One problem with Clinton's fundraising

Hillary Clinton has lent her campaign $11.4 million dollars. That's a chunk of change. She and Bill have made lots of money since they left the White House in 2001. He has made most of it, since she has a day job. Part of that $11.4 million was from his earnings. Not a big deal, right? After all, they're married, so whether or not they share finances is their decision. Except that in the world of campaign finance, lending yourself or your spouse money can get tricky fast. Bill Clinton made his money by giving speeches to organizations with lots of money, mostly corporations. We can reasonably assume that all of those groups have some kind of interest in influencing legislation in the United States Congress. Which legislation, of course, would be signed or vetoed by the president, which Hillary is trying to become. So those corporations are sort of funneling money to the Clinton campaign. McClatchy has the lowdown:

"the Clintons have effectively bypassed campaign finance reform in a manner that's ingenious — using Bill Clinton effectively as a front for the fundraising," said Lawrence Jacobs, a University of Minnesota political science professor.
. . .

that bypasses campaign finance (rules), bypasses public disclosure and bypasses the limits placed on those contributions," [Jacobs] said.

I don't begrudge Bill Clinton his ability to make money. I have no problem with him helping out his wife. But as far as advancing a progressive agenda, this does raise some questions. Obama has raised huge amounts of money from the grassroots; it is to them, therefore, that he owes his allegiance. But when push comes to shove, it is large corporations who have Hillary's back.