New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D.), a Hillary Clinton supporter, didn't defend her highly paid speeches to Goldman Sachs after Thursday night's debate.
Pressed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews on the appearance of a quid pro quo due to her hefty speaking fees, Cuomo said, "I understand the implication," adding that the influence of money in politics is why he advocates for public campaign finance.
Matthews broached the topic after CNN debate moderator Dana Bash repeatedly pressed Clinton to release the transcripts of the speeches, for which she was paid more than $600,000.
"Everybody knows you take money from somebody, it's going to look like some kind of a deal under the table," Matthews said. "Hillary Clinton's taken over $600,000 from Goldman Sachs. Isn't that going to be a problem explaining that there's not a quid pro quo there, that she wasn't bought?"
"Chris, I hear you, and I understand the implication," Cuomo said. "But look, welcome to our campaign finance system, right? That's why I advocate public finance."
"No, personal money," Matthews said. "No, she took the money for personal use. These were speeches for her own personal income."
"I understand, but I think the basic point is if someone gives you a lot of money, can you be independent, right? That's basically Senator Sanders' point over and over again," Cuomo said. "The implication is you take money from someone, you're going to be influenced."
Cuomo said that if you're the kind of person who's going to be influenced by contributions, you don't belong in public office.
"There's going to be a lot of temptation, and if you can be corrupted, you will be corrupt, so you're the wrong person for the business," he said.
He never directly addressed the question of whether Clinton was being unduly influenced, instead pivoting to discussing her and Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I., Vt.) differing approaches to Wall Street regulation.