Who's Best Suited to the Oval Office

Democrats are lucky this election cycle to have not one, but two, excellent candidates for president. There’s a lot of negativity floating around within the democratic party, but frankly, either Sanders or Clinton would be leaps and bounds better than any of the GOP candidates. I will be proud to vote for either in the general election. But I want to explain why I’ll be voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary.

Sanders has an air of authenticity. He says what he believes in and he says it passionately and consistently. Sanders has a total 34 years of experience as an elected official, serving as a Mayor (1981-1989), in the House of Representatives (1990-2006), and the Senate (2006-Present). Through all that time, he has persistently advocated for the middle and working classes. A volunteer for his campaign composed a video called, “30 Years of Speeches” that shows just how impressively he has stuck by his ideals.

Clinton’s words and narrative are crafted carefully and adjusted slightly for each audience. She changes her stance to suit the current political climate. For example, Clinton supported the Iraq War and only later condemned it. She initially advocated for the heavily criticized Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and only on the campaign trail changed her mind. As recently as 2014 Clinton opposed gay marriage, but now she is for it. None of these examples by themselves are troublesome, rather it’s the pattern that’s worrisome. This kind of political maneuvering is what we’ve come to expect from our politicians and it’s not necessarily bad. But it makes it difficult to know exactly where she currently stands on any given issue. Even if I don’t agree with all of Sanders’ ideas, at least I’m confident I’ll know what they are.

One of the most important issues in my opinion is campaign finance reform. The U.S. spends more time and money on elections than most other nations, and yet we see lower democratic engagement and voter turnout. We’ve slashed spending restrictions and have no limits on advertising. The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court Case held that the government is prohibited from restricting independent political expenditures. In other words, money is speech, and free speech is protected by the First Amendment. This led to the rise of massive Super PACs (Political Action Committees). While Super PACs aren’t allowed to coordinate with or donate directly to candidates, they have very few restrictions on campaigning for candidates, ballot initiatives, and legislation. Campaign spending in the U.S. was high before Citizens United and it’s only gotten worse since then. When money is allowed to dominate our political system, corporations and wealthy individuals disproportionately influence the process. The middle class suffers and the average citizen isn’t fairly represented.

Both candidates have vowed they will fight for campaign finance reform and work to repeal Citizens United. But there’s one key difference. The funding for Clinton’s campaign – and the campaigns of every candidate across party lines except Sanders – is funded by corporations, Super PACs, and wealthy individuals. Sanders’ campaign, by contrast, is funded primarily by small individual contributions and unions. It’s possible that Clinton will work for campaign finance reform once elected, but it would be contrary to the goals of the Super PACs and others who financed her campaign. Sanders won’t have this hindrance.

Sanders has consistently advocated for the middle and working classes over the past 34 years. He can potentially even the playing field in future elections by enacting real campaign finance reform. These two facts alone are enough to convince me to vote for him in the Democratic Primary, but there are so many more reasons why I support him. Stay tuned for more in this ongoing series!

Leave a Reply