HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » To Protect Hillary Clinto...

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:06 PM

To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument

FOR YEARS, THE Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United was depicted by Democrats as the root of all political evil. But now, the core argument embraced by the Court’s conservatives to justify their ruling has taken center stage in the Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — because Clinton supporters, to defend the huge amount of corporate cash on which their candidate is relying, frequently invoke that very same reasoning.

Indeed, the Clinton argument actually goes well beyond the Court’s conservatives: In Citizens United, the right-wing justices merely denied the corrupting effect of independent expenditures (i.e., ones not coordinated with the campaign). But Clinton supporters in 2016 are denying the corrupting effect of direct campaign donations by large banks and corporations and, even worse, huge speaking fees paid to an individual politician shortly before and after that person holds massive political power.

Another critical aspect of the right-wing majority argument in Citizens United was that actual corruption requires proof of a “quid pro quo” arrangement: meaning that the politician is paid to vote a certain way (which is, basically, bribery). Prior precedent, said the Citizens United majority, “was limited to quid pro quo corruption,” quoting a prior case as holding that “the hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.”

Does that sound familiar? It should. That, too, has become a core Clinton-supporting argument: Look, if you can’t prove that Hillary changed her vote in exchange for Goldman Sachs speaking fees or JPMorgan Chase donations (and just by the way, Elizabeth Warren believes she can prove that), then you can’t prove that these donations are corrupting. After all, argue Clinton supporters (echoing the Citizens United majority), “the hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.”


https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/

Bernie takes the Democratic position on this issue and the Hillary campaign and her supporters are with Scalia & McConnell. And they have the nerve to tell us that Sanders isn't the Democrat. Yeah, right.

35 replies, 2123 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument (Original post)
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 OP
Lucinda Apr 2016 #1
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #3
tk2kewl Apr 2016 #5
Lucinda Apr 2016 #8
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #10
Lucinda Apr 2016 #12
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #13
Lucinda Apr 2016 #14
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #16
EndElectoral Apr 2016 #23
daleanime Apr 2016 #31
Armstead Apr 2016 #30
MisterP Apr 2016 #2
Gothmog Apr 2016 #4
revbones Apr 2016 #26
daleanime Apr 2016 #33
Gothmog Apr 2016 #6
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #7
Lucinda Apr 2016 #9
revbones Apr 2016 #28
Armstead Apr 2016 #32
creon Apr 2016 #11
QC Apr 2016 #15
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #17
QC Apr 2016 #21
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #22
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #18
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #19
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #20
azmom Apr 2016 #24
noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #25
elleng Apr 2016 #27
Politicalboi Apr 2016 #29
haikugal Apr 2016 #35
Skink Apr 2016 #34

Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:10 PM

1. Hillary is on record against CU. And she has seen, and talked about the problems

it causes congress members as they are forced to spend time fundraising to protect their seats. I seriously doubt she would leave it standing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:11 PM

3. One Question

Did you read the piece?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:16 PM

5. She's just gonna do it this one last time...

 

Then she will fix everything

The article is excellent btw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:21 PM

8. Yes. And it's nonsense.

Hillary is clear on where she stands on CU. It's public record.

In this climate, until CU is overturned, I have ZERO problems with her using any legal resources to raise funds to combat the GOP in the General Election. The Koch brothers alone have pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat the Dem candidate.

Bernie's campaign hasn't proved anything about what is needed to compete in a General Election. He hasn't faced unlimited funding pushing attack ads, that WILL be aired against our nominee. Unless he seriously amped up his findraising, he would tank quickly. Fortunately, it doen't looks like we are going to have to worry about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:34 PM

10. Corruption?

So you don't think when Hillary is receiving large sums of money from Wall Street banks and other large corporations that corruption might be involved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:41 PM

12. She spoke at conferences and received a fee for it. These things happen every day.

The only thing unusual about the speeches, is that very few women have the stature to make as much as Hillary did per speech, but her fees are quite similar to what men make on the speakers circuit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-12/the-very-valuable-words-of-hillary-clinton

That link has many of the organizations that she spoke to, and a few videos of the speeches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:48 PM

13. I'll try again

So you don't think when Hillary is receiving large sums of money from Wall Street banks and other large corporations that corruption might be involved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:50 PM

14. Nope. And if there was evidence of any, the world would have heard about it.

But I'm pretty sure you know that already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:06 PM

16. Thank you for proving

Mr. Greenwald's points in his piece above.

Your comment where you say there is no "evidence" or we would have heard about it is about quid pro quo (see my original post). This is what Scalia and McConnell argue to maintain the Citizens United decision. If you can't prove quid pro quo then it's not corrupt. You've shown all of us you are on the Scalia/McConnell side of the argument for campaign finance reform. The dissenting opinion says you don't need quid pro quo for it to have a corrupting influence (the Democrats view prior to Hillary's campaign).

Incredibly, Clinton supporters, to defend their candidate, have resorted to denying what was once a core orthodoxy of Democratic politics: that big corporate donations (let alone being personally enriched by huge Wall Street speaking fees in between stints in public office) are corrupting. In doing so, these Democrats — just as they did when they instantly transformed from opponents to supporters of Guantánamo, drones, and spying once Obama stopped denouncing those things and started doing them — have spent the 2016 campaign vehemently renouncing the crux of the argument in favor of campaign finance reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:49 PM

23. Your explanation nails it exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:13 PM

31. ........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:12 PM

30. If Big Special Interest Money doesn't corrupt the process, why oppose it?

 

Who are Congresspeople spending their time fundraising from?

Hint: it isn't John and Jane Q. Public

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:11 PM

2. because that lets them yell about how the Sanderinistas will keep us from overthrowing CU

because SCOTUS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:15 PM

4. The only way to destroy Citizens United is for a Democrat to be POTUS

President Obama was against Citizens United but had to use a super pac in 2012 to keep the contest close. Hillary Clinton is against Citizens United and has committed to only appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote to overturn this decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.

"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.

If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.

This is the only practical way to undo the damage done by Citizen United in that it will be impossible to get a constitutional amendment through congress and the states to undo this decision. That means that if you want to get rid of Citizens United, then one must support a candidate who can win in 2016 and support the most viable general election candidate.

Sanders is a very weak general election candidate who would be killed in a general election with negative ads. The only safe way to get rid of Citizens United is to elect a Democrat to be POTUS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:09 PM

26. So you want the candidate that would renominate Merick Garland???

 

I suggest you read about him supercharging Citizen's United with his SpeechNow decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:15 PM

33. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:17 PM

6. Clinton has a litmus test for SCOTUS appointees

Your claims are false. Here are some direct quotes from Hillary Clintonhttp://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court

Speaking at a Democratic presidential forum on Wednesday night, a person in the crowd asked Clinton whether she would impose a “litmus test” upon potential Supreme Court justices other than on the issue of being pro-abortion.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests, because the next president could get as many as three appointments,” the former first lady responded. “It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”

Clinton said her potential appointments would have to support the Voting Rights Act, parts of which were invalidated by the current group of justices.

She also said potential nominees would have to believe that money does not equal speech, which led to the landmark Citizens United decision that paved the way for super-PACs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:20 PM

7. Why is Hillary Taking All the Money

from Wall Street and other special corporate interests?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:24 PM

9. She isn't.

As a private citizen she gave speeches. Which are perfectly legal.

And anyone quibbling about her making money after she worked for the country for free for almost 20 years as Bills FL in AR and in the White House as FLOTUS, is kind of sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:10 PM

28. Nobody said it was illegal. We just said it was corrupt. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucinda (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:15 PM

32. I'd like to struggle along on the money a POTUS makes for a little while

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:39 PM

11. The cover up succeeded.

It is all deniable.
It was all done with winks and nods.
No letters; no emails; no phone records.
It was all done at dinner at le Bernardin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 08:50 PM

15. We're also turning against progressive taxation now,

what with all these threads about what an OUTRAGE!!! it is that she pays a higher tax rate than he does.

Well, she made ten or fifteen times as much money as he did.

That's progressive taxation. Democrats used to support that.

Is there any cherished principle their fan club is not willing to sacrifice to gratify the Clintons' narcissism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:11 PM

17. Funny Isn't It

that the ones who scream the loudest that Sanders isn't a Democrat are the very ones who embrace Republican positions over Democratic positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:31 PM

21. Funny weird not funny haha.

But yes, it's very interesting that being a good Democrat means being a Republican now.

No thanks.

I'm not willing to throw away everything important just to help Hillary complete her résumé.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:39 PM

22. Yes, Funny Weird

I too am not willing to discard my principles to vote for someone who doesn't represent my values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:17 PM

18. Lol, Greenwald agreed with Citizens United. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:25 PM

19. You Didn't Know That Already?

Wow, I thought everyone knew that. It's old news to anyone who followed the case. I guess you didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:30 PM

20. Of course I knew nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 09:49 PM

24. The worst consequence of Hillary beating Sanders

is that it will send a message that Sanders small contribution manner of funding campaigns is ineffective. If that is the case, say good bye to any type of reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azmom (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:04 PM

25. Check out this thread

that talks about Debbie Wasserman Shultz who is also out there undercutting the dissenting opinion in Citizens United.

She actually wants people to believe that only Republicans can be corrupted by Corporate cash.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1416499

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:09 PM

27. Right, 'if you can’t prove that Hillary changed her vote in exchange

for Goldman Sachs speaking fees or JPMorgan Chase donations (and just by the way, Elizabeth Warren believes she can prove that), then you can’t prove that these donations are corrupting,' simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:11 PM

29. Bernie and us

 

They have NO idea what being a Democrat is. Let them follow this loser and her loser husband. Maybe someday justice will catch up with the Clinton's. I hope it's soon. I can't handle all this stupidity much longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:25 PM

35. The Clintons are the past...Bernie is the future. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noretreatnosurrender (Original post)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 10:22 PM

34. In this race there is a clown car one Republican and a progressive Democrat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread