Booker says he's "put a pause" on accepting contributions from drug companies

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/30/534969921/sen-cory-booker-on-health-care-and-the-democrats-future

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RINO Tom]

Hahaha

[Hammy]

In other words, it's temporary, not done out of principle, and he'll resume taking contributions silently at some point once he thinks people have forgotten about it.

[GGover]

I can't wait to see how Bookercare turns out.

[Mr. Smith]

too little, too late.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Ugh. He is so running.

[Skunk]

In other words, it's temporary, not done out of principle, and he'll resume taking contributions silently at some point once he thinks people have forgotten about it.

[Shadows]

Cory Booker & O'Malley are 2 almost guaranteed to run ! Both will do anything to get votes !

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

In other words, it's temporary, not done out of principle, and he'll resume taking contributions silently at some point once he thinks people have forgotten about it.

too little, too late.

Hahaha

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Sad!!!! Crooked Cory will do anything for his masters!  -DJT

[Rookie Yinzer]

Sad!!!! Crooked Cory will do anything for his masters!  -DJT

I truly hope Trump tweets that. The GOP's heads will explode.

[Xing]

Can it please be a permanent pause, Cory?

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Sad!!!! Crooked Cory will do anything for his masters!  -DJT

I truly hope Trump tweets that. The GOP's heads will explode.

Nah, King Donnie respects Republicans who get paid by his buddies in big pharma.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL, this isn't going to help him.

[Coraxion]

Money is money. I don't know why this was a big deal in the first place.

[GoTfan]

In other words, it's temporary, not done out of principle, and he'll resume taking contributions silently at some point once he thinks people have forgotten about it.

[Hammy]

Money is money. I don't know why this was a big deal in the first place.

Industries contribute to candidates that are friendly to their financial interests, so if he's getting funding from drug companies, it's highly unlikely he'd be willing to support any sort of legitimate healthcare reform that involves affordability.

[publicunofficial]

God why would you say pause. Either say nothing and keep raking in money, or stop all together and get praise. Saying "pause" just calls attention to your pharma money.

Everything Cory Booker says and does make me think he is one of the most out-of-touch people in Washington.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

ITT, people who hate the pharma industry for stupid reasons.

[publicunofficial]

ITT, people who hate the pharma industry for stupid reasons.

Yeah they aren't responsible for absurd drug costs, or turning the American midwest into a howling snake-pit full of fentanyl-addicts, or producing such great humanitarians as Martin Shkreli or Heather Bresch.

[Coraxion]

Money is money. I don't know why this was a big deal in the first place.

...do Democrats have any standards for their politicians? Jesus Christ.

Republicans are just fine with their party being the whore of the fossil fuel industry, so...

[Coraxion]

Money is money. I don't know why this was a big deal in the first place.

...do Democrats have any standards for their politicians? Jesus Christ.

Republicans are just fine with their party being the whore of the fossil fuel industry, so...

Are you serious? Obviously the Republican Party is going to formulate policy based on the interests of their corporate overlords - that's what being a right-wing party is all about. An ostensibly left-wing party isn't supposed to be beholden to the interests of industry titans. How could this possibly be difficult for you to understand? If you want the Democratic Party to behave exactly like the Republican Party (which your post implies), why don't you, I don't know, become a Republican?

Receiving money from corporate special interest groups doesn't bother me. Enacting policy favoring those special interest groups does, however. They're different things. For example, Clinton received far more money from Wall Street than Trump, and if you think her policies would be more favorable to Wall Street than Trump's, you're on crack. Clinton isn't the one who favors repealing Dodd-Frank.

[publicunofficial]

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Cigarettes don't kill people, cancer does."

[NHI]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Cigarettes don't kill people, cancer does."

[Mr. Morden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Cigarettes don't kill people, cancer does."

That analogy makes no sense, since people don't choose to have cancer or not separately from their decision to smoke.  Only one decision is being made (whether to smoke or not).  In the case of campaign contributions, the politician is making two different decisions: 1) whether to accept a contribution, and 2) whether to vote in the interests of the person giving them the contribution.  If you only really care about #1 to the extent that it'll influence the politician to engage in #2, then there's nothing inconsistent about holding the politician accountable for #2 alone.