When candidates say they will work for the common person, voters are often skeptical. This is especially true when the politicians have close connections with Wall Street. This is the current problem for Hillary Clinton. In one of the Democratic Presidential debates, she tried to explain to the moderator and audience why she was paid $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. It did not go well. Most Americans believe that when a company pays you that amount of money to give a few speeches, they expect more than just an informative and entertaining speech. They believe this amount of money buys influence and is good for business. Democrats usually haven’t had to rationalize their Wall Street connections, but Bernie Sanders has changed all of that by challenging Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Wall Street. In the past, most Americans believed that it was the Republican Party that had all the ties to Wall Street. Actually anyone who bothers to look at campaign disclosure sheets will discover that Democrats are even greater beneficiaries of Wall Street money. Until now, many Democratic candidates have been able to fool Americans because of a deceptive arrangement between the party and financial institutions like Goldman Sachs. Democrats pretend to be fighting for the little person when they attack big banks. But their political policies (like Dodd-Frank) actually protect these big banks from competition. Bernie Sanders has changed the rules. He is not only attacking the big banks but also attacking another Democratic candidate who benefits from a close relationship with Wall Street and the big banks. In the future, Ted Cruz will probably have to explain his and his wife’s connection to Goldman Sachs. But for now, the challenge is for Hillary Clinton to satisfactorily convince voters that she is for the little people even though she is receiving big money from big banks on Wall Street.