Since 1999, US presidential hopeful and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has received roughly $13 million in campaign contributions from "securities and investment" donors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Understandably, that money has raised questions about Clinton’s pledge to regulate America’s financial industry.
These concerns were raised by Democratic rival and Bernie Sanders during Saturday night’s debate. Given that his own campaign is funded by small donations from individual supporters, the Vermont senator has been a leading advocate for campaign finance reform.
But Clinton’s response was…odd.
"I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11, when we were attacked," she began, likely already raising a few eyebrows in the audience.
"Where were we attacked?" she continued. "We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is….I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country."
An American politician referencing 9/11 during campaign season is always a red flag, a cheap grab at sympathy by appealing to a shared tragedy. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie used a similar tactic in August to deflect questions about his support for bulk data collection.
But Clinton gets credit for creativity: This may be the first time that the attack on the World Trade Center has ever been used to justify accepting $13 million.
The statement immediately came off as disingenuous. Minutes later, the debate moderators displayed a tweet that suggested Clinton’s appeal to 9/11 was inappropriate.
"I am sorry if whoever tweeted that had that impression," she said.
That response, naturally, did little to smooth things over.
During the Central Iowa Democrats fall barbecue on Sunday, Clinton’s aides were put on the defensive over the controversial comment.
"I think she’s got a strong record on Wall Street reform. She’s put forward the strongest policies on Wall street reform," Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, told Yahoo News. "It’s just an unfair attack."
This still, however, does not address Clinton’s puzzling 9/11 reference. But Clinton also seems unconcerned, as her own rebuttal again alludes to the 2001 terrorist attacks in reference to Bush-era tax cuts.
"I voted against those big tax cuts. Democrats put up alternatives. We said, 'Ok, let’s have a more moderate view, but let’s not tilt it. Let’s not get the deck stacked in favor of those who are at the top,'" Clinton said.
"But no, that wasn’t the ideology that governed that administration and we were attacked on 9/11 – a searing, horrible experience for our country – and then two wars."
After the question was raised by Bernie Sanders during Saturday’s debate, Clinton’s other chief rival, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, also addressed Clinton’s remarks on Sunday.
"Last night in the debate, Secretary Clinton – to try to mask her proximity to Wall Street, the huge amount of contributions and the dollars she has received personally from the major banks of Wall Street – sadly invoked 9/11 to try to mask that," O’Malley said, according to Yahoo News.
"Look she doesn’t have to mask it. It is what it is. That is the sort of economy, that is the sort of economic advice that she would follow."
