Hedge funds gave Clinton $48500000. They gave Trump $19000.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Of course there should be limitations on what this covers. What's going on here isn't spending $0.01 and calling that freedom of speech, it's the difference between someone being able to spend $2,700 (or more to other party organizations) or $10,000,000+.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech. Either you can speak or you can't, it's not like speech is some fixed, zero-sum amount where any person who speaks decreases the amount of speech that other's have. This idea that the government is not restricting someone's freedom of speech by telling them they've spoken too much and must stop, is silly. If "muhknee isn't speech" then the actual amount being spent does not matter and any limit should be fine. It can decrease from $2,700 to $30 to 5 cents and its all fine because "muhknee isn't speech." No one is saying that there cannot be limits on direct donations to candidates or anti-bribery protections, but that is not the same argument as "spending money necessary to carry out otherwise protected speech activities is never protected under the First Amendment".

[RINO Tom]

In a close, contested election, Wall Street shows who they really want (Romney got way, way more than Obama in 2012), but they're going to back whomever they think the winner is going to be, if they perceive it to be obvious.

I'm going to disagree with you here.  Trump is pretty unacceptable to the Wall Street crowd on three basic fronts - trade, immigration, and general volatility - that makes them nervous.  I doubt they actually believe Hillary will landslide this election, as it would belie most of the polling data we see.

Considering Hillary Clinton is more protectionist than Trump and is calling for very progressive reforms of how Wall Street does business, I'd say either they VERY much care about volatility, or they're quite confident Hillary is going to reach 270.

Hillary is not more protectionist than Donald Trump lol. Donald Trump has spent his whole entire life fighting against his free trade. His whole campaign his based around immigration and trade (and nothing else). Don't get me wrong, Hillary is still a protectionist overall, but she isn't as anti-free trade as Donald Trump. Donald Trump has literally called for a f'ing 45% tarrif on all Chinese exports (unlike Hillary). How is Hillary more protectionist than he is?

Donald Trump consistently emphasizes that he's for free trade but doesn't like our current deals and would negotiate better ones; Hillary Clinton just gladly endorsed Bernie Sanders' trade position at the DNC.  Is Trump's position absurd and intellectually hollow?  LOL, of course.  But I'd say it's "to the right" (yes, I consider being pro-free trade an economically conservative view) of Hillary, and what does it matter?  Both tickets are clearly protectionist (though Pence is hilariously a committed free trader), which was my point to RFayette: Wall Street isn't against Trump just because of trade, or they would not be supporting Hillary, especially when Trump is WAY to the right of her on other fiscal issues (even if he's left of where the party leadership would like him to be).

[ag]

In a close, contested election, Wall Street shows who they really want (Romney got way, way more than Obama in 2012), but they're going to back whomever they think the winner is going to be, if they perceive it to be obvious.

I'm going to disagree with you here.  Trump is pretty unacceptable to the Wall Street crowd on three basic fronts - trade, immigration, and general volatility - that makes them nervous.  I doubt they actually believe Hillary will landslide this election, as it would belie most of the polling data we see.

Considering Hillary Clinton is more protectionist than Trump and is calling for very progressive reforms of how Wall Street does business, I'd say either they VERY much care about volatility, or they're quite confident Hillary is going to reach 270.

Hillary is not more protectionist than Donald Trump lol. Donald Trump has spent his whole entire life fighting against his free trade. His whole campaign his based around immigration and trade (and nothing else). Don't get me wrong, Hillary is still a protectionist overall, but she isn't as anti-free trade as Donald Trump. Donald Trump has literally called for a f'ing 45% tarrif on all Chinese exports (unlike Hillary). How is Hillary more protectionist than he is?

Donald Trump consistently emphasizes that he's for free trade but doesn't like our current deals and would negotiate better ones; Hillary Clinton just gladly endorsed Bernie Sanders' trade position at the DNC.  Is Trump's position absurd and intellectually hollow?  LOL, of course.  But I'd say it's "to the right" (yes, I consider being pro-free trade an economically conservative view) of Hillary, and what does it matter?  Both tickets are clearly protectionist (though Pence is hilariously a committed free trader), which was my point to RFayette: Wall Street isn't against Trump just because of trade, or they would not be supporting Hillary, especially when Trump is WAY to the right of her on other fiscal issues (even if he's left of where the party leadership would like him to be).

Hillary Clinton has a solid record on free trade. While she did yield somewhat to the populist left wing in her party, she, clearly, is on record as understanding the advantages trade gives to the US.  Her husband's administration was fairly pro-trade, and there has never been any serious suggestion that she was not on board with that. She is extremely unlikely to disrupt the current trade regime. At most, perhaps, she would withdraw from TPP - as a payback to her coalition partners. Not good: but not a disaster either (main consequences of this would, of course, be not related to trade - it would weaken US and strengthen Chinese ties in the region; but, in any case, it would be only a limited setback). She, most definitely, has no personal stake in and no enthusiasm for limiting trade.

Trump is, of course, on record as being against trade since forever. This is, likely, his one clear ideological conviction. His "renegotiation", if it is to be attempted, is guaranteed to result a major disruption to international trade, with major decrease in international trade flows nearly inevitable. It is very clear that he does not thing that would be a problem (remember, he has only dealt with a business that is pretty much the definition of non-tradeable - real estate).

There is no intellectually honest argument that Trump is not much more personally protectionist than Clinton and that his administration will not be much more protectionist than Clinton's. This is one of the major reasons good economic conservatives should vote Clinton.