So there’s this: Wall Street donors seek to block Warren VP pick (via Politico). Basically Wall Street people saying they’ll stop donating to Hillary Clinton if she chooses Senator Elizabeth Warren as her vice president running mate.
I’m not entirely keen on the idea of Warren as a VP actually (she can probably do more good in the Senate), but based on this having her as Clinton’s VP might actually get me to vote for Clinton! Hey, if money is speech, so is no money.
After I thought of this I imagined a theoretical conversation where someone asks if that means I might not vote for Clinton to stop Trump. My answer was yes, because voting for the sake of not-the-other removes all possible leverage from my vote. It means money is more of speech than voting is.
Then I realized that the two-party system is an oligopoly. Obviously not a monopoly because there are two parties, but it’s one party away from a monopoly, and if you don’t like one of the two, you’re out of luck. A quote from the Politico article:
But more moderate Democrats in the financial services industry argue that Sanders voters will come on board anyway