@Hitchslap
1)
Bernie Sanders is against money in politics, wether the money goes to the Democrats or the Republicans. He is also the only one not using Super Pacs, and refuse any donation above ~3000$ Its $2700 - that's the maximum a single individual can give to a candidate per election, much less than the ceiling of 4800 euros in France. Also I think you forgot to include Donald Trump in the list of people not using (or refusing) to use money from Super Pacs. Also 72% of Trump's unsolicited donations (about $2.8 million) came from donations of $200 or less. So its a bipartisan issue.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml - This link provides a chart of what people can donate and how much to different elections in the US. Its a nice visual explanation.
2)
Bernie Sanders voted for it, and Bernie Sanders has made it clear that he wants to break up the Banks. So him voting for a motion that purposedly made the banks bigger doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me either. The only thing that would explain it is 1) he did not understand the Dodd-Frank legislation and what it would end up causing or 2) he's a hypocrite. If 2 is correct than his criticism against big banks is entirely negated and he has no authority on the matter. If 1 is correct than I think that speaks to his ability (or lack of) to be president.
3)
I fail to see how banks create wealth. Speculation is a zero-sum game Banks provide a service to consumers. A service based business always creates wealth for the larger economy. When they provide a loan of $10,000 for Person A to build a business, that business will later create wealth for the economy by paying taxes, employing people, and producing a good or service. Without that initial loan of $10,000 that person may not have been able to create that business. Plus Banks employ actual physical people you must remember - bank clerks, IT specialists, financial advisers, guards and money transfer security personnel, construction crews to build banks, etc. Banks are huge sources of national wealth in any economy. As I mentioned before: "n 2014, finance and insurance represented 7.2 percent (or $1.26 trillion) of U.S. gross domestic product."
4)
I think that on any area affecting people's well being, the government should make regulation to protect the citizens against corporate greed. This is true for the Banks, Health Care, or policies to protect the environement (the water, the air)This is the heart of why we disagree. I think this political difference on the role of the government in regulating society is because of the fundamental difference between France (and much of Europe) and America. You have to understand two separate things: America has historically distrusted socialist political and economic policies because we have been a pure-capitalist society until the 1930s, and the US constitution naturally favors a smaller government (indeed our Founding Fathers believed a smaller government means a freer people). No where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given explicit power to regulate banks (and in the current day example, break them up by force). In fact I'll read you the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The federal government can only control things its explicitly given the power to do so, such as organizing a military or conducting foreign policy or levying taxes. This is the most confusing thing for European people (based on observation) to understand because they are used to a historically more powerful central government that essentially has broad powers to regulate and control. Don't misinterpret me. I don't believe in a
completely unregulated free market, but I do believe that regulation must be constitutional. The bailout the big banks and financial institutions got in 2008 was not constitutional and the federal reserve artificially controlling the money supply and interest rates is unconstitutional.
3)
What i've seen is that the majority of people are in favor of it. I'm sorry to say you're absolutely wrong (see polling:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182318/americans-slightly-positive-toward-affordable-care-act.aspx). 50% disapprove of Obamacare (and it used to be 56%), 23% of families say its hurt them, and 32% don't believe that Obamacare will actually help improve their healthcare situation. So yes Obamacare has helped some people get life insurance but at what cost to society? Premiums increased, drug prices increased, and other people are being unwillingly forced to pay for other people's services. The American public is not for Obamacare.
5)
And allowing anyone to give any amount to politician actually means that whoever got the money have controls who gets elected I think you're falling into the trap of oversimplification. Just because I donate a billion dollars doesn't mean I control the political process of what laws are made and who gets elected. You're ignoring the fact that so many variables and factors go into lawmaking and political elections, some of which I mentioned before: party ideology, election year pressure, constituent pressure to pursue certain laws, opposing lobbyists and super pacs who want you to create a law, gerrymandering. Also I don't see how you can attribute political donations to discrimination - that is an insulting stretch. At the end of the day my vote matters as much as Sheldon Adelson's and Tom Steyer's. They don't have more political power than me and to say so is incredulous. Grassroots movements are powerful. Look at how well Cruz and Trump are doing.
Also there are campaign finance limits to how much people can donate. You make it seem like every billionaire can spend unlimited amounts on a single candidate, which isn't true. Look at:
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml#Contribution_Limits. All that Citizen United did was: "make it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures related to campaigns, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns." The uproar about FEC vs. Citizen United is highly exaggerated because the ability to donate money to political campaigns is a protected constitutional right. Do you actually know what a Political Action Committee is (PAC)? A PAC is a type of organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaign for or against candidates, legislation, or ballot initiatives. Its a way for people to get involved in the political process. If you don't like the message one pac is supporting than you can donate to another. Its not like there's 5 or 6 or 7 PACS...there are 4,611 PACs as of 2009. That's a whole lot of diversity of viewpoints. You want to see real political corruption go spend a couple of months in India. To attribute the US political system with fraud and corruption and bribery which you are describing is exaggeration...complete hot air.