How Hillary Clinton Can Do A Better Job Talking About Money in Politics

Thursday night at the Republican debate, Donald Trump argued he’s the one Republican candidate who can fix our broken political system, one in which donors have, in his words, “total control of the candidates.” Referencing the fact that he has given large contributions to candidates, he said, “Frankly, I know the system better than anybody else and I’m the only one up here that’s going to be able to fix that system because that system is wrong.”

In an election cycle dominated by big money spending and an anti-establishment mood, Trump comes across as a credible “reformer” simply by acknowledging his own intimate understanding of how broken our political system is.

To be clear, Trump has offered no concrete solutions to fix our broken campaign finance system and his divisive and bigoted rhetoric is a serious cause for concern, but his comments last Thursday are particularly instructive for his potential Democratic rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

See, Sec. Clinton is facing a serious messaging problem on money in politics.

Put simply, voters don’t trust Hillary Clinton. Democratic strategist Stan Greenberg held focus groups last week among Democratic voters in Ohio. Many pointed to her connections to big-money super PACs and Wall Street as the reason why they distrusted her. One Democratic voter said Clinton, “represents the wealthy”, while another called her a “career politician,” and a third stated, “I just, honestly, I do not believe her, that she’ll do anything for the reform.”

In an election driven by anti-establishment sentiments, the impression that Clinton is just another Washington insider is a major hurdle she will need to overcome.

Right now, Clinton is locked in a primary battle with Senator Bernie Sanders, a constant critic of our “corrupt campaign finance system.” Sanders scored an upset victory in Michigan, and he credited his victory to voter outrage over our current political system saying, “What the American people are saying is they are tired of a corrupt campaign finance system and super PACs funded by Wall Street and the billionaire class.”

The truth is, unlike any of the Republican candidates, Clinton and Sanders both have very similar and comprehensive plans to reform our broken political system. Yet when participants in the focus groups last week were shown excerpts from Hillary Clinton’s plan on her website, three-quarters of them assumed it was Bernie Sanders’ plan. When it was revealed to be Clinton’s platform, focus group participants were shocked. One said “wow” while another, a Clinton supported, exclaimed “she wanted it to be her.”

The reason is clear. Hillary Clinton, while putting the right words on paper, has yet to forcefully and repeatedly verbalize her plan to fix our broken democracy in terms that acknowledge the scale of the problem and her willingness to bite the hands that feed her campaign.

Trump, Sanders, and Clinton have all participated in our broken campaign finance system, if not from different sides. Yet Clinton has been the most hesitant to speak openly and honestly about how the system is broken — and it’s hurting her credibility.

When asked about her Wall Street donors on the debate stage, Clinton has not brought up her proposed solutions to the money in politics problem. She has instead tried defending her integrity in a variety of ways, including bring President Barack Obama’s Wall Street fundraising into her answer, which has only served to leave the impression that she doesn’t think changing the status quo is important.

In short, she is arguing that we just need to elect leaders we can trust. There are two problems for Clinton in this response. The first is that the influence of money is a pervasive problem that the public understands at the gut level must be addressed. The second is, unfortunately, voters don’t actually trust her. There are probably a number of reasons for that — including the unfair standards women in power are held to and her last name. But there’s no doubt that some of that mistrust stems from Clinton’s participation in the big money system the public so despises.

A better path forward for Clinton to win back lost trust with voters would be to speak honestly and openly about how she understands the system is broken and will fight to change it once she is in office.

Indeed, one of Hillary Clinton’s most compelling moments of the debate this week was when she said humbly, “I am not a natural politician, in case you haven’t noticed, like my husband or President Obama.”

This kind of humility and truth telling is exactly the kind of approach Clinton should apply when responding to questions about her support from wealthy special interests. She should tell Americans that she has to work within the current political system, because she can’t change it unless she is elected. But she should acknowledge that she understands how deeply Americans distrust politics and politicians because of the role of money. And she should absolutely argue that she will make it a priority, if elected, to overhaul the way elections are financed.

Sec. Clinton can expand on that by making the case that she plans to break down the barriers our campaign finance system erects, preventing people of color, women, and people of limited means from running for office. By removing the barrier of money that surrounds Washington, she can make it easier for everyday people to have their voices heard.

Hillary Clinton has the right positions, but she has a messaging problem on money in politics. It’s time she fixed it.

Check out the full analysis from Stan Greenberg on the focus groups.