Clinton supporters use the Citizens United defense on behalf of their candidate.

[appal_jack]

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 09:19 PM - Edit history (2)

Democrats Embrace Citizens United in Defense of Clinton

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/democrats-embrace-citizens-united-in-defense-of-clinton

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.

(snip)

Consider a few undisputed facts that we surfaced in our reporting at the International Business Times:

* While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, Bill Clinton was paid $2.5 million by 13 corporations that lobbied the State Department. Ten of the firms paid him in the same three-month reporting period that they were lobbying Hillary Clinton's agency. Several of them received State Department contracts, worth a total of almost $40 million.

* Hillary Clinton switched her position to back a controversial U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement as millions of dollars flowed into her foundation from an oil company operating in Colombia, and from that company's founder. Amid reports of violence against Colombian unionists, she also certified Colombia's human rights record, thereby releasing U.S. aid to the Colombian military.

* Hillary Clinton's State Department delivered contracts and a prestigious human rights award to a technology firm that donated to the Clinton Foundation — despite allegations from human rights groups that the firm sold technology to the Chinese government that helped the regime commit human rights violations.

The same Democratic Party that slammed the Bush-Halliburton relationship now suggests that this type of behavior is fine and dandy, as long as there wasn't, say, an email detailing an explicit cash-for-policy trade. The insinuation also seems to be that journalists shouldn't even be reporting on any of it, if there is no such email.

I'd prefer a Democratic candidate who consistently pushes back against Citizens United. I will support Bernie Sanders over Clinton any day, for this and many, many other reasons.

-app

[99th_Monkey]

1. k&r nt

[NYC_SKP]

2. Since Bill Clinton's execution of Ricky Rector and Hillary's position on Walmart's board.

I've known this all along, that they're dishonest opportunists who fight dirty and use liberal and democratic themes to promote themselves into positions where they work against democratic and liberal values.

They are gifted at this, I can give them that much credit.

[L0oniX]

18. +1

[KMOD]

23. you forgot to put on your

Love you, though.

[mother earth]

3. They absolutely do. Excuses abound for the corporate candidate. It is absolutely mind boggling how

any democrat, in this day and age, will clearly abandon principles, the need for campaign finance reform & repealing Citizens United, in order to justify who they are voting for.

It is the beginning of the end, when knowledgeable people abandon principle & claim it somehow as a "democratic" win...WTF?

There was a time when democrats would NEVER excuse such BS, in fact, there was a time when we fought it at its very core.

The frontrunners will be framed by a corporate MSM & the adoring followers of both parties will cheerlead the stealth attack by oligarchy & be willing participants in our/their own demise. That's pretty damning to this country, to our democracy, and damning to all of us.

Why bother having elections? Let's hold an auction. Influence and gov't...SOLD to the highest bidder!

[L0oniX]

21. The candidate that takes advantage of Citizens United to win will select a SCJ that is against CU.

Unfortunately most of the bridges I could have sold have fallen down due to the money for repairs being spent on war.

[dballance]

4. The Citizens United ruling is abhorrent. But it would be foolish not to take advantage.

Yes, the Citizens United ruling is terrible. It would, however, be very foolish of Democrats to not take advantage of it when battling the GOP.

[appal_jack]

7. Maybe, maybe not. But her record as SoS deserves scrutiny.

Last edited Thu May 7, 2015, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Such scrutiny will certainly muddy the message against Citizens United.

It seems like many positions and past actions by Hillary muddy her present attempts at messaging.

I prefer candidates whose past records better match their present statements.

-app

[dballance]

31. I completely agree with you.

I wish candidates could just represent their ideas and how they would govern this country.

It is an unfortunate reality that money in politics make it impossible to be be anything other than a shill for that money.

It is my hope that some of those people will, after the money, actually try to govern.

[JaneyVee]

6. Which Democrats?

[appal_jack]

9. This was the original article's title, but I see your point.

I think I will edit this thread's title since this is GD and not LBN (and thus allowable here), in the name of clarity.



-app

[JaneyVee]

11. I was just wondering because article doesn't name names.

This article is just a hitpiece and a bad one at that. No Democrats are embracing CU, we're smirking at possibly beating the batshit insane Republican party at their own game while seeing the urgent need to scrap that monstrosity.

[msongs]

10. oddly enough in party of tens of millions he is unable to identify even ONE to support his

contention lol

[appal_jack]

13. Consistency is key in messaging.

Here is the important point from the article:

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.

I am not interested in expending time and energy on such defenses. I would rather begin with a candidate who shows more consistency on issues of campaign finance.

-app

[L0oniX]

8. In other words as long as they don't get caught making the deal ...there are no paybacks.

Got it. How much does the soul of the Democratic party sell for these days? The choice is getting clearer every day. You either vote for the money candidate or you vote for the common peoples candidate.

[Bonobo]

12. Quid Pro Quo's are essentially impossible to prove, but...

those are indeed damning facts linking the flow of money to campaigns and the Clinton Foundation to policy decisions.

[appal_jack]

14. Explanation of thread title changes.

So in my OP, I just copied David Sirota's title from the Truthout/Buzzflash editorial that is linked there.

But then JaneyVee correctly pointed out that David Sirota paints with a mighty broad brush without too many hard quotes from actual Democrats, so I changed the thread title once.

And then I read over the revision and wondered if someone might possibly take offense at the moniker "Clintonistas." And in editing again, I saw that the thread title field could accommodate the additional characters of "Clinton supporters."

But I still think that Sirota's point stands: it will go much more smoothly for Democrats if we field and support a candidate whose message is unequivocally for true campaign finance reform, AND whose past integrity around issues of donations and the appearance of influence peddling is unassailable. That candidate is someone other than Hillary Clinton.

-app

[Blue_Tires]

15. fwiw, the emoprogs and dudebros have always loved the CU ruling, too

They have regularly defended it here on DU...

[whatchamacallit]

16. Who, what?

Links?

[L0oniX]

17. They are selling their political souls for it now.

[wyldwolf]

20. had to check emoprog on urban dictionary. Fitting name.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Emo+Progressive

[BrotherIvan]

19. Raise your hand if you think this makes her extremely vulnerable in the general

I know we're all not supposed to talk about it, but all those Republican PACS are already editing the ads.

[NYC_SKP]

22. Toast. Burnt toast.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. ^THIS^

[appal_jack]

29. Fist-bump! nt

[KMOD]

24. So now that Citizen's United is legal,

how do you suppose we defeat it?

[appal_jack]

25. Electing Bernie Sanders would certainly be a good start. nt

[NuclearDem]

30. The Executive Branch is not involved in the Amendment process.

[appal_jack]

32. A good bully pulpit gets involved in everything.

Something I wish the Obama administration had 'discovered' before 2015, when it decided to go to bat for... the TPP.

Also, the President nominates Supreme Court Justices.

-app

[reddread]

26. Because money is the solution to money being the problem

in crazyland.

[hedda_foil]

28. I'm waiting for the donations to pour in

From the Clinton Family Foundation to her Super PAC(s). Which, of course, would be perfectly fine with some of her supporters.

[appal_jack]

33. What a tangled web we weave, eh? nt