David Sirota: In Defense of Hillary Clinton, Democrats Embrace Citizens United Decision

[marmar]

from truthdig:


In Defense of Hillary Clinton, Democrats Embrace Citizens United Decision

Posted on May 1, 2015
By David Sirota


Less than three weeks into her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has already accomplished a stunning feat: She appears to have unified large swaths of the Democratic Party and its activist base to support the core tenets of the Citizens United decision—the one that effectively allowed unlimited money into politics.

That 2010 Supreme Court ruling declared that, unless there is an explicit quid pro quo, the fact that major campaign donors “may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.” The theory is that as long as a donor and a politician do not agree to an overt bribe, everything is A-OK.

When the ruling was handed down, Democrats were outraged, and Hillary Clinton herself has recently suggested she wants it overturned. Yet with revelations that firms with business before Clinton’s State Department donated to her foundation and paid her husband, Clinton’s campaign and rank-and-file Democratic activists are suddenly championing the Citizens United theory.

In campaign statements and talking points—and in activists’ tweets and Facebook comments—the party seems to be collectively saying that without evidence of any explicit quid pro quo, all the Clinton cash is acceptable. Moreover, the inference seems to be that the revelations aren’t even newsworthy because, in the words of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, “there’s nothing new” here. ...................(more)

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/democrats_embrace_citizens_united_in_defense_of_clinton_20150501

[fredamae]

1. Sirota just made the case for Sanders 2016, imo n/t

[woo me with science]

3. [phone]

And I don't think it can be made more powerfully than that.

The monied corruption of our system must end. Enough is enough.

[peacebird]

7. Agree

[cali]

2. the big money borg. Hillary has long been part of it.

And this has nothing to do with illegalities. It has to do with the role big money plays in politics.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I'm ambivalent about Hillary, but conflating the Clinton Foundation with Hillary's checkbook is bull

Is Carly Fiorina scrutinized because of her leadership relationship with Good360?

Are HomeDepot's donations to that nonprofit reflective of an expectation of quid pro quo from candidate Fiorina?

The reason for all the scrutiny of the Clinton foundation is its name.

[GeorgeGist]

9. Agree.

[okaawhatever]

13. Absolutely. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Two points... Had to jump in somewhere...

It seems the Clinton Foundation can be managed better... But to call it a PAC is fucking moronic; it exists to help folks in distress, not to influence the political debate, one way or another.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. It aspires to be a foundation with global reach not unlike the Gates foundation.

Is it possible that donors often do so with the hope that they'll be thought of favorably? Probably, and I suspect the same could be said about many charities.

Is it possible that people align themselves in a high profile way with charities to polish their resumes? Also probably true.

I don't see the Clinton foundation as in any way unique in those regards.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I see quid...I don't see quo...

I am sure some folks are giving to Bill to influence Hill but I have not seen a shred of influence where that has occurred. And if Bill can take from the rich to give to the poor which is what his foundation does I don't have a problem with it...

It reminds me of someone who plies another person with gifts in the expectation of receiving sexual favors. It doesn't always work.

[Caretha]

72. Except for that 9 out of 10 thingy....as in "not always"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. If there were a quo...

If there were quo it should be presented to Attorney General Lynch for prosecution but since no quo exists it won't. The Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work for folks in distress...

[JaneyVee]

5. Why wouldn't we try to beat them at their own game?

[GeorgeGist]

10. Agree

[Marr]

18. Because they're corrupt.

I guess matching them is fine, if all you want to do is change the logo.

[JaneyVee]

20. We can end Citizens United by beating them at their own game.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. That makes as much sense as digging your way

out of a hole.

Yes, it takes money to run a campaign but there is a point of diminishing returns.

A big money candidate will never spend political capital to get money out of politics.

[JaneyVee]

23. You can dig your way out of a hole. Its called a tunnel.

[99Forever]

61. Kind of like having sex for chastity?

Or killing for peace?

[jwirr]

56. We may beat the Rs at their game but the big money guys are going to want something for their

money and then we lose. This is a three way game - Democratic voters vs. Rs and then both the parties vs big money. That is why we should not play the game.

[Populist_Prole]

60. Ding ding! Winner winner chicken dinner!

I hear you. I can't get over how so many choose to studiously ignore that getting another corporatist president is not worth falling on a grenade for the party, if the party is as bad economically as the GOP....which it will have to be in order to curry corporate funding.

[brooklynite]

6. So the correct decision is to unilaterally disarm?

Clinton has said (in response to my personal question) that she would appoint Justices to overturn CU and/or support a constitutional amendment. In the meantime, CU is the law of the land, and any candidate who doesn't play by the rules is a fool.

[okaawhatever]

14. Exactly. Nothing more than another Clinton hit piece. What an irresponsible article. nt

[djean111]

8. Well, duh! One of the big reasons given as to why Hillary should be The One - BIG MONEY!

This is why I think most Democrats are just giving lip service to getting rid of Citizens United - they love that money, too.
Most of the emails I get from Dems (I unsubscribe from most) are, as I predicted, asking me to help match the Kochs. You think most Dems want to say good-bye to all of that lovely moolah? Bwahahaha!

[woo me with science]

11. +1 The problem presented as the excuse.

Rhetoric of corruption.

[okaawhatever]

16. Well, I hope you make it an absolute condition of Sander's campaign that he not take money

from corporations or high dollar donors. Put your money where your mouth is. Bernie has done that, right?

[woo me with science]

17. LOL!

Yes, Hillary and Bernie are *exactly* the same! And Hillary is going to "topple" the One Percent!

You guys are adorable. Really.

[font size=3]

Hillary Clinton’s Top Corporate Donors Are Among The Most Hated Companies in America
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026225013

[/font size]

[okaawhatever]

19. Wow so the majority of Bernie's money comes from PACs and the majority of Clinton's money

comes from individuals. 'nuff said.

BTW do you really think the people on Bernie's list will remain the same once he runs for national office?

[KittyWampus]

31. And who took more money from PAC's? LOL

[pa28]

34. I guess you really CAN tell about people by the company they keep. n/t

[djean111]

55. I am just saying that Hillary's big wad of money was given as an actual reason that she

was a better candidate. No need for purity test straw man.

[Florencenj2point0]

52. really?

You think they enjoy raising all that money? Try it some time. It is not fun.

[sulphurdunn]

12. Hillary is just playing by the rules.

Democrats would be fools not to take big money. They are unelectable if they don't. Oligarchy and the impossibility of republican governance is fine so long as our team wins, I suppose.

[okaawhatever]

15. No. You don't commit campaign suicide. You win and as soon as possible overturn those laws. CU will

likely take a constitutional amendment, which Hillary supports. You play the hand you're dealt, but go ahead encourage your progressive candidates to take the high road, take a moral stand and not accept contributions that way and see how far you get.

[sulphurdunn]

30. A progressive candidate

who takes the moral high road? That's a novel idea. Who would you suggest?

[woo me with science]

22. The problem is now presented as the excuse!

Yep, that's our Third Way!

And, as we learned above, Hillary's massive contributions from Wall Street *actually* reflect a bond with struggling members of the 99 percent, most of whom just coincidentally happen to work at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs! It's those creepy connections with UNIONS that Bernie has, that we should be worried about...

War is Peace, Hillary has always been at war with Eastasia....er.... the TPP she helped author, and there is nothing in the candidates' extensive records to suggest that they aren't EXACTLY THE SAME when it comes to passion for "toppling" Wall Street!

I swear, Orwell couldn't do a better job with chutzpah.

This is how stupid we are assumed to be by the talking point dispensers. It's delicious to watch, this meltdown of the Third Way, now that we finally have an honest candidate in the race.

When the DLC connections to the Koch Bros. became well known, they just rebranded the infiltration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4165556

When you hear "Third Way", think INVESTMENT BANKERS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024127432

GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680116

The Rightwing Koch Brothers fund the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

Same companies behind the GOP are behind the DLC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1481121

[brooklynite]

25. So, to be clear...even though the Republicans will raise $1 B + through Super PACS...

...we should stand on your principle and not raise the money needed to compete with them.

[sulphurdunn]

33. Yea, that's about right.

When you realize you're playing at a crooked table, sometimes the only power you have is not to play.

[brooklynite]

39. "Not to play" = give up

[sulphurdunn]

46. Sometimes it means "not a sucker"

[brooklynite]

48. explain then how you compete with the Republicans who WILL take every last SuperPAC dollar

[sulphurdunn]

53. You don't. That's the idea.

And you make sure the American people know you don't.

[brooklynite]

54. ...and you believe you can win a national election on that basis?

BTW - how do you "let people know"?

The advertising you can't afford?

The news media that you don't trust?

The MSNBC shows that 90% of voters never watch?

[sulphurdunn]

58. I think you miss my point.

The fact a candidate is not viable without the money to do the things you mention means that you and I lose regardless of who wins. That will not change until pay to play politics is either banned or severely reigned in. Pigs will fly before either party willing does that.

[brooklynite]

62. And in the meantime, I still think a Democrat is better...maybe you don't?

[sulphurdunn]

63. There is no meantime.

That's the problem. I suppose you can make the case that a Wall Street democrat is better than a Wall Street republican, but the inevitable drift of the democrats will still be rightward, and since the republicans will always be right of the democrats, the claim can always be made that a democrat will always be better, but that is not comforting.

[Populist_Prole]

26. Good observation

I thought much the same.

It's either chutzpah by the truckload, or the article was from 'The Onion'.

The DLC / beltway truly is the sterile bubble.

[L0oniX]

75. ^^^THIS^^^

Love it.

[geek tragedy]

24. Unilateral disarmament does not lead to peace.

It leads to defeat and slavery.

[sulphurdunn]

37. Bad analogy.

Refusal to aid and abet political corruption by resisting it is not unilateral disarmament. It is the the essential precursor of rebellion.

[geek tragedy]

65. Losing is not much of a strategy. nt

[sulphurdunn]

66. Fighting for Tweedledum

rather than Tweedledee is a recipe for victory? All the moderates have been driven out of the Republican Party and the progressives are being sidelined in the Democratic Party. That leaves a rightist party competing for the same pot of of oligarch's gold as a fascist party. A vote for the rightists may slow the day of reckoning for our form of government, but it will not reverse course.

[geek tragedy]

69. The Democrats are not a rightist party.

It's not perfect, but it is not a rightwing party. It's silly to suggest that.

[lewebley3]

27. He made case for Hillary: If Hillary want to really win, She and Dem's have to win!

She is right on issues, that won't get Bernie or Her elected.

Hillary is prepared to do whatever takes to get elected, all

the great speeches Bernie makes won't get him elected.

It takes lots and lots money: it is mothers milk to politicians,
that is how Obama got elected.

FDR said: to win the Presidency one had to be good poker player,
Hillary has play the game and won, and then has dealt great
cards to the American people. (Like FDR) The GOP don't
want the American people at the table with cards.

Another way of saying it: No one wins the Presidency beinga girl or
boy scout. The candidates to have run for office in the real world, which
is more difficult than being right on the issues.

[Populist_Prole]

28. Winning the battle but losing the war

Good for 'Democratic Party Inc" boffins; but bad for the 99 percent.

[lewebley3]

32. Hillary was good for the 99% most successful Administration in History!

Bush and GOP policy's brought out the 99%


The GOP call Hillary the most liberal Senator in Congress!



i

[sulphurdunn]

38. To the GOP

anybody who doesn't want to bomb Iran is a liberal. I don't think Hillary as a problem with bombing anyone.

[lewebley3]

44. If that is what you think Hillary: You have been lazy about learning about her!

There was only one large military conflict with Clinton's, it
was in Kosvo. Not a single American solders died, conflict
ended with the people naming streets after Bill, and to this day
Clinton's are hero's in that part of world.

Clinton's kept American out war for the most part, they raised
taxes on rich, built up middle class strength SS.

Hillary is responsible: but not a war hawk

It was Bush's decision to crash the economy and take American into war and
large debt.

[sulphurdunn]

47. She cynically voted to give that imbecile

George Bush a green light to invade Iraq. She did that when anybody who took the time to learn anything about what was happening knew it was a fraud. I will vote for no politician who supported that war.

[lewebley3]

77. Again, the War was Bush's Decision alone: He said so!!

Hillary didn't make the decision to go to war:
She made the best decision based on facts she new at
the time! Cynically is your word!
She was one of the last people to vote, because she
was reviewing all the intelligent reports that pointed
WMD's. There is no way she would have voted with Bush,
if she new what was happening was fraud. Hillary supported
her country in what she thought was the right thing!

Her government lied to her and all of us about Cheney' war for
greed. Obama, if he was in the Senate and had vote he would vote yes too!

GO, Hillary!!!!

[nationalize the fed]

49. Kosovo was a PNAC war

http://web.archive.org/web/20020205133621/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

And Clinton's "Defense" secretary Cohen - a Republican- lied to the American People.

John Pilger: Don't forget Yugoslavia

The secrets of the crushing of Yugoslavia are emerging, telling us more about how the modern world is policed. The former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague, Carla Del Ponte, this year published her memoir The Hunt: Me and War Criminals. Largely ignored in Britain, the book reveals unpalatable truths about the west's intervention in Kosovo, which has echoes in the Caucasus...
http://johnpilger.com/articles/don-t-forget-yugoslavia

[lewebley3]

45. Dem's can only be good for 99% : if GOP win 99% will be fighting a war in Iran!

Dem's only lose if the GOP takes the white house, you
cannot get a set at the table of choices in this country,
without winning an election.

And even then: thats just a start, you have to find the votes
to get anything done.

The people sour politics when they don't get their way!

But, if Dem beat the GOP suddenly the politics will seem great!!

[Populist_Prole]

59. You don't get it, and never will

"Not as bad as the republicans" is dead in the water as a meme. Flushed out. Non-starter. Been there done that. No non-economic good is worth it if another corporatist is in the white house.

Sanders is the real deal. HRC could be if she had the balls right now to raise holy hell against the corporate oligarchy and fight for working class issues. As of yet, the latter seems to be doing the triangulation thing and hoping that social issues that carry the day, and maybe some lip service to the working class.

[KittyWampus]

29. Sirota is such a liar: "the party SEEMS to be collectively saying"

in his own mind.

Zero evidence of this actually being the case.

[Maedhros]

35. Democrats have embraced a number of right wing concepts,

such as elective war, blanket surveillance, prosecution of whistleblowers, and execution of enemies of the state without due process. As long as a Democrat in the White House is doing these things, it's not a problem. These things are only presented as "problems" when they can be used as a bludgeon against Republicans.

[nationalize the fed]

50. You left out the Heritage Foundation Health Insurance Mandate

The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at The Heritage Foundation in a publication titled "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans". This was also the model for Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation#Policy_influence

Keith Olbermann talked about it -even called for a boycott- then got fired

Obama has made a bunch of republican policies acceptable to Democrats. It's beyond disgusting.

[pa28]

36. David Sirota has been on a roll lately.

He's just been nailing Christie and Rahm and their pay-to play pension schemes. Now he's taking a well deserved look at Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. If he's as successful at taking down Hillary as he was in taking down Rahm HRC will certainly be #45

!

[cantbeserious]

51. I'm Ready For Oligarchy - Are You? - Vote HRC - What Better Way To Enrich The 1% Even More

[Florencenj2point0]

57. this article is insane

It makes no sense. It contains no facts. It is left wing lies and conspiracy theory, conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other.

[uppityperson]

64. What lies are there?

[MisterP]

68. no! not the LEFT WING! and your sigline says Clinton's progressive--care to explain the difference?

[MisterP]

67. the reasoning is that if we don't support TPP we can't make it "more liberal" and if we're

too vocal the "bad TPP" will get in

that of course is a deliberate distortion of the political process, and ignores both history and current facts (like that the TPP would pass entirely with Obama and GOP Congresscritters)

[ibegurpard]

70. And which Democrats are those?

Not hearing that bullshit from rank-and-file Democrats where I am.

[Caretha]

71. Who writes this shit!?

[madokie]

73. Sirota is as full of shit as a christmas turkey

[L0oniX]

74. Yer bad! Yer very very bad!

Thanks.