Throughout this election, Hillary Clinton has framed herself as the middle class candidate of choice, citing her opposition to Wall Street interests.

This is laughably insincere. According to federal election data, she is lavishly well-funded by Wall Street interests and hedge-fund managers.

According to Open Secrets, a website run by the Center for Responsive Politics, and various reports, the following entities are among her top campaign contributors and foundation donors:

JP Morgan-Chase

Citigroup

Goldman Sachs

Blackstone Group

Paloma Partners

Lehman Brothers

Only I didn’t get these listings just from Open Secrets: I obtained them from the Panama Papers.

And the scale of their offshore operations is enormous.

How can Clinton criticize Trump on taxes while funding her campaign with wealth derived from off-shore interests?

How can she propose tax hikes, when her interests exemplify the gross inequality and tax-evasion which reduces tax revenue, requiring higher taxes on workers and the poor?

Lastly, how can the media fail to perform even basic due diligence when a candidate makes attacks directly at odds with her own actions?

By now, Clinton’s insincerity and conflicts of interest are an open secret, much of which one has to uncover independently, as I did.

What that says about investigative bias in 2016 journalism is another matter.

But what it says about Clinton’s fitness for representing the working class is clear, and cannot be simply deleted.