He railed against the Supreme Court for blocking some attempts to limit the influence of money in politics.
“We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us.”
And he implied that he would not use his own funds to support his wife's candidacy.
“For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform,” he said.
Yah, well, that all depends on what the meaning of self-financing is. See . . .
By the by, anybody remember that George Bush didn’t veto McCain-Feingold? Thanks Bush . . . thanks McCain . . . George Soros is good for our country. And Hillary’s self-financing. And Romney’s too. Government forbid that citizens be able to contribute more than the cost of a plasma TV to a candidate they think will do good for thier country. It’s ludicrous. We have the mob of small donors and the billionaires as the major financial players now . . . and the middle class to low level rich folks (small businessmen) are relegated and restricted to being able to give only a small sum to help their candidate. Obama can go back to his donor base because they haven’t maxed out. Hillary can’t. But she can throw in her ill-gotten millions into the race. Guys like Duncan Hunter can’t have a millionaire that believes in him give him a chance at getting traction . . . but Romney can jumpstart his campaign with millions of his own money. It just (*^%$%’s.