I wish we could talk sanely about the Clintons and their long history

[salib]

128. Of course, no one person can give $50k. The limit is $2700.

Most of the money is now going to be for the party, pacs, and issue ads, etc.

Now, that said, i think it is fair to say that if my wife and I contributed $5700 to Bernie's campaign, the campaign would contact us, want to set up a house party or something, and could even mean Bernie would visit (we live in Vermont), or at least someone important in his campaign.

It does mean access.

However, again as the OP pointed out it is not how rich someone is, or how much they are earning, but instead how they are earning it.

It does mean access.

Now, Hillary has just come out fairly strongly in changing the scotus to reverse citizens United. And that would certainly dramatically cut the dark money. I think this makes sense for her. A real strength she has is the ability to raise money, which is under her control, and the dark money is not under her control. Of course she wants to eliminate it. However, publicly funded or very low maximums on funding would not play to her strengths and so she does not support these.

Of course Bernie wants publicly funded elections and has worked to see it happen. I could say that plays to his strengths.

Nevertheless, it does mean access. And the need for access, e.g. Need to be friends with Jamie Dimon, does make it difficult to be outside the influence of those people.