Hillary Clinton called for a constitutional amendment to correct what she described as a flawed judgment from the Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case; she made her comments during a Tuesday-published interview with Pod Save America.
PSA is hosted by Obama-administration alumni Jon Favreau, Jon Lovett, Daniel Pfeiffer, and Tommy Vietor.
Partial transcript below (emphases added).
LOVETT: One of the other arguments [you and Bernie Sanders] had during the campaign was over money in politics, and it’s one of the things that Bernie levels against the Democratic Party writ large, and I think it’s important moving forward [to note] that Bernie, in a debate, could not point to a single instance in which you changed your mind because of donations, but you also said that you wanted to end the stranglehold that the wealthy have on our government, and in the book you talk about the danger of courting donors.
Where is that danger? I mean, you don’t have to change your mind for this money to have some kind of influence. What do you think the danger of courting donors is?
CLINTON: Well, I’m for public financing. I put forth a very comprehensive set of changes. I voted for McCain-Feingold. I think the Supreme Court has so perverted our electoral system, and Citizens United is a gateway to corruption, and I think we’ve seen that over and over again.
I don’t have any problem with people donating to your campaign, and neither does Bernie Sanders, by the way, because, you know, he takes money from people, as well.
What I wanted to do is say, look, we need a whole different system, and so I said I was going for a constitutional amendment from day one on Citizens United, because there’s no way to get to where I think we need to be unless we change the Constitution.
None of PSA’s hosts asked Clinton for the specific language of her desired constitutional amendment.
Clinton stated that donations to Democrats promising great redistribution of wealth in pursuit of economic egalitarianism cannot amount to corruption. Such donations, she added, are likely altruistic in motivation:
Anybody who donates to a Democratic candidate who is on the record, as I have been for decades, about what I wanted to do on everything from raising taxes on [wealthy persons and corporations] to closing loopholes, and speaking out when I was a senator from New York.
They, in effect, are putting aside their own financial interest to a certain extent, because they are donating to somebody, whether it was me or President Obama, who in  got more money from Wall Street than any Democrat had ever gotten, and yet imposed the toughest regulations that had been imposed since the Great Depression.
We’re not going in on bait and switch. I mean, I say to donors the same way I say on a public stage: “We need to tax the wealthy, and here’s what I will do.” I’ve been saying we need to close the carried interest loophole. … So if they’re still gonna give me money, they must have some other concerns about maybe the future of our country and our position in the world.
Despite left-wing influence across the news media, entertainment culture, academia, the government and its bureaucracy, and ostensibly non-profit, charitable, and philanthropic organizations, Clinton framed the Right as more heavily-funded in pursuit of its politics than the Left.
"The money advantage is so demonstrably on the other side, and aided by the media advantage [held by the Right]," said Clinton.
Listen to Clinton's comments below.
Via The Washington Post (WaPo), Hillary Clinton's campaign raised $1.4 billion. Donald Trump's presidential campaign raised $957 million. Clinton's assessed campaign fundraising as per WaPo's analysis does not include the operational costs of CNN, The New York Times, Politico, or similar news media outfits.
Democrats essentially support rewriting the First Amendment to empower Congress to regulate the spending of money toward all speech and expression deemed political.
In 2014, Senate Democrats voted unanimously to rewrite the First Amendment toward empowering Congress to regulate spending on political speech and expression. Read the text of the proposed bill and constitutional amendment below.
SECTION 1.To advance democratic self-government and political equality, and to protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
SECTION 2.Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections.
SECTION 3.Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.