Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument [View all]
FOR YEARS, THE Supreme Courts 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 Courts 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 Courts 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 cant 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 cant 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.
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 cant 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 cant 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.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
35 replies, 6020 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (28)
ReplyReply to this post
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument [View all]
noretreatnosurrender
Apr 2016
OP
Hillary is on record against CU. And she has seen, and talked about the problems
Lucinda
Apr 2016
#1
She spoke at conferences and received a fee for it. These things happen every day.
Lucinda
Apr 2016
#12