could not agree more. she is acting like a comedian. this movie really got under my skin with how poor of a job the narrator has done. HBO should be ashamed. next time let shane smith do the interview or learn some journalism.

+Brandon Brown a few years back she did a doc for HBO about kids living in hotels in CA. She was so detached, and the way she talked to people was so...demeaning. She cleary is part of the 1% and it definitely comes across as arrogance on her work.

Brandon Brown I agree... This was not really hard hitting. How about full disclosure.. The interviewer is Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of Nancy Pelosi. Isn't there an obvious conflict of interest that people should know. You think any Republican would give her the time of day. The topic is a very important topic (not just in US, but world over where the interests of few are given more weight than interests of the many). But this was very poor Something a grade 7 could do. No real insight, no real depth, no real solution.

501c3's don't endorse a candidate, they just spend a ton of money to get someone elected without the candidate having to claim money being spent on their behalf as actual money being spent on their behalf.. it's called conservatism....

itchy scratchy Endorsements are not monetary like donations. Stop twisting words and lying. Sanders had less endorsements from unions and organizations than Hillary. That's why Sanders chose to bombard voters with media ads instead of using volunteers like Hillary. Sanders lack of volunteers lost him votes. Voters prefer personal contact.

As I understand it, the biggest concern with massive donations from unlimited private/corporate money is not primarily about influencing the voting process (though it is possible that private money could and has bought voting results aka voter fraud), as it is about selecting who is nominated and influencing said recipients to represent the interests of those donating those large quantities of money...over the interests of the individuals of this country who do not make or have access to that kind of money. Multiple studies suggest that the middle to low earners in this country have very little effect on policy or election options. While big earners / the elite do. Sanders was the first elected nominee selected and funded entirely by the average citizen. He was not given equal media time to the other candidates. And he did not have a brand name or super delegates to anoint him. His only real avenue to reach the people equally was via commercial advertising.

Dude. It does not matter who supplied the money. It doesn't matter because it has been proven it doesn't influence the voter or the politician. Like tickle down economics it was used as a tactic to control the ignorant masses. SCOTUS was right. Money donated doesn't influence the voters, nor does carpet bombing them with political ads. Many voters are self informed and not easily influenced

When/where was this factually proven?