The 2016 primary season has been an interesting one thus far. From Bernie Sanders challenging what was thought to be a sure nomination for Hillary Clinton, to Trump joining the race and stealing the Republican show, 2016 has been anything but boring. Arizona messed up last week and this week the media has turned their eye towards Clinton.

Clinton has not run an amazing campaign this season by any means, from demanding a $225,000 fee to speak at an event, to sarcastically dismissing her e-mail fiasco. Throughout the season, we have seen glimpses of Clinton’s true nature time and time again and on April 7, she gave us another peek at the woman behind the mask.

Via Huffington Post

Yes, she held a fundraiser on the property of Colorado governor, John Hickenlooper, and the minimum price of attendance was $500. The top-level of donation available was $27,000 as a bundled donation. If you decided to donate a small sum of $1,000 you could receive a “preferred viewing.”

Why is any of this important? Simply because this event was not intended for the average viewer. A $500 price tag just to be allowed into the event seems a bit higher up than the average American would like to pay and with $27,000 being the top mark, it seems Clinton was going for big bucks. This will become relevant in a moment.

The problem with this fundraiser is not the price tags associated with it; in fact, it is pretty much accepted that most politicians will cater heavily towards those with the largest wallets. No, the problem here is the fundraiser itself. The fundraiser took place on the lawn of the property, under a party tent. This means that as Clinton was using a microphone, her speech could be heard from the surrounding areas. Here is a link to the video taken by a reporter outside of the venue, prior to the speech starting.

It is very easy to hear what is happening on the inside of the venue. Now, here is that same venue, during Clinton’s speech.

Notice anything different? According to Stan Bush, the reporter who filmed those videos, Clinton and her campaign had set up a speaker directed at the street Bush was standing on, and played loud white noise through said speaker, to make it impossible to hear anything she said. This is the problem.

Now, to be fair, preventing journalists from gaining access to private events is fairly commonplace in modern politics. Obama and Romney both did it in 2012. But, the difference is that deliberate action has been taken by the campaign to stop anyone from hearing what she has to say. The campaign knew the event would be outside and took deliberate measures to prevent what Clinton spoke about from being heard by those who were not in the event. In the very best scenario, she and her campaign are concerned with people getting free Hillary^TM content.

It seems to me that if you were truly campaigning on behalf of the people you are supposed to represent, you would not mind if they received some of your content, secondhand. In the best-case scenario, this choice comes off as greedy and selfish. In the worst case, she is saying things behind closed doors (or loudspeakers in this case) that she does not want others to hear.

That in itself is cause for concern. If you are truly open and honest with your supporters, you would not need to hide any information from them. The message you give to a private event should be identical in substance to what you say to your supporters. If those things do not match up, it looks suspicious. Why would Clinton be concerned with what the public heard? Maybe she knows that what she is saying at those events would lose her support because she is lying? It is hard to say, but given her speaking fee of $225,000 it seems like what is important to Clinton is money. She has made numerous private speeches to Goldman Sachs and other large companies in the last few years, and pulled in a ton of money doing it.

To me, there is cause for concern. I am concerned that she does not have the interests of the people in mind. She only holds the interest of her wallet. It is important to look at what a politician says, but also what they do. She claims to support the United States citizens and wants to help them, but events like last Thursday’s suggest she is interested only in making money. A politician who is bought out is a politician who will back their buyers at the end of the day.