The Money In Politics

It’s time for a reality check on who is buying our elections. According to opensecrets.org, some of Hillary Clinton’s top contributors to her campaign include Emily’s List (a pro-abortion group), a few major Wall Street investment firms, the US Government and US State Department (how is that legal?), and Time Warner, a major player in cable television and media. Donation amounts from major donors ranged from over $600,000 to about $250,000. The Donald Trump campaign donations paint a very different picture. According to opensecrets.org, Donald Trump’s top donations came from a couple of financial institutions and various companies I have never heard of. The top donation given was $150,000 and the smallest donation listed in the major donation list was about $10,000. Big money and big investments are supporting Hillary. Why? She will continue the status quo where big money people continue to make big money and non-elites continue to make less. And of course, these numbers do not include any money taken from the Clinton Foundation used for travel expenses and other things. The money that does not have to be spent on travel expenses (because the Clinton Foundation can legally fund travel expenses of the Clintons) can be used for attack ads targeting Donald Trump. The 2016 election will determine whether or not elections can be bought in America.

Does The Truth Have An Impact?

Today’s U.K. Daily Mail included an article about Hillary Clinton’s emails. I know we are all rather tired of hearing about Hillary’s emails, but the article brings out an interesting piece of new information.

The article reports:

Hillary Clinton‘s claim that she was unaware top secret documents on her private email server were highly classified took a hit on Friday, with the revelation of a State Department contract she signed in 2009.

The ‘Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement,’ which Clinton inked during her second day as Secretary of State, declared that she was personally responsible for determining if sensitive documents in her possession were classified at the government’s highest level.

‘I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department … in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI.’

SCI – Sensitive Compartmented Information – is the highest level of ‘top secret’ classification, applying to information so sensitive because of the sources and methods used to obtain it that it can only be viewed in a special room, hardened against electronic eavesdropping, constructed for that purpose.

Mrs. Clinton has stated on the campaign trail that she wasn’t expected to know what is classified. Obviously, the surfacing of this document shows that to be untrue. It is really becoming very clear that Mrs. Clinton has a very distant relationship with the concept of truth.

The article further states:

Government officials who sign the same document Clinton signed acknowledge ‘agree that I shall return all materials that may have come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access, upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government or upon the termination of my employment.’

Clinton never returned her email server to the federal government. She housed it in her Chappaqua, New York home while she was America’s top diplomat, and then moved it when she left the Obama administration – entrusting it to a Colorado company that was not cleared to handle SCI-level documents.

The State Department acknowledged in September that Clinton’s home-brew server also was never authorized to handle such information.

The FBI is currently investigating Hillary’s email mess, in an information dragnet that has also roped in her former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and current top campaign aide Huma Abedin.

Both of those women also signed the DCI nondisclosure agreement.  

As this scandal continues to unravel, it will be interesting to see how the voters weigh in.