rich I'd have to be to give $1000 to a candidate, and it's a heck of a lot richer than I am ever likely to be. Then give us a list of your donor groups, and not just their names. Names can lie. Don't every try and tell me you were Secretary of State but never picked up on that. You've got staff. Put some of them to work checking out what the people behind that name are about, and then let us know.
The reason I ask this is that I frankly don't want you to have deniability about who's going to think you owe them something. This is for your own good, so you won't be gobsmacked by this.
Now for the really hard part. Tell us who you turned down donations from and how much they offered and why you turned them down. That will show us what kind of principles you really have. And I think we deserve to know, to be informed about who's trying to buy our government.
In short, if you want us to trust you, Hillary, trust us. Trust us as much as Bernie does to be so very concerned about our givernment being bought and sold that we will pay more attention to these things than we will to all those pieces of a political campaign that cost so much. Trust that it's true, and it is, that people live up to what you expect of them. Expect that level of discernment from your supporters, because the people that support you deserve to be right in expecting that level of discernment in you.
(I'll be all excited waiting for any comments to come in.)