“donor class and their ownership of establishment candidates.”
So now the Trumpsters are against Citizens United - arguably the most conservative decision of the Supreme Court in decades. To participate in our democracy, you have to be able to influence. And to influence you pay up.
Trump has chosen not to take my money and therefore he can’t whine when I boo the hell out of him if/when I see him in public.
That said, I think it is PERFECTLY reasonable for a candidate to call out opponents for being in the pocket of special interests.
Regarding your quote: "And to influence you pay up."
Again I say nonsense. That is the way that YOU have chosen to have influence. Millions of Trump supporters (and, for that matter Sanders' small donors) have illustrated that influence doesn't necessarily have to be paid for.
We both agree that Citizen's United was decided properly. But even though it is Constitutional, that doesn't mean there are not, or that there should not be, repercussions for candidates who accept millions from large donors. It's a political risk, just like many other calculations candidates have to make.