She Just Doesn't Get It

When the word got out that a person who raised at least $100,000 for George Bush was given a special status, and a cute name, "Pioneer", many of us were aghast. When it became clear that people like "Kenny-boy" Lay of Enron were members, it became obvious what that special status got you. A compliant regulatory atmosphere for whatever shenanigans you and your accountants could dream up to fleece your investors and the American tax-payer.
I, and many like-minded populists who are in favor of public, transparent financing of elections would like to limit donations to a small, almost symbolic amount, like $100.00. Match this with public funds, either one, two or three times the money raised. Provide free advertising time through the use of tax breaks for media companies, while requiring them to either run all ads equally or run none, that's for you Fox. This would free up the money to be spent on travel, consultants, speech writers and production of ads. This would certainly take the big money influence of large donors out of the equation and free up the candidate for more speeches and forums where they can interact with we, the people. The people who will actually vote for the candidate, who have been largely marginalized by the current system that has the candidate begging, tin cup in hand, over the phone to big donors.
By the way, I am still aghast that a candidate would set up a special status for a $100,000 fund-raiser, and even come up with a cutesy name to cover up the fact that the candidate will be beholden to them for whatever favors they want to request. I am of course speaking of Hillary Clinton's "HillRaisers". I wonder how many Bush "Pioneers" are already "HillRaisers"? As they have proven time and again, big-money interests have no political ideology, only the seemingly insatiable need to make ever more money for themselves.
She just doesn't get it.