Polling data shows that Americans are weary of experienced politicians, supporting Donald Trump on the political right and Bernie Sanders on the political left.  More experienced candidates are not receiving any such attention.  In the Fox News Republican primary debate, presidential hopeful Marco Rubio even noted that there is no candidate as qualified as Hillary Clinton.  Instead of Clinton’s experience ceding support away from the Republican Party, it was merely acknowledged and then used as evidence to support Rubio’s argument that experience is unnecessary for a nation focusing on the present rather than the past.  While Clinton has had a past full of great accomplishments, she may be competing for the presidency in an era where that past has no merit.

Hillary Clinton is universally recognized as the most qualified candidate in the 2016 election.  As a United States senator, Clinton spent eight years on the Armed Service Committee, giving her valuable insight to serve the presidential duty of commander and chief of the military.  She served on budget committees, committees concerned with public health, environmental protection, transportation, and workplace safety.  She founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families and was honored by the national organization as “a tireless voice for children.”  Perhaps more relevant than all of these accomplishments, Clinton is respected by members of the Republican party.  Senator Lindsey Graham, for example, deemed her “one of the most effective secretaries of state” and one of the “greatest ambassadors for the American people that I have known in my lifetime.”   John McCain and Orrin Hatch also express their admiration of Clinton, despite her Democratic identification.  Respect from politicians of both parties is difficult to earn, as retired speaker of the house John Boehner recently learned.  Clinton’s experience in government and reputation with politicians makes her a venerable candidate.

However, Clinton’s critics point out that she does not always act in the best interest of her party.  Clinton is highly criticized for her acceptance of campaign monies from large corporations.  One example of the influence of these donors is Clinton’s opinion of large agricultural company, Monsanto, which caused the Washington Times to call her “the Bride of Frankenfood.”  Liberals often criticize Monsanto for its genetic engineering and modification of foods, especially of corn and soybeans. Food Inc., renowned documentary, notes that Monsanto often uses government power to win lawsuits and pass policies that give the company patents on specific seeds.  These patents financially ruin small farmers who live near Monsanto-owned farms and accidentally harvest their signature crops when the seeds blow from field to field.  Liberals, who advocate for government intervention to help small farmers and want government to label genetically modified foods, view Hillary’s alliance with Monsanto as a major affliction.

    However, Monsanto is not the only big business threat to the Clinton presidential campaign.  Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase & Company are the largest, second, and fourth largest contributors to the Clinton campaign.  These three banks combined have donated $2,281,598.  Clinton’s connection with big banks makes Democratic voters apprehensive.  Already this year, Hillary has received 1.5 million dollars for speaking engagements with a Swiss bank.  This sum is suspiciously high because Clinton, acting as secretary of state, negotiated a legal settlement with the bank.  Voters are reasonably worried that similar quid pro quo negotiations will occur in the future, allowing banks to act irresponsibly with consumer and tax dollars.

    Voters in state primaries have expressed their distaste in seasoned politicians.  Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders receive a great deal of media and voter attention although they have little to no experience in government.  While some voters commend Clinton for her participation on countless Senate committees and outreach to the oppressed, many more are quick to pass judgment on her because of her entanglement with large corporations and big banks.  Whether or not Clinton’s world-renowned accomplishments are overshadowed by corporate campaign contributions is a matter of opinion that baffles this student journalist.  The American people will decide in the Democratic primary if Clinton’s lifelong achievements are remarkable enough to make her the Democratic candidate for president.