Take a moment to reflect back on the 2012 presidential race and the criticisms that plagued the Romney campaign.
Many pundits and political operatives labeled Romney as out of touch with everyday Americans, too rich to be president and in bed with big corporations and individuals who use their wealth to influence elections on a grand scale.
Their concerns were considered legitimate and noteworthy enough; news outlets bombarded us with them for months on end, which ultimately had an impact on the election.
Come back to the present day, and consider the front-runner for the Democratic ticket, Hillary Clinton. It was revealed this week that since 2001, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, an organization that conducts charity projects worldwide, has raised nearly $2 billion at the end of 2014.
While this is an outstanding amount of money that will do good things in the world, it comes at a price for Americans who would want a president without any political favors to pay back.
A good chunk of this money, as the Washington Post described it, has come from “a vast global network that includes corporate titans, political donors, foreign governments and other wealthy interests.”
Clinton is happy to take the money now in the pursuit of charity, but later on down the line, especially if she wins the presidency in 2016, these donors could come knocking to ask for political favors and special treatment that may not be in the best interests of everyday Americans.
In fact, these donors are already receiving special treatment from Ready for Hillary, a group encouraging Clinton to run.
A Washington Post review of the Clinton Foundation’s finances has found that “nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary ... as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run.”
Money, regardless of ideology or party, has and always will have influence in politics, and to think that Clinton is immune from its power is naive and just plain ignorant.
You might ask: Why don’t foreign governments and individuals just give to the Clinton campaign when it is underway?
Wouldn’t that get them more influence? It would, if it were possible.
The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits candidates from receiving money from foreign governments, political parties, corporations, associations and individuals.
As a loophole to get around these restrictions, foreign entities go to the next best source: the Clinton Foundation. They pad the Clintons’ wallets with donations and, without a doubt, will one day come to capitalize on their investment.
You then might say: Well, at least Clinton isn’t in bed with big banks, lawyers and other large corporations, unlike greedy and evil conservatives. I’d advise you to think again.
During Hillary Clinton’s career in politics, four out of the five largest contributions to her political endeavors have come from big corporations, including Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, DLA Piper and JPMorgan Chase. These donations amount to a combined total of more than $2.7 million.
When money is that big, money talks, and you can rest assured it will influence Clinton if she becomes the next president.
You then might grasp at straws and proclaim that at least she understands the daily struggles many Americans face.
This too is preposterous when you find out that since she and Bill left the White House back in 2000, she accrued a net worth of between $10 million and $50 million. She’s been able to make $300,000 for giving a single speech.
So, it’s laughable to propose that she understands the average American life, where wages have become stagnant and the job market is still not roaring in growth. In the 2016 race, she is perhaps the most out-of-touch candidate.
Don’t allow for double standards, and hold Clinton to the same principles and criticisms that all too often only seem to be targeted at conservative candidates. We deserve a president who has America as his or her No. 1 priority and has no financial connection to foreign interests.
Hillary Clinton does not meet that criteria, and unlike her attitude toward most things, it does make a difference.
Nick Eagle is a UF economics and political science senior. His column appears on Mondays.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 2/23/2015 under the headline “
Financial interests cloud the Clinton campaign, mirror Romney criticisms"]
