How is asking for evidence fanboyism? People are just asking for some shred of tangible evidence that Hillary is a politician for corporate interests. You don't need quid pro quo for that; this is the most obvious attempt to distract from the lack of an actual argument, and you have the nerve to claim fanboyism.
All you would have to do is demonstrate that Hillary Clinton is a politician that has generally voted for and/or sided with legislation that favored corporate interests over the poor and middle class. Again, if you could do that, you wouldn't need to "prove" that she got something specifically for it. It would be implicit in her politics.
But simply claiming that a politician with a relatively clean record in that regard MUST be corrupt because she's accepted campaign contributions from people who work in industries you and Bernie don't like (because that's really the point here. Bernie has also accepted campaign contributions and PAC money, but I guess it's "pure" when he does it), or worked with bundlers who've also worked with those industries (which is six degrees of separation bullshit and doesn't effect her politics at all) is incredibly dishonest, lazy, and honestly not worth taking seriously. Which is why Bernie is losing and this has never been a winning argument for him.
First you assume I dont like any specific industries and that I support Bernie. I have cared about money in politics and I have been involved in trying to adress it at the state level before this primary even began. So yeah. Stop projecting your bias onto me.
Here is how big money corrupts ALL politicians and the process itself. Yes it skews even precious Bernie. We can however make decisions about who it affects more and who it affects less.
First. big money skews who gets elected. Candidates preferred by subsets get more money. Candidates with more money win 95 percent of the time. So even if you don't change a candidates position, you pick candidates with the position you want.
Second. "Clean record" is a worthless standard? Compared to what? Compared to every other politician? The whole process is corrupt. Unless You remove the influence of money, you don't know what position politicians would actually hold. You need to look at the big picture. Legislation passed has zero percent correlation to voter opinion yet substantial correlation to donor opinion.
That's your evidence.
Third. Taking big donations disenfranchises people. People know their votes dont matter. The data shows this on aggregate. Unless you donate substantial amounts, your opinion on aggregate has zero correlation with legislation.
Fourth. By taking big money, you cant turn around and accuse climate change deniers funded by big oil of the same. You are complicit in the problem itself.
I can keep going. Time wasted fundraising, who you surround yourself with, endorsements skewed by money, revolving door, etc, etc, etc.
The whole conflict of interest and the level to which the system is fucked. Every single penny spent by big money on a candidate is an Investment, and data shows the return on investment on legalized bribery i mean political contributions is high as fuck.
You need clear qui pro quo, well the. Don't turn around and say you oppose citizens united, because that is exactly the reasoning used to defend it. Just be honest. Dont be a hypocrite so that you can rationalize supporting your candidate despite the obvious flaws. Supporting them despite the flaws is fine.
This is the honest argument : well we can't let all the money go to Republicans (don't bring a knife to a gun fight). So by getting part of the money you are catering to certain industries, if not, then yes, you would not get any of the big money.
People arguing that Democrats just coincidentally get some big money in exchange for nothing is so disingenuous I can't even...
It is an investment. Not every investment is a net positive, it can be a smaller net negative.
Here is a short rule of thumb I personally decide on what resolutions/politicians to vote on. Follow the money.